Information Note on the Court’s case-law 99

July 2007

Mehmet and Suna Yiğit  v. Turkey - 52658/99

Judgment 17.7.2007 [Section II]

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Access to court

Discontinuance of civil action as a result of failure of impecunious claimants to pay court fees after they were refused legal aid on the grounds that they had obtained legal representation under a contingency-fee arrangement: v iolation

Article 41

Indication of most appropriate form of redress (finding of a breach of Article 6 § 1): annulment of court decision to discontinue proceedings for non-payment of its fees and resumption of the proceedings

Facts : The applicants brought an action in medical negligence against a hospital authority in respect of injuries sustained by their baby daughter. Although they provided evidence that they did not have the means to pay the costs of the proceedings, the administrative court dismissed the ir application for legal aid on the ground that they already had legal representation under a contingency-fee arrangement. It subsequently discontinued the proceedings when they failed to pay the court fees of approximately EUR 500. That decision was uphel d on appeal.

Law : The reason that had been given by the administrative court for refusing legal aid was wholly insufficient. While it was true that the applicants had hired a lawyer to pursue the compensation proceedings, he had explained to the domestic c ourts that he had not received any payment, but had agreed to accept a certain percentage of any compensation received at the end of the proceedings. Consequently, the requirement for the applicants, who had no source of income, to pay court fees amounting to more than four times the monthly minimum wage at the time could not be considered a proportionate restriction on their right of access to a court.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 41 – The Court reiterated that the most appropriate form of redress for a violation of Article 6 § 1 would be to ensure that the applicants, as far as possible, were put in the position in which they would have been had that provision not been disr egarded. In the instant case, this would entail annulling or otherwise setting aside the decision to discontinue the proceedings and restarting the proceedings in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 § 1, if the applicants so requested. The Court also awarded the applicants EUR 10,000 for non-pecuniary damage.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-La w Information Notes