Information Note on the Court’s case-law 39

February 2002

Del Sol v. France - 46800/99

Judgment 26.2.2002 [Section III]

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Access to court

Refusal to grant legal aid in cassation proceedings due to lack of serious grounds for cassation appeal: no violation

Facts : Mr and Mrs Del Sol were granted a divorce by the tribunal de grande instance . The applicant, Mrs Del Sol, appealed against the divorce decree but the court of appeal dismissed her appeal and upheld the decree. She decided to appeal on points of law against the Court of Appeal’s judgment and made an application to the Court of Cassation’s legal aid office for legal aid. While acknowledging that the applicant’s means were insufficient, the legal aid office rejected her application, stating that there was no serious ground for an appeal on points of law against the impugned judgment. She then appealed against that decision . The President of the Court of Cassation dismissed her appeal, holding that the legal aid office’s assessment of the facts of the case was not subject to review and that there did not appear to be any serious grounds for an appeal on points of law.

Law : A rticle 6 § 1 – The ground on which the application for legal aid had been rejected was expressly laid down in the applicable legislation and was undoubtedly inspired by the legitimate concern that public money should only be used for legal-aid purposes for appellants to the Court of Cassation whose appeals had reasonable prospects of success. Admittedly, in the case of Aerts v. Belgium, which had concerned the refusal of an application for legal aid on the ground that the appeal had not at that time appeare d to be well-founded, the Court had found a violation of Article 6 § 1. However, it was important to give practical consideration to the quality of a State’s legal-aid system. The system established by the French legislature offered individuals substantive guarantees – both through the composition of the legal aid office and by the fact that appeals could be lodged with the President of the Court of Cassation – to protect them from arbitrariness. Furthermore, the applicant had been able to have her case hea rd at first instance and on appeal. Consequently, the refusal to grant her legal aid for an appeal to the Court of Cassation had not impaired the very essence of  her right of access to a court.

Conclusion : no violation (5 votes to 2).

(This case raises th e same legal issue as Essaadi v. France , no. 49384/99, judgment of 26 February 2002.)

© 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