CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 décembre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 7 December 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 8649/15 Gyula IMPLOM against Hungary lodged on 2 February 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns two actions in damages brought by the applicant in which his appeals were not accepted by the higher courts because the legal-aid lawyers appointed for him did not process them in due time (decisions: 4 November and 8 December 2014). QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Was the applicant’s right to access to a court, for the purposes of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention, secured in a “concrete and effective manner” by way of legal representation appointed under the legal aid system (see, mutatis mutandis, Staroszczyk v. Poland , no. 59519/00, §§   135 to   139, 22 March 2007)?