Last Updated on April 24, 2019 by LawEuro
Communicated on 11 March 2019
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 26750/16
Nina WIERZBICKA
against Poland
lodged on 19 April 2016
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Nina Wierzbicka, is a Polish national who was born in 1948 and lives in Cracow. She is represented before the Court by Mr Z. Cichoń, a lawyer practising in Cracow.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was born in Novosukhotino in Kazakhstan, where her family had been deported in 1936. She moved to Poland in 1999. Since 2 July 2003 she has been receiving a State pension. On 2 November 2003 the Head of the Office for War Veterans and Victims of Oppression (Kierownik Urzędu do Spraw Kombatantów i Osób Represjonowanych) awarded her a monthly payment in connection with her deportation.
On 14 September 2012 the applicant lodged a request with the Cracow Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych – hereinafter “the Board”) for a disability pension, claiming that she had been unable to work owing to her family’s deportation to Kazakhstan.
On 4 December 2012 the Board refused her request. The applicant appealed against that decision.
On 30 October 2014 the Cracow Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed her appeal.
On 16 September 2015 the applicant lodged with the Cracow Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) an application for legal aid in order to lodge a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).
On 13 October 2015 the Cracow Regional Court, to which the application had been transferred, dismissed it. The court stated that the applicant had a stable income – the retirement pension in amount of 880 Polish zlotys (PLN – approximately 220 euros (EUR)) and the benefit for war veterans in amount of PLN 400 (approximately EUR 100), and that she had expenses of PLN 800 (approximately EUR 200) for the upkeep of her house and the costs of food and medicine. She was also repaying a bank loan. The court assessed her situation as difficult. However, it concluded:
“The court however considers that when initiating civil proceedings a party should take into account the costs related to them and accumulate necessary financial resources from income received over a longer period of time. In view of the above the situation presented in the declaration of means [of the applicant] taking into account her stable income, allows accumulation of resources to hire a professional lawyer …”
The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal, in which she relied directly on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, against that decision.
On 24 November 2015 the Cracow Court of Appeal dismissed her interlocutory appeal. That court pointed out that a social minimum income for one-person households was PLN 1,070.65 (approximately EUR 268) and the applicant’s income “significantly exceed[ed]” (znacznie przekracza) that minimum. The court questioned the amount and frequency of some of the applicant’s expenses, but it appears that it did not order the applicant to provide additional information or documents with regard to those expenses. In conclusion, that court stated that the applicant was able to cover the costs of a lawyer without detriment to her essential standard of living. The court stated also:
“Access to court requires, by its nature, possession of financial means, which should be taken into account when a party to the proceedings foresees the realisation of his or her rights before a court.”
B. Relevant domestic law
1. Legal aid
Article 117 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Kodeks postępowania cywilnego – “the Code”) provides that a party to the proceedings, who has not been exempted from court fees, can ask the court to grant him or her legal aid provided that he or she submits a declaration to the effect that the fees required would entail a substantial reduction in his or her standard of living or that of his or her family.
2. Cassation appeal
A party to civil proceedings can, in some cases, lodge a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court against a final judicial decision of a second‑instance court terminating the proceedings.
Article 871 of the Code lays down the principle of mandatory assistance of a lawyer in cassation appeal proceedings.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of lack of access to the Supreme Court.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Was the refusal to appoint a lawyer for the applicant with a view to lodging a cassation appeal compatible with her right of access to a court, guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Tabor v. Poland, no. 12825/02, 27 June 2006, and Wieczorek v. Poland, no. 18176/05, 8 December 2009)?
Leave a Reply