The ECtHR does not consider representation solely by a lawyer a legitimate reason for rejecting a legal aid request concerning court fees. It leads to a violation of the right of access to a court.

The rejection of legal aid requests, such as exemption from court fees, on the grounds that the plaintiff is represented by a lawyer, violates the right of access to a court. Here, it is assumed that a plaintiff who has hired a lawyer also has a good financial standing and is therefore not in a position to be unable to pay court fees. However, the ECtHR does not consider mere representation by a lawyer as a valid reason to reject a legal aid request for court fees. Furthermore, the ECtHR specifically emphasizes that a person being represented by a lawyer does not constitute a presumption of strong financial standing. Therefore, acting on such a presumption without investigating the plaintiff’s financial situation will violate the right of access to a court. Indeed, such an acceptance inherently undermines the essence of the right of access to a court. This is because a person may have granted power of attorney to a lawyer they know based on goodwill or family ties without paying a fee, or it may have been agreed in the retainer agreement that the fee payment would be made based on the outcome of the case and at the end of the case. Moreover, such an assumption would lead to the conclusion that a lawyer cannot be hired without payment, which is not a reasonable approach in the ordinary course of life. For these reasons, using the fact of being represented by a lawyer as an argument to refute a claim of insufficient financial means will inevitably constitute a violation of the right of access to a court. Indeed, the ECtHR ruled that the right of access to a court was violated in a case where legal aid requests for compensation claims to be filed against the state by individuals without financial means, due to malpractice during their daughters’ surgery, were rejected solely on the grounds that the applicants were represented by a lawyer, without any investigation. (Mehmet and Suna Yiğit/Turkey, 2007, pr.37. Kaba/Turkey, 2011, pr.24; Bakan/Turkey, 2007, pr.65-79) A text suggestion.

Why is Expert Lawyer Support Critically Important in ECtHR and Constitutional Court Applications?

The ECtHR does not consider a person being represented by a lawyer to be a valid reason for rejecting a legal aid request. A litigant being represented by a lawyer does not mean that their financial situation is good; in fact, in some cases, a person can hire a lawyer without paying any fee or by agreeing to pay at the end of the case. Therefore, rejecting legal aid requests solely on the grounds of being represented by a lawyer is, according to ECtHR case law, a violation of the right of access to a court (Mehmet and Suna Yiğit/Turkey, 2007, pr.37; Kaba/Turkey, 2011, pr.24).

This approach of the ECtHR also reveals that individual applications are processes that require technicality and expertise. While even rejection decisions made without a financial status investigation are considered human rights violations, preparing the application in accordance with admissibility criteria, substantiating the violation, and establishing case law connections require much more delicate expertise.

Therefore, obtaining expert lawyer support in individual applications to the ECtHR and Constitutional Court is critically important for both the acceptance of the application and for achieving a substantive outcome after examination. 2M Law Office, with its expert staff in individual application law, offers professional support in the correct identification of human rights violations, the construction of arguments consistent with case law, and the flawless management of the process.