Background
In December 2019, I.W. sued her former employer, seeking PLN 250,000 in compensation and an apology for alleged workplace harassment that she said had left her unable to work. She sought legal aid and exemption from the PLN 12,500 court fee. Her materials showed no regular income, substantial debts, unemployment without benefits, and later social-assistance payments.
The Gdańsk Regional Court refused both requests. It considered her financial disclosures incomplete and unreliable, faulted her for not saving part of a PLN 45,000 award received in separate proceedings against the employer, and relied partly on her and her husband’s assumed ability to work or seek social-insurance benefits. After her appeal failed, the court returned her claim as unpaid, without examining its merits.
The Court’s Holding
The European Court of Human Rights unanimously held that Poland violated Article 6 § 1 because refusing the fee exemption impaired the very essence of I.W.’s right of access to a court. Her appeal against the refusal of the exemption was an adequate domestic remedy; a further appeal against the later return of the claim would not have effectively reopened that already-final fee decision.
The Court found that the domestic court had not adequately weighed official evidence of I.W.’s indigence, heavy indebtedness, and unsuccessful enforcement proceedings. It was unreasonable to expect her to reserve a substantial part of her only significant asset—the earlier PLN 45,000 award—for court fees rather than debt repayment and basic needs. The assessment also relied excessively on hypothetical earning capacity, did not establish that her claim value was inflated, and did not consider a partial fee exemption. The Court awarded EUR 7,800 for non-pecuniary damage and rejected the pecuniary-damage claim.
Key Takeaways
- Fee-exemption decisions must genuinely account for reliable evidence of an applicant’s actual financial circumstances.
- A court cannot reasonably require an indigent litigant to preserve a prior award for fees instead of repaying debts or meeting basic needs.
- Where unaffordable fees prevent any merits examination, Article 6 requires particularly rigorous scrutiny.
Why It Matters
The judgment reinforces that court fees may regulate access to civil justice, but cannot operate as an insurmountable financial barrier for a claimant with documented indigence. Courts must assess real resources rather than speculation about income, employment, or benefits.