PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 32971/03) against the Republic of Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Mr Mirosław Palewski (“the applicant”).

The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The applicant alleged that he had been deprived of his right of access to a court.

On 5 September 2006 the President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it was decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant, Mr Mirosław Palewski, was born in 1957 and lives in Koszalin, Poland.

On 1 August 2000 and 13 February 2002 there was a fire at Morska Street in Koszalin, where the applicant’s business was located.

On 15 November 2002 he sued the insurance company Warta S.A. before the Koszalin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) for compensation of 545,918.65 zlotys (PLN) (approx. 136,500 euros (EUR)). At the same time, he also asked to be exempted from court fees.

On 9 December 2002 the court ordered the applicant to pay PLN 28,896 (approx. EUR 7,228) in court fees.

On 22 January 2003 the Koszalin Regional Court refused to exempt the applicant from court fees. The court’s reasons for this decision read, in so far as relevant, as follows: “... Despite the court’s request, the applicant has failed to provide information concerning his business activities. The documents submitted concern the SEDNO Manufacturing and Servicing Company (Zakład produkcyjno-uslugowy) located at Morska Street in Koszalin. However, from the insurance policies submitted, it appears that the applicant insured two companies, both located at Morska Street in Koszalin: SEDNO Manufacturing and Servicing Company and the Private Car Transport Company (Przedsiębiorswto Prywatnej Komunikacji Samochodowej). ... It is therefore not clear what type of business activities the applicant is involved in at Morska Street in Koszalin (...). The documents submitted by the applicant show that he has already received PLN 360,572.68 [approx. EUR 90,142] as partial compensation from Warta S.A. According to the applicant, this amount did not compensate him for the damage actually incurred. However, there are no reasons to believe that the applicant’s business collapsed because he received only partial compensation. It further appears from the submitted tax return forms concerning SEDNO’s business for January to October 2002 that the applicant made an eight-digit gross profit and a seven-digit net profit in that period. This leads the court to the conclusion that the applicant can afford to pay the court fees because he has sufficient funds. However, lack of information concerning all his assets prevents the court from making an objective assessment of his financial situation.”

On 3 February 2003 the applicant filed an interlocutory appeal (zażalenie) against this decision. He claimed that his net profit for the period of ten months in 2002 had been PLN 15,288 (approx. EUR 3,820), which, contrary to the court’s findings, was a five-digit sum and that he also had a mortgage to pay. He also stressed that he owned only one company, SEDNO Manufacturing and Servicing Company (Zaklad produkcyjno‑uslugowy). The insurance policy issued for Private Car Transport Company concerned the same business as this was its old name. Finally, he submitted that he was in debt, and that enforcement proceedings against the company were pending.

On 29 April 2003 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed his appeal. The court referred to the fact that the applicant had already received PLN 360,572.68 from the insurer as partial compensation. The court further considered that this in itself justified the refusal to exempt him from court fees as he could have put money aside for that purpose.

It appears that subsequently the applicant’s statement of claim was returned to him.

On 14 October 2003 the applicant again sued the insurance company Warta S.A. before the Koszalin Regional Court for compensation of PLN 545,918.65 and asked to be exempted from court fees.

The applicant submitted that the business’s assets had been attached in enforcement proceedings against him, that his bank accounts had been frozen and that he had substantial debts. His wife did not work and their children were students.

On 19 November 2003 the Koszalin Regional Court dismissed his application for an exemption from court fees. This decision contained exactly the same wording as the decision of 22 January 2003.

On 26 November 2003 the applicant filed an interlocutory appeal against the above decision. He claimed that the court had misread the documents that he had submitted when his application for an exemption from court fees had been examined for the first time in 2002. He again clarified his financial situation.

On 3 December 2003 the Koszalin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) declared the applicant’s company insolvent.

On 15 January 2004 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s interlocutory appeal of 26 November 2003 on the basis that the presiding judge had not signed the decision of 19 November 2003. Accordingly, this decision had not been duly delivered and the applicant’s appeal against a non-existent decision had to be rejected.

On 20 February 2004 the Koszalin Regional Court gave a further decision dismissing his application for an exemption from court fees. This decision again read exactly as the decision of 22 January 2003.

On 12 March 2004 the applicant filed an interlocutory appeal. He stressed that he owned only one company, SEDNO Manufacturing and Servicing Company, which had been declared insolvent. Finally, he submitted that he was in debt and had no money to support his family.

On 14 May 2004 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal gave a decision exempting the applicant from any fees exceeding PLN 10,000 (approx. EUR 2,500). The court considered that the court fee of PLN 28,896 had to be reduced. It noted that: “... It is impossible to find fault with the applicant that he spent in 2000 the amounts received from the defendant as well as the amount of PLN 44,104.68 spent in 2002 for dealing with the effects of the damage and pursuing his professional activities, instead of securing in advance sufficient funds for the payment of court fees. Taking into account the lapse of time and the fact that the applicant has been declared insolvent, the previous decisions concerning the exemption from court fees, based on the different facts, are irrelevant for the present finding.” The court further found that, while it was true that the applicant was in debt and that his tax return for the period from January to October 2003 had shown a loss in the amount of PLN 68,538.74 (approx. EUR 7,134) and that his business was insolvent, his temporary financial problems did not, however, justify a full exemption from court fees.

On 16 June 2004 the Koszalin Regional Court ordered the applicant to pay a court fee of PLN 10,000 for lodging his statement of claim on pain of having it returned.

On 27 August 2004 the Koszalin Regional Court returned the statement of claim to the applicant since he had failed to pay the required court fee.