Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice
31. 3. 2011
Facts
The applicant was ordered at first instance to repay a bank loan of more than 600 000 euros. The court ordered immediate enforcement of the judgment. The applicant lodged an appeal. The bank seeking the repayment applied to the judge responsible for preparing the case for hearing before the Court of Appeal to have the case struck out on the ground that the applicant had not complied with the first instance ruling. Submitting a copy of his tax assessment, the applicant responded that he did not have the necessary funds to comply with the judgment. However, the judge responsible for preparing the case struck the proceedings out of the list.
Complaint
The applicant relying on Article 6 of the Convention complained about not being able to appeal.
Court’s ruling
The Court found a violation of Article 6 because the striking out of the case had deprived the applicant of the right of appeal the opportunity to take his dispute to the Court of Appeal and, if appropriate, the Court of Cassation, and as a result the first-instance judgment had become final. Having regard to the seriousness of the interference with the right of access to a court at that stage of the proceedings, the state had had a narrower margin of appreciation in the instant case than in cases concerning the striking out of appeals from the list of the Court of Cassation. The obligation to comply with a decision pursued legitimate aims, namely, to ensure protection for judgment creditors, to avoid dilatory appeals and to ensure the proper administration of justice by relieving congestion in the courts’ lists of cases. The respondent Government did not challenge the fact that the applicant’s income was insufficient but claimed that he had taken no steps to comply, even partially, with the judgment against him. In the instant case, there was a distinct lack of proportionality between the applicant’s monthly income and the amount he had been ordered to pay. Having regard to that lack of proportionality, it was unlikely that any attempt to make payments would have enabled him to pay off sufficiently large amounts to prevent the expiry of the time allowed for appealing.