CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 septembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5C5E66B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } Communicated on 17 September 2019   THIRD SECTION Application no. 56293/15 KOM, SPOLOČNOSŤ S RUČENÍM OBMEDZENÝM against Slovakia lodged on 4 November 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant company’s right of access to a court. The applicant company complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that its request for exemption from the court fees, calculated on the basis of a set percentage, laid down by law, of the sum at stake in the proceedings, was rejected by the courts on the grounds that as a commercial company set up for business it was the sole responsible for carrying out its activities and making profit. Consequently, the proceedings in which the applicant company claimed damages for its former attorney’s malpractice (which had allegedly given rise to the impossibility for the applicant company to carry out its activities and to the ensuing financial difficulties) were discontinued at their initial stage. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant company have access to a court, within the meaning of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention, having regard to the amount of the court fees applicable in the present case and to the refusal of its request for exemption? In particular, was this refusal based on convincing reasons ( Kreuz v. Poland (n o 1) , no. 28249/95, §§ 62-63, ECHR 2001 ‑ VI)? Has a proper balance been secured between, on the one hand, the interest of the State in collecting court fees for dealing with claims and, on the other hand, the interest of the applicant company in vindicating its claim through the courts ( Podbielski and PPU Polpure v. Poland , no. 39199/98, 26   July 2005)   ?