Although the applicant did not appeal against the fine, the Court, having regard to the violation found above (see paragraphs 83 and 84 above) and the principle of restitutio in integrum, finds in the circumstances that neither considerations concerning the directness of the causal link or the applicant's possibilities to mitigate losses, nor her possibilities of further domestic remedies against the fine viewed in isolation, alter the consideration that the fine should not have to be paid, or if it has been paid, should be reimbursed by the respondent Government (see, in comparison, as regards Article 6 of the Convention, Sace Elektrik Ticaret ve Sanayi A.S. v. Turkey, no. 20577/05, § 39, 22 October 2013).

The Court further notes that despite the absence of a consensus, or even a consolidated tendency among the States Parties to the Convention, as regards the granting of legal aid to legal persons, it has applied the same principles on the right of access to a court without making a distinction between natural and legal persons (see, for example, for the application of those principles to legal persons, Teltronic-CATV v. Poland, no. 48140/99, §§ 45-49, 10 January 2006; FC Mretebi, cited above, §§ 39-41; Agromodel OOD and Mironov v. Bulgaria, no. 68334/01, §§ 34-37, 24 September 2009; and, mutatis mutandis, Sace Elektrik Ticaret ve Sanayi A.S. v. Turkey, no. 20577/05, § 28, 22 October 2013).

Having regard to the relevant legislation and the case-law of the domestic courts at the time of the exercise of the appeal and the applicant's relevant arguments including those relating to her right to withdraw the appeal and the adjournments attributed to the court itself, did the pecuniary sanction pursue a legitimate aim and was there a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the legitimate aim sought to be achieved considering that it was imposed on the grounds that the appeal had become manifestly inadmissible and that the applicant's behaviour was contradictory (see also Sace Elektrik Ticaret ve Sanayi A.S. v. Turkey, no. 20577/05, 22 October 2013)?.