Communicated on 13 September 2018<\/p>\n
FOURTH SECTION<\/p>\n
Application no. 75435\/17
\nDainoras BALK\u016aNAS
\nagainst Lithuania
\nlodged on 19 October 2017<\/p>\n
STATEMENT OF FACTS<\/p>\n
The applicant, Mr Dainoras Balk\u016bnas, is a Lithuanian national, who was born in 1969 and lives in Var\u0117na.<\/p>\n
A. The circumstances of the case<\/p>\n
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n
In 2014 the Vilnius Regional Court ordered the applicant to pay M.K. 52,843.78 euros (EUR) of debt, EUR 3,804.74 of late payment interest and five percent of annual procedural interest. In 2016 the Court of Appeal returned the case for fresh examination to the court of first instance. It appears that the Vilnius Regional Court again awarded the debt, late payment interest and annual procedural interest to M.K., but the Court of Appeal again returned the case for fresh examination to the first-instance court on issues related to the adequacy of evidence. The Vilnius Regional Court again awarded the same amounts to M.K. and in 2017 the Court of Appeal upheld that decision.<\/p>\n
During the proceedings between M.K. and the applicant, the latter asked the Vilnius Regional Court to exempt him from part of the court fees. The court fees amounted to EUR 1,422; the applicant paid EUR 150 and asked to be exempted from the remaining part. On 21 October 2016 the Vilnius Regional Court satisfied the applicant\u2019s request. It held that the applicant had provided information proving that his monthly income was EUR 172.90, and from that amount he had to pay child support. The court further held that the applicant had already been partially exempted from the court fees by a decision of 22 February 2016 and there was no information in the case-file that the applicant\u2019s financial situation had improved. The applicant was thus exempted from paying EUR 1,272 in court fees.<\/p>\n
In the course of the proceedings between M.K. and the applicant, the latter submitted an appeal on points of law and asked the Supreme Court to partially exempt him from the payment of court fees. He claimed that the court fees amounted to EUR 1,422, that his monthly income was EUR 190, that his accounts were frozen and that the debt for child support amounted to EUR 11,367. The applicant paid EUR 150 in court fees and asked to be exempted from the remaining part.<\/p>\n
On 22 May 2017 the Supreme Court decided that there were no grounds to exempt the applicant from the remaining part of the outstanding court fees and ordered him to pay them before 5 June 2017. The applicant then asked the Supreme Court to defer payment of the said court fees. On 5 June 2017 the Supreme Court held that the decision on whether to defer payment of the court fees had to be adopted taking into account the value of the person\u2019s property. The court held that the applicant had provided a document proving that his monthly income had amounted to EUR 175 and that he had no immovable property. However, the court held that the information provided by the applicant was very fragmented and could not prove his difficult financial situation. The applicant kept concluding contracts involving high amounts of money, he had to pay quite significant amounts in child support, and thus the Supreme Court refused to satisfy the applicant\u2019s request to defer the payment of court fees. On 12 June 2017 the applicant again asked the Supreme Court to partially exempt him from the payment of court fees or to defer that payment. On 15 June 2017 the Supreme Court held that the applicant had not provided any new information and refused to accept the applicant\u2019s appeal on points of law. On 27 June 2017 the applicant sent a letter to the president of the Supreme Court questioning the lawfulness of the decision of the Supreme Court of 15 June 2017. The Supreme Court replied that the selection panel of the Supreme Court had an exclusive right to decide on the admissibility of appeals on points of law and that the president of the Supreme Court could not interfere with the panel\u2019s work.<\/p>\n
B. Relevant domestic law<\/p>\n
Article 83 \u00a7 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that upon a person\u2019s request a court has a right, having regard to the financial situation of that person, to partially exempt him or her from court fees by written procedure. The person\u2019s request has to be reasoned and evidence proving the reasonableness of that request must be provided. The court\u2019s decision has to be reasoned.<\/p>\n
Article 84 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a court may, by written procedure, and having regard to the financial situation of certain persons, defer the payment of court fees until the adoption of the decision. The request to defer the payment of court fees has to be reasoned and contain evidence on the need to defer such payment.<\/p>\n
Article 350 \u00a7 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that if a person\u2019s request to exempt him or her from the payment of court fees or to defer such payment is dismissed, the selection panel deciding on the admissibility of the appeal on points of law sets the time-limit to pay the court fees. Failure to pay the court fees results in a refusal to accept the appeal on points of law.<\/p>\n
COMPLAINTS<\/p>\n
The applicant complains under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that his right of access to court has been breached as a result of the refusal to exempt him from the payment of court fees or to defer that payment. He also claims that the decisions of the Supreme Court to refuse to partially exempt him from the payment of court fees or to defer such payment were unreasoned.<\/p>\n
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES<\/p>\n
1. Has there been a breach of the applicant\u2019s right to access to court, as provided for in Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, on account of the fact that the Supreme Court refused to partially exempt him from the payment of court fees or to defer that payment (see Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249\/95, \u00a7 60, ECHR 2001\u2011VI; Podbielski and PPU Polpure v. Poland, no. 39199\/98, \u00a7\u00a7 63-64, 26 July 2005; and Clionov v. Moldova, no. 13229\/04, \u00a7 40, 9 October 2007; see also, mutatis mutandis, Paykar Yev Haghtanak Ltd v. Armenia, no. 21638\/03, \u00a7 48, 20 December 2007)?<\/p>\n
2. Did the Supreme Court\u2019s decisions refusing to partially exempt the applicant from court fees or to defer the payment of court fees adequately state the reasons on which they were based (see Garc\u00eda Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544\/96, \u00a7 26, ECHR 1999\u2011I; Suominen v. Finland, no. 37801\/97, \u00a7 34, 1 July 2003; and Kristiana Ltd. v. Lithuania, no. 36184\/13, \u00a7 123, 6 February 2018)?<\/p>\n
The parties are requested to provide all the domestic courts\u2019 decisions pertaining to the case at issue.<\/p>\n