The Bar association assigned a legal-aid lawyer for the case who found that by the time he was put on the case the time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal had expired. He further informed the court that he sees no legal ground on which he could draft a cassation appeal. However, although he was out of the time-limit, according to the case-law developed by the Supreme Administrative Court where a legal-aid lawyer was appointed after the time-limit for lodging the cassation appeal had expired, the administrative courts grant leave for submitting a cassation appeal out of time; this leading the ECHR to note that access to court was denied not because of lack of time but because the lawyer refused to lodge the cassation appeal.
The Court observed that by not indicating any “case-law addressing situations where (..) the legal aid-lawyer refuses to lodge a cassation appeal” a situation of legal uncertainty is produced for legally aided-applicants. It concluded that “this uncertainty is sufficient for a finding of a violation of the applicant’s right to access to court on account of the absence of clear rules governing the consequences of the legal-aid lawyer’s refusal occurring after the deadline for lodging a cassation appeal had already expired.