5.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Wrocław. 6.  In 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in which he asked for the division of his late parents’ marital property. The applicant’s mother died in the 1960s and he was her heir. The applicant’s father died in 1992 and his second wife inherited after him according to his last will. The applicant claimed that his parents’ marital property included a collection of 300 valuable paintings worth approximately 460,000 Polish zlotys (PLN). The applicant’s father’s second wife contested the fact that the paintings belonged to the estate in question and submitted that they were her own assets. 7.  On 23 December 1997 the applicant was exempted from court fees. 8.  In 2001 the other party to the proceedings, the second wife of the applicant’s late father, died and her daughter joined the proceedings as her heir. 9.  On 17 July 2003 the Wrocław District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) decided of its own motion to order the preparation of an expert opinion regarding the value and origin of the paintings allegedly acquired during the applicant’s parents’ marriage. The court found that the applicant described many of the paintings, some of which had been in the possession of the other party and whose existence and ownership had been contested, as belonging to his parents. The assessment of his submissions required special knowledge concerning the authors of the paintings, their description and authenticity. It had thus been impossible to assess those issues without the assistance of an expert. The court considered that since the applicant had initiated the proceedings he should bear the costs of the opinion and ordered him to pay PLN 5,000 (approximately 1,200 euros (EUR)) as an advance on the costs of the expert opinion. 10.  On 21 August 2003 the applicant applied for an exemption from court fees. He submitted that he was a pensioner and was receiving an old‑age pension of PLN 550. His unemployed wife and her mentally handicapped brother, the latter receiving PLN 400 in invalidity benefit, were both in his sole charge. The applicant explained that although he had been represented by a lawyer of his choice, the latter had not received any payment but had agreed to accept a certain percentage of the award received at the end of the proceedings. 11.  On 12 January 2004 the Wrocław District Court dismissed his application. The court acknowledged the applicant’s difficult financial situation. However, it considered that since the beginning of the proceedings in 1997 he should have saved money for the purpose of paying the future court fees. The court calculated that by putting aside between ten and twenty percent of his income the applicant could have saved up PLN 5,000 since 1997. 12.  The applicant’s lawyer appealed against this decision, explaining at length the difficult financial situation of the applicant’s family. He submitted that 75% of the family’s monthly income went on rent for their flat, monthly charges and the costs of medicines for the applicant and his wife’s brother. The remaining sum of money did not allow for any savings; in fact, it was not sufficient for the applicant to support himself and his family; they had been surviving with the financial help of their friends and relatives. 13.  On 15 April 2004 the Wrocław Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the appeal. The court underlined the fact that the applicant had already benefited from an exemption from the court fees for lodging his civil claim, thus it had not been justified to expect the State Treasury to cover further costs for the applicant. 14.  On 18 November 2004 the Wrocław District Court gave a decision in the applicant’s case in which it divided the property in question. The court found that the estate in question consisted only of a wardrobe and a grandfather clock. The applicant was awarded the latter and ordered to pay the other party PLN 2,225 and to reimburse them PLN 14,400 for the costs of the proceedings. With regard to the issue of the expert opinion concerning the paintings that had been described by the applicant as having been acquired during his father’s first marriage, the court found:
“The consequence [of the applicant’s failure to pay the court fees for the expert opinion] was to omit this evidence as the court had established that this evidence was not necessary to reach a decision in the instant case – it was not the only piece of evidence on which it could base its finding. Producing this evidence was in the applicant’s own interest, as he had borne the burden of providing evidence of the elements of the estate that belonged to his parents and was his mother’s inheritance. The assessment of other evidence collected in the case leads to unequivocal conclusion that the marital property in question did not include any of the known and existing paintings of the disputed collection.” 15.  The applicant’s lawyer appealed against the decision in particular as regards the court’s assessment that the paintings had not belonged to his parents’ estate. 16.  The court ordered the applicant to pay court fees for his appeal in the amount of PLN 4,649. The applicant appealed against this decision and applied to be exempted from court fees. 17.  On 22 April 2005 the Wrocław District Court, composed of the same judge who had given the decision on the merits in the applicant’s case, dismissed his application. The court found that the applicant’s financial standing had not changed since 2004 when his application for exemption from the court fees for the expert opinion had been dismissed. Moreover, he had not incurred any expenses afterwards as he had failed to pay for the expert opinion. Thus, in the court’s opinion the applicant should have saved enough money to pay the future costs of the proceedings. 18.  The applicant’s lawyer appealed against the decision. 19.  On 7 July 2005 the Wrocław District Court partly allowed the appeal and exempted the applicant from fees exceeding PLN 600 (approximately EUR 150). The court considered that a total refusal to exempt the applicant from court fees for pursuing his appeal would deprive him of the possibility to pursue his claim before the second-instance court. It found however that the applicant would be able to pay the sum of PLN 600 without harming his own well-being or that of his family. It based its finding on the fact that the applicant’s monthly income was PLN 700 and the family’s income had also included his wife’s brother’s monthly benefit of PLN 450. 20.  Since the applicant failed to pay the court fees for proceeding with his appeal, on 19 September 2005 the Wrocław District Court rejected the appeal.