 |  |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|  | |  | |
(c)
The right of access to the courts in practice
As previously indicated, the E Ct HR in Golder v United Kingdom accepted that the
right of access to the courts was inherent in Art 6(1). It held that such right "secures to
everyone the right to have any claim relating to his civil rights and obligations brought
before a court or tribunal."
At the same time, the Court accepted that it was not an
absolute right and that many states legitimately restricted access to the courts in
respect of minors, persons of unsound mind and so forth.
Applying the general principles mentioned above, particular restrictions on access
have been upheld. For instance, in Tolstoy-Miloslavsky v United Kingdom (1995) 20
EHRR 442 at §59-§63, a condition requiring the would-be appellant to put up the sum
of £124,900 within 14 days by way of security for the costs of an appeal was held to
pursue a legitimate aim, not to be disproportionate and not to impair the essence of the
right of access. Restrictions on proceedings by bankrupts and vexatious litigants are
further examples of legitimate restrictions.
Notes
(1975) 1 EHRR 524 at §36.
At §39.
The position of vexatious litigants is dealt with more fully in Section 14.
|
 |
|