Preventing companies to access judicial authorities is contrary to the ECHR
JUDGMENT
Centre for Development of Analytical Psychology Ltd v. ‘the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 15-06-2017 (no.29545/10 and 32961/10)
SUMMARY
Preveting businesses to access judicial authorities violates the right to a fair trial. The lower limit of the subject-matter of the lawsuit for injunction hinders access to a court.
PROVISION
Article 6 par. 1
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant company is a limited liability company which is owned and managed by Dr Marija Arsovska, a psychiatrist, whose name at the time was Dr Marija Karanfilova. The case concerned two sets of civil proceedings for claims brought against the State Health Insurance Fund (“the Fund”).
In 2004 Dr Marija Karanfilova’s Independent Psychiatric Practice (“the Practice”) signed a contract with the Fund on the funding of the treatment it provided to health insurance beneficiaries. In 2006 the Practice was obliged by the health authorities to re-register under new statutory provisions: its name had thus been changed and it had been given a new individual tax number (“the new Practice”). In 2007 the new Practice was transformed into the applicant company.
In the meantime two sets of proceedings were initiated against the Fund for non-adherence to the terms of the contract of 2004. The domestic courts dismissed those claims for lack of standing on the side of the claimant, finding that the contract had been signed by the Fund and Dr Marija Karanfilova’s Independent Psychiatric Practice and that the applicant company could not be considered as the Practice’s legal successor as they had different individual tax numbers. Both sets of proceedings ended before the second-instance courts since the value of the claims fell below the statutory threshold for lodging an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court.
A separate set of civil proceedings between the applicant company and the Fund (concerning the same contract of 2004) reached the Supreme Court which found that, in the particular circumstances of the case, the lower courts had incorrectly established that the applicant company had no standing in the proceedings.
Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 the applicant company complained of a lack of access to a court concerning its claims related to the contract with the Fund.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Violation of Article 6 § 1 (access to court)
Just satisfaction: EUR 3,600 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,360 (costs and expenses)
