Jan Nowiński, after his divorce in 2002, moved from his house. He then lived with his friends at different addresses. In 2004 he filed a claim for damages against the State Treasury, in which, as the address for any correspondence, he gave a post-office box address. He also stressed that every day he can be reached at work, that is, the police station Wrocław – Stare Miasto.

The District Court for Wrocław-Krzyki claimed that not indicating the place of permanent residence by J. Nowiński is a formal shortcoming of the claim resulting in its rejection. Same was the judgement of the District Court in Wrocław, which conceded that J. Nowiński should have indicated one of those addresses where he last resided, where he spent most time and where his daily activities concentrated. The legal basis for court’s decisions was Article 126 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to it, when submitting the first claim to the court, the place of residence of the parties should be indicated. Failure to meet this obligation results in rejection of such a claim.

J. Nowiński claimed that such decisions of the courts violated his right to court access. He argued that the decision of the courts did not correspond with the aim contained in Article 126 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that is to guarantee proper conduct of proceedings. He also pointed to the legal definition of the “place of residence” contained in the Civil Code. According to Article 25 of the Civil Code, the place of residence of a natural person shall be the town where that person stays with the intention of remaining permanently. Thus, it is not a particular address requested by the court from J. Nowiński. He also argued that his work address, as well as the post-office box he indicated, guaranteed proper communication with the court.

European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg found that there has been a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and awarded the applicant EUR 1,000 The court found that the requirement contained in Article 126 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is that of indicating the place of residence served a reasonable aim (the proper administration of justice) Such aim could justify the restrictions of individual’s rights. However, the literal interpretation of the rules of Civil Procedure constituted a disproportionate restriction on his right to court access. What is more, the attitude of the applicant, who maintained constant contact with the court, witnessed against such interpretation of the rules. Unfortunately, the courts did not take that into account.

The European Court of Human Rights also pointed to the fact that the violation of the applicant’s right to court access could result in further violation of his rights. As the Constitutional Tribunal indicated many times, the right to court access has a double role: on one hand, it is one of the constitutional rights of an individual; on the second hand, it is meant to guarantee other rights that an individual is entitled to (in this case, the right to compensation for the damage caused by actions of public authorities, which were contrary to the law). The violation of the right to court access may lead to violation of other rights, which are protected by the court.

In hereby case, the violation of right to court was the result of the violation of the first of its four elements, that is, the right to court access (the right to initiate legal action in court). It was the effect of applying only literal interpretation of the law and not taking into consideration the aims of this regulation.

The verdict in the case Nowiński v. Poland illustrates the fact that making decisions based on such a narrow interpretation might, for example, lead to arbitrary deprivation of right to court of all the homeless people. Therefore, instead of literally interpreting the regulations, courts should take into account the aims they serve – so that the right to court is guaranteed to everyone, regardless of the occupation, place of residence and living conditions. If homeless are denied court access, their social marginalization increases even further.

Adam Bodnar

Author is the head of the Law Department of the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights

Barbara Grabowska

Author is a lawyer in the Precedent Litigation Program in the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights

Translation: Michał Urbański