The right of access to a court also encompasses the enforcement of court decisions. The non-enforcement of a finalized court decision violates the right of access to a court.
The right of access to a court also encompasses the enforcement of final and binding judicial decisions. This is because the obligation to enforce a final and binding judicial decision is a complementary and integral part of the “proceedings” referred to in Article 6/1 of the Convention. According to the ECtHR, interpreting the right of access to a court solely in terms of access to a court and the conduct of proceedings, and excluding the enforcement of decisions rendered as a result of proceedings, is likely to lead to situations incompatible with the principle of the rule of law, which the Contracting States committed to respect and uphold when ratifying the Convention. In this regard, the non-enforcement of a final decision rendered in a case that is decisive for a person’s civil rights, in a manner adverse to that person, renders the “right of access to a court” protected by Article 6/1 of the Convention inoperative. Furthermore, the obligation to enforce a final court decision constitutes a clear indication of rendering the right of access to a court effective not only on an abstract and theoretical level but also in practice. Consequently, Article 6/1 of the Convention clearly protects a legitimate expectation regarding the enforcement of a decision obtained from a court. (Hornsby/Greece, 1997, 38-42; Bourdov /Russia, 2002, pr.33-38; Kravchenko/Russia, 2009; Marini/Albania, 2007, pr.22; Apostol/Georgia, 2007, pr.54. )
The state cannot impose extra burdens on the person in whose favor a decision has been made, in order to implement the decision given against itself. Likewise, the state cannot cite its economic weakness or lack of other resources as an excuse not to fulfill its obligation arising from a final court decision rendered against its own institutions. In other words, the state cannot rely on financial impossibility or lack of resources. Such an excuse inevitably violates the right of access to a court. (Immobiliare Saffi / Italy [BD], 1999, pr.74; Bourdov /Russia, 2002, pr.35) Book recommendation on fair trial.
Why is Expert Legal Support Necessary?
The right of access to a court is not limited to merely initiating a lawsuit, but also encompasses the enforcement of final and binding court decisions. Otherwise, the non-implementation of a decision directly affecting an individual’s civil rights violates the “right of access to a court” protected under Article 6/1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Hornsby/Greece (1997), Bourdov/Russia (2002), and other ECtHR decisions highlight the importance of this right being effective in practice.
The state cannot put forward excuses such as economic weakness or lack of resources to delay the implementation of a decision given against it; such a situation directly constitutes a violation of the right of access to a court (Immobiliare Saffi/Italy, 1999; Bourdov/Russia, 2002).
For this reason, it is of great importance for those who wish to make individual applications in Istanbul and Tuzla to receive support from experienced expert lawyers in the processes of the Constitutional Court (AYM) and the ECHR. Expert lawyers manage the application processes correctly and on time, monitor the implementation of court decisions, and ensure the effective protection of the client’s rights. Thus, individual application rights are guaranteed at both theoretical and practical levels.
