Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2017:594
Date: 2017-07-26
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 26 July 2017 1. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Effective access to justice — Legal aid granted in the context of cross-border disputes — Directive 2003/8 — Extent of the legal aid — Costs incurred for the translation of supporting documents necessary for the processing of a legal aid application submitted to the receiving authority — Included (Council Directive 2003/8, Arts 3, 8 and 12) 2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Effective access to justice — Legal aid granted in the context of cross-border disputes — Directive 2003/8 — Extent of the legal aid — Costs covered by the Member State of the domicile or habitual residence of the applicant — Cost of translating the application and necessary supporting documents — Exception to the general rule requiring that the Member State in which the court dealing with the case is sitting should cover the costs (Council Directive 2003/8, Art. 8(b)) 1. Articles 3, 8 and 12 of Council Directive 2003/8/EC of 27 January 2003 to improve access to justice in cross-border disputes by establishing minimum common rules relating to legal aid for such disputes, read together, must be interpreted as meaning that legal aid granted by the Member State of the court hearing the particular case, in which a natural person domiciled or resident in another Member State has submitted a legal aid application in the context of a cross-border dispute, also covers the costs paid by that person for the translation of the supporting documents necessary for the processing of that application. With regard to the procedure for the introduction of legal aid applications in order to ensure effective access to justice, Article 13(1) of Directive 2003/8 provides that a legal aid applicant has two options in so far as he may submit the legal aid application either to the competent authority of the Member State in which he is domiciled or habitually resident, which is designated, under Article 13(1)(a) of that directive, as the transmitting authority, or to the competent authority of the Member State in which the court dealing with the case is sitting or where the decision is to be enforced, which is designated, under Article 13(1)(b) of that directive, as the receiving authority. However, if the costs connected with the translation of the supporting documents necessary for the processing of a legal aid application were covered only when the legal aid applicant addresses them to the competent authorities in the Member State in which he is domiciled or habitually resident, that would incorrectly make securing legal aid in respect of those costs dependent on the procedural option chosen by the applicant and would render meaningless Article 13(1)(b) of Directive 2003/8, which offers the possibility of presenting the legal aid application directly to the receiving authority. (see paras 29, 43, 47, operative part) 2. See the text of the decision. (see paras 38-40)