CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 juillet 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s10AB3CA3 { font-family:Arial; color:#222222 } Published on 29 July 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 14158/19 Cornel PĂTRU against Romania lodged on 5 March 2019 communicated on 8 July 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged breach of the applicant’s right of access to court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of his inability to pay the security deposit established by the domestic court which examined his request for the suspension of enforcement proceedings against him and his wife. The applicant and his wife were the guarantors of a bank loan taken out by a company. As the company failed to fully pay its debt, the bank initiated enforcement proceedings in respect of some of their assets. When the applicant sought the suspension of the enforcement proceedings, he was requested to pay 10,674 Romanian lei (RON - approximately 2,300 euros (EUR)) as a security deposit for the creditor ( cauțiune) . The applicant lodged a request for legal aid asking to be exempted from the payment of the security, or to have it reduced and paid in instalments, claiming that he and his wife had no income other than his wife’s monthly salary, which amounted to RON 600 (approximately EUR 150), and was in any event not sufficient to cover the security deposit. By a final interlocutory judgment of 13 December 2018, the Pitești District Court dismissed the applicant’s request for legal aid. Despite being in possession of supporting documents from the applicant about his family’s financial situation, the court held that the security deposit, which represented 10% of the debt, did not represent an excessive burden for the applicant and his wife if compared to the amount of the debt. In addition, it held that the legal basis relied on by the applicant in his request for legal aid, namely Government Emergency Ordinance no. 51/2008, was not applicable to his situation. On 17 December 2018 the Pitești District Court rejected the applicant’s request for suspension of enforcement proceedings as inadmissible for non ‑ payment of the security deposit. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a breach of the applicant’s right of access to court as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see for example Laçi v.   Albania , no. 28142/17, §§ 50-52, 19 October 2021; Weissman and Others v.   Romania , no. 63945/00, §§ 39-42, ECHR 2006-VII (extracts), and Kreuz v.   Poland , no. 28249/95, §§ 60-67, ECHR 2001-VI)?