Legal Notebook: Tenth Case lost in Strasbourg

Print version

As our readers may remember at the beginning of December we published an interview with Irakli Kandashvili, a lawyer from Andronikashvili, Sachsen-Altenburg, Baramidze and Partners, where he informed readers that Georgia had lost two more cases in the European Court of Human Rights.

Georgia Today dedicated an article to changes in civil procedure code concerning raised court fees (from GEL 5,000 to 50,000) in our 15-21 December edition where we asked Kandashvili for comments and he predicted that such high court fees can be considered an artificial barrier to access to a fair trial and could lead to future legal consequences in the European Court of Human Rights.

It has now become known that on the 28th of November Georgia had already lost its 10th case in Strasbourg and the reason for this was money/fees. We contacted our clairvoyant respondent who had predicted such consequences.

GT: What is the case about?

Irakli Kandashvili: The applicant was Leonid Apostol, a Gorgian national who lives in Batumi. He brought a civil action against a private person and on the 21st of November 2001 Batumi City Court allowed his claim and ordered the debtor to pay him arrears for the costs and expenses associated with the court proceedings.

Since the debtor refused to abide by the judgment, the applicant requested the initiation of enforcement proceedings. The Ministry replied that, pursuant to Article 26 of the Enforcement Proceedings Act, he was to bear “preliminary expenses associated with enforcement measures”. Being in receipt of a small pension at the time, the applicant was unable to pay. He later applied to the Ajarian Council of Ministers explaining his financial situation and offered to pay the enforcement fee after having received the judgment debt. The Ministry replied, restating its previous position. As a result of the non-payment of the preliminary expenses, the judgment of 21 November 2001 still remains un-enforced.

The applicant complained about the authorities’ refusal to enforce the judgment in his favor. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time).

The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 (§ 1) on account of the excessive restriction of the applicant’s right of access to enforcement proceedings. It further held that Georgia should secure, by appropriate means, the enforcement of the judgment of 21 November 2001.

GT: Can we presume that cases can appear in the future where applicants can say that high court fees create a problem for them to apply to court?

Irakli Kandashvili: Yes, of course, possibility is high and this abovementioned example perfectly shows that artificial barriers like preliminary expenses and high court fees are really a danger for possible lost lawsuits in ECHR.

12.01.2007