The Court Fee in the Context of Access to Justice: a Comparative Legal Aspect
Abstract
The issues of the duty to pay court fees in the context of access to justice are considered. Attention is focused on the role of economic conditions in ensuring access to justice, which include establishing a reasonable amount of court fees and providing a procedural mechanism for deferral, installment payment or partial or full exemption from court fees. Attention is drawn to the need for the judicial authorities to ensure an appropriate balance between the interests of the state in collecting judicial fees for considering claims, on the one hand, and the plaintiff's interest in upholding his claim in court, on the other hand. Despite this, a number of provisions have been investigated that contribute to ensuring the right of access to justice to persons without financial insolvency to pay a court fee in the prescribed amount. It should be noted that the legislation provides for identical reasons for both exempting the court from payment of the court fee and reducing the amount of its payment, as well as for deferring and installment payment of the court fee. Emphasis is placed on the fact that the decision to postpone or defer payment of court fees should not come from the court's own initiative. If the person's financial status is unsatisfactory, the initiative to postpone or defer payment of court fees should come from the plaintiff or defendant, in the event of a counterclaim. Criteria are defined that the court must take into account when deciding on a deferral, installment plan or partial or full exemption from payment of the court fee. So, the court must take into consideration the income of the plaintiff, the prolonged non-receipt by employees of salaries, the non-receipt of rents for the land lease, information about the age and incapacity of individuals, debts to other persons, for example, for utilities, debt collection of the plaintiff within the enforcement proceedings, the presence of dependents etc. The issues of the need to delimit cases of exemption from payment of court fees, provided for by Article 5 of the Law of Ukraine «On Court Fee», and cases where the court fee is not paid at all, provided for by Part 2 of Article 3 of the Law of Ukraine «On Court Fee» is considered. Attention is focused on the fact that the grounds for the court's refusal to apply for deferment, installment plan or partial or full exemption from the payment of the court fee should be reasoned enough.
References
Pro sudoustrii i status suddiv : Zakon Ukrainy vid 02.06.2016 № 1402–VIII. (2016). Vidomosti Verkhovnoi Rady Ukrainy, 31, st. 545.
Rekomendatsii vidnosno shliakhiv polehshennia dostupu do pravosuddia № K (81)7, pryiniati Komitetom ministriv Rady Yevropy 14 travnia 1981 r. (n.d.). Retrieved from Verkhovna Rada Ukrainy. Zakonodavstvo Ukrainy: http://bit.ly/3de82Ab.
Tsyvilnyi protsesualnyi kodeks Ukrainy vid 18.03.2004 r., u red. Zakonu vid 03.10.2017 r. № 2147–VIII. (n.d.). Retrieved from Verkhovna Rada Ukrainy. Zakonodavstvo: http://bit.ly/38wLHuJ.
Sakara, N. Yu. (2016). Pro pravovu pryrodu sudovoho zboru. Problemy zakonnosti, 132, pp. 135–146.
Pro sudovyi zbir : Zakon Ukrainy vid 08.07.2011 r. № 3674–VI. (2011). Ofitsiinyi visnyk Ukrainy, 59 (12.08.2011), st. 2349.
Demendecki, T. (2019). Rozstrzyganie o kosztach w sądowym postępowaniu cywilnym. Studium teoretycznoprawne. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Społecznej Akademii Nauk.
O kosztach sądowych w sprawach cywilnych : Ustawa z dnia 28 lipca 2005 r. (t. jedn. Dz. U. z 2010 r., Nr 90, poz. 594 z późn. zm.). (n.d.). Retrieved from: https://bit.ly/3bfZRBG.
EX 50 Civil and Family Court Fees From 6 April 2015. (n.d.). Retrieved from GOV.UK: http://bit.ly/2xO2coQ.
Gerichtskostengesetz in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 27. Februar 2014 (BGBl. I S. 154), das zuletzt durch Artikel 3 des Gesetzes vom 21. Dezember 2015 (BGBl. I S. 2525) geändert worden. (n.d.). Retrieved from Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz: http://bit.ly/2Wr46WQ.
Décret n°2013-1280 du 29 décembre 2013 relatif à la suppression de la contribution pour l'aide juridique et à diverses dispositions relatives à l'aide juridique. (n.d.). Retrieved from Légifrance: http://bit.ly/2Ws70KV.
Pashchenko, K. S. (2016). Protsesualni dii shchodo rozmiru i splaty sudovykh vytrat yak harantiia dostupu do pravosuddia (na prykladi statti 88 Kodeksu administratyvnoho sudochynstva Ukrainy). Naukovyi visnyk Uzhhorodskoho natsionalnoho universytetu. Seriia Pravo, 36 (2), pp. 43–46.
Ustiushenko, S. E. (2019). Vplyv pryntsypu rivnosti vsikh pered zakonom na poriadok oplaty sudovoho zboru v tsyvilnomu protsesi. Aktualni problemy vitchyznianoi yurysprudentsii, 4, pp. 57–61.
Case of FC Mretebi V. Georgia (Application no. 38736/04). Judgment, 31 July 2007. (n.d.). Retrieved from European Court of Human Rights: http://bit.ly/38XEtQ4.
Baliuk, M. I., & Luspenyk, D. D. (2008). Praktyka zastosuvannia tsyvilnoho protsesualnoho kodeksu Ukrainy (tsyvilnyi protses u pytanniakh i vidpovidiakh). Komentarii, rekomendatsii, propozytsii. (Seriia «Sudova praktyka»). Kharkiv : Kharkiv yurydychnyi.
Postanova Verkhovnoho Sudu vid 04.07.2018 u spravi № 686/114/16-ts za pozovom PAT «UkrSybbank» do OSOBA_1, OSOBA_2 pro stiahnennia zaborhovanosti za kredytnym dohovorom. (n.d.). Retrieved from Yedynyi derzhavnyi reiestr sudovykh rishen: http://bit.ly/2Wr4vZm.