The courts of three instances considered the applicant's arguments about the impossibility of paying the state duty untenable. At the same time, since the application did not specify the period for which the postponement should be established, and the circumstances indicating that he had the opportunity to pay the state duty in the future, satisfaction was refused.
Citizen.the Board of the Supreme Court found the conclusions of the lower courts erroneous. Failure to indicate in the application the date or event before which the applicant requests to postpone the payment of the state fee is not in itself a reason for refusing to grant such a delay. In this case, the courts had to consider the application on the merits, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the applicant's request.
The Supreme Court indicated that a deferral on payment of the state duty may be granted to a person whose property status does not allow him to pay e within the prescribed period, if there are grounds to believe that such an opportunity will arise during the deferral period. The applicant has been held in a pre-trial detention center for many years, which means he could not work or carry out business activities. In addition, a debt restructuring procedure was introduced against him. The lower courts did not properly assess these circumstances when determining the applicant's property status.
The acts of the courts were annulled, and the case was sent for a new hearing to the court of first instance.