CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 10 janvier 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 38 January 2002 Renda Martins v. Portugal (dec.) - 50085/99 Decision 10.1.2002 [Section III] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Suspension of proceedings due to party’s failure to appoint a lawyer after being granted legal aid: inadmissible Following an accident at work the applicant made an application for legal aid and requested that he be assigned a lawyer to bring an action in damages against his former employer. After being granted legal aid he asked to the Bar Council to assign a lawyer to represent him. Over a period of almost two years four lawyers were assigned to him in turn but each asked to be released from acting. Eventually, the fifth lawyer assigned to represent him issued a civil action, but then declined to act further. Subsequently, after a seventh lawyer had asked to be released from acting for the applicant the President of the Bar Council informed the judge that the reasons given by the assigned lawyers for seeking a release had “primarily” been the applicant’s failure to cooperate and his obvious mental problems. One of the lawyers had complained of insulting and physically aggressive behaviour. The president said in conclusion that he would not assign any other lawyer to represent the applicant. The judge then invited the applicant to instruct a lawyer of his choice. Subsequently, noting that the applicant had not done so, he ordered a stay of the proceedings. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: the State had afforded the applicant the right to assistance by a lawyer through the intermediary of the Bar Council. The decision to stay the proceedings issued by the applicant had been taken “primarily” because the applicant had been uncooperative and had not managed to find a lawyer prepared to represent him in the proceedings. Therefore, that decision had not been arbitrary. Above all, the applicant was still in a position to pursue the proceedings if he found a lawyer ready to represent him and had been granted legal aid by the State for that purpose. Further, the applicant could not complain of the length of the proceedings, the main reason for the delays being his failure to cooperate with the lawyers who had been assigned to him under the legal-aid scheme from which he had benefited: 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