Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 41338/06

This is particularly so as regards the right of access to court in view of the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial (see Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, § 24, Series A no. 32; Bertuzzi v. France, no. 36378/97, § 24, ECHR 2003-III).

Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 41338/06

In the first place, as regards what was at stake for the applicant, it is true that, in contrast to certain earlier cases where the Court has found legal assistance to have been necessary for a fair hearing, the proceedings in issue here were not determinative for the applicant's future family rights and relationships (see Airey, cited above, and P., C. and S. v. the United Kingdom, no. 56547/00, ECHR 2002-VI).

Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 41338/06

The Court further recalls that, despite the absence of a provision similar to Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention in the context of civil litigation, Article 6 § 1 may sometimes compel the State to provide for the assistance of a lawyer when such assistance proves indispensable for effective access to court, either because legal representation is rendered compulsory, or by reason of the complexity of the procedure or of the case (see McVicar v. the United Kingdom, no. 46311/99, § 47, ECHR 2002-III; Laskowska v. Poland, no. 77765/01, § 51, 13 March 2007).

Auszug aus EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 41338/06

For the Government, contrary to the facts in Steel and Morris (Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 63, ECHR 2005-II), not only had the proceedings in the present case been much simpler, but the procedural status of the applicant had also been different, in that the applicant, who had herself initiated court proceedings for redress, had not been a defendant but rather a claimant.