FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 39531/08
by Jacek GŁOGOWSKI
against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 30 June 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 August 2008,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 8 May 2009 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Jacek Głogowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1946 and lives in Czerwonak. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

On 20 January 2007 the applicant sued a certain company SIEGENIA‑AUBI for payment for the alleged failure to comply with the terms of a contract.

On 23 April 2007 the Opole Regional Court gave judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claim.

The applicant appealed and asked to be exempted from court fees.

On 29 June 2007 the Opole Regional Court exempted the applicant from costs due in the proceedings. It further refused to grant legal aid to the applicant.

On 17 October 2007 the Wrocław Court of Appeal upheld the first‑instance judgment.

On 14 January 2008 the applicant requested the Court of Appeal to appoint a legal-aid lawyer for him with a view to filing a cassation appeal.

On 23 January 2008 the Court of Appeal refused the applicant’s request for a legal-aid lawyer. That decision did not contain any reasons.

On 9 February 2008 the applicant again asked the Court of Appeal to appoint a legal-aid lawyer for him with a view to filing a cassation appeal. On 14 February 2008 the Court of Appeal refused his request. That decision was likewise not reasoned.

On 29 April 2008 the Ombudsman refused to file a cassation appeal on the applicant’s behalf.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

Legal provisions concerning compulsory legal representation in cassation appeal proceedings applicable at the material time are set out in paragraphs 27‑31 of the Court’s judgment in the case of Laskowska v. Poland, no. 77765/01, 13 March 2007.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant alleged under Article 6 of the Convention that he had no right of access to a court since the courts refused to appoint a legal-aid lawyer for him with a view to filing a cassation appeal.

2. He further complained under Article 6 about the outcome and unfairness of the proceedings.

3. Lastly, he alleged under Article 13 of the Convention that he could not appeal against some of the decisions given in the proceedings in his case.

THE LAW

A. Complaint under Article 6 § 1

The applicant complained about lack of access to a court. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing...by [a] ... tribunal established by law...”

By letter dated 8 May 2009 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by this part of the application. They further requested the Court to st