Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 June 2012 —GREP v Freistaat Bayern
(Case C-156/12)
First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 47 and 51(1) — Implementation of European Union law — Action against a decision holding that a ruling delivered in another Member State ordering enforcement procedures was enforceable — Effective judicial protection — Right of access to courts — Legal aid — National legislation refusing legal aid to legal persons
1.                     Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation
No 44/2001 — Recognition and enforcement of judgments — Objective of the relevant articles of the regulation (Council Regulation
No 44/2001) (see para. 32)
2.                     Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation
No 44/2001 — Recognition and enforcement of judgments — Action against a declaration of the enforceability of a seizure and
attachment order — Action constituting an implementation of European Union law within the meaning of Article 51 of the Charter
of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Possibility of relying on the principle of effective judicial protection laid
down in Article 47 of that Charter (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 47 and 51; Council Regulation
No 44/2001, Art. 43) (see paras 31, 33-35, 37, 43, operative part)
3.                     European Union law — Principles — Right to effective judicial protection — Affirmed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of
the European Union — National rules making court proceedings subject to the payment of an advance on the costs of proceedings
and/or the assistance of a lawyer — Legal person unable to pay that advance excluded from entitlement to legal aid — Whether
permissible — Conditions — Assessment by the national court (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47)
(see paras 38-42, 44-47, operative part)
Re:
Request for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht Salzburg — Interpretation of the first sentence of Article 51(1) and of Article 47
of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union or, in the alternative, of Article 43(1) of Council Regulation
(EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial
matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) and of Article 6(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms —
Scope of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Procedure for enforcement of a ruling made in another Member State — Right to
legal aid — Whether national legislation refusing that right to legal persons is lawful.
Operative part
The action, brought under Article 43 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition
and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, in order to contest a decision holding that a seizure order
was enforceable under Articles 38 to 42 of that regulation and making attachment orders constitutes implementation of European
Union law for the purposes of Article 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
The principle of effective judicial protection, as enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European
Union, may include the right to be exempted from payment of procedural costs and/or fees due for obtaining the assistance
of a lawyer in respect of such an action.
However, it is for the national court to ascertain whether the conditions for grant of such aid constitute a restriction of
the right of access to courts and tribunals which infringes the very essence of that right, whether they pursue a legitimate
aim and whether there is a reasonable degree of proportionality between the means used and the aim pursued.
In carrying out that assessment, the national court may take into consideration the subject-matter of the dispute, any reasonable
chances of the applicant’s success, the gravity of what is at stake for him, the complexity of the law and procedure applicable
and the ability of the applicant effectively to defend his cause. In order to assess the proportionality, the national court
may also take into account the extent of the procedural costs to be advanced and whether or not they constitute an insurmountable
obstacle to access to justice.
Having regard more specifically to legal persons, the national court may take account of their situation. Thus, it may take
into consideration, in particular, the legal form of the legal person in question and whether it is for profit or not and
the financial capabilities of its members or shareholders and whether it is possible for them to obtain the sums necessary
to bring the court proceedings.