CELEX: E2010J0005
Language: en
Date: 2010-12-17 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of 17 December 2010 in Case E-5/10 — Dr Joachim Kottke v Präsidial Anstalt and Sweetyle Stiftung (Security for costs before national courts — Discrimination — Article 4 EEA — Justification)

|

Judgment of the Court of 17 December 2010 in Case E-5/10 — Dr Joachim Kottke v Präsidial Anstalt and Sweetyle Stiftung (Security for costs before national courts — Discrimination — Article 4 EEA — Justification)  

Official Journal C 148 , 19/05/2011 P. 0006 - 0006

		Judgment of the Courtof 17 December 2010in Case E-5/10Dr Joachim Kottke v Präsidial Anstalt and Sweetyle Stiftung(Security for costs before national courts — Discrimination — Article 4 EEA — Justification)2011/C 148/06In Case E-5/10 between Dr Joachim Kottke and Präsidial Anstalt and Sweetyle Stiftung — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Fürstliches Obergericht (Princely Court of Appeal), Liechtenstein, concerning the interpretation of Article 4 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson (Judge-Rapporteur) and Henrik Bull, Judges, gave judgment on 17 December 2010, the operative part of which is as follows:1. A provision of national law pursuant to which non-resident plaintiffs in civil litigation must provide security for costs of court proceedings, while resident plaintiffs are not obliged to provide such security, entails indirect discrimination within the meaning of Article 4 EEA.2. In order for such a discrimination to be justified on the basis of public interest objectives, the provision of national law must be necessary and not excessive in attaining them.3. The latter condition is not met in cases where the State in which the plaintiff is resident allows for the enforcement of a costs award, whether on the basis of treaty obligations or unilaterally.4. In other cases, too, provision of security may not be required in a manner disproportionately affecting the interests of a non-resident plaintiff in being able to commence legal proceedings. This means in particular that security may not be required for an amount which is out of proportion to the costs likely to be incurred by the defendant or unreasonably high or which must be posted within a very short period of time. The form of security required, the situation giving rise to its imposition and whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to legal aid also constitute important factors.5. It is for the national court to determine in a particular case whether the conditions for justification are satisfied.--------------------------------------------------