CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 28 mai 2002

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 42 May 2002 Ivanova v. Finland (dec.) - 53054/99 Decision 28.5.2002 [Section IV] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Petition to Finnish court written entirely in Russian: inadmissible In June 1995 the applicant, a Russian national, put her car in a bonded warehouse at Helsinki harbour before leaving the country. On her return in December 1995 she was told that someone had already collected her car. She unsuccessfully lodged petitions with the District Customs and the harbour authorities. In August 1998, by a letter written entirely in Russian, she filed an action with the District Court. The District Court forwarded the letter to the District Customs which informed the applicant that they were not responsible for bonded warehouses and that she should contact the City of Helsinki. The applicant complains that she was denied access to a court and discriminated against as a foreigner and contends that the District Court must have understood her complaint, since the matter was referred to the District Customs. She also claims that she could not instruct a lawyer in Finland, as those she contacted asked for large fees to be paid in advance, which she could not afford. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1 and 14: The rules of the language to be used for appeals are undoubtedly designed to ensure the proper administration of justice and compliance with, in particular, the principle of legal certainty. However, these rules, or their application, should not prevent litigants from making use of an available remedy. Furthermore, although Article   6 § 1 does not guarantee a right to free legal aid in all civil cases, the unavailability of legal aid may under certain circumstances give rise to a violation of the right of access to court and to a fair hearing. In the present case, the applicant did not receive any formal decision from the District Court declaring her intended action inadmissible. There was no indication that the District Court arbitrarily failed to provide the applicant with the possibility of having her civil claim examined. She was free to apply for a summons against the intended other party as long as her submissions were in either of the official languages of Finland. Although she had no absolute right to cost-free proceedings, she was nevertheless free to seek a grant to that effect as well as the appointment of a lawyer speaking either or both official languages. She could also appeal against any refusal to grant her legal aid. In conclusion, she was not denied access to court: manifestly ill-founded.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes