44 Legal Digest of International Fair Trial Rights proceedings directly and independently of any union membership, and thus found a violation of Article 6(1) of the ECHR.141 Concerning a different set of facts, in Lithgow v the United Kingdom, the European Court held that the limitation on a direct right of access for every individual shareholder, in the context of a large-scale nationalization measure, pursued a legitimate aim, namely the desire to avoid a multiplicity of claims and proceedings brought by individual shareholders. Also, having regard to the powers and duties of the shareholders’ representative (who had the right to act on behalf of shareholders collectively), and to the Government’s margin of appreciation, the European Court took the view that there was a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and this aim.142 Access to courts and tribunals must also be equal as between prosecution and defence. In Weiss v Austria, for example, an author’s inability to appeal an adverse judgment of the Upper Regional Court, in circumstances where the prosecutor could, was found by the Human Rights Committee to be a violation of Article 14(1) on the basis that the parties had not been treated equally before the courts.143 This is a matter relevant to the right of access to appeal against one’s conviction and sentence (See also 10.1). 2.1.3 Practical obstacles to access to courts and tribunals In Steel and Morris v the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights recalled that the ECHR is intended to guarantee practical and effective rights, particularly in the context of the right of access to court, due to the prominent place that the right to a fair trial holds in a democratic society.144 The Human Rights Committee has similarly taken the view that access to the courts must not only be guaranteed by the law, but must also not be frustrated through systemic or repeated obstacles, stating that: “A situation in which an individual’s attempts to access the competent courts or tribunals are systematically frustrated… de facto runs counter to the guarantee of article 14 of the ICCPR.”145 The availability of legal assistance will often impact on the ability of persons to access relevant proceedings, or to participate in them in a meaningful way.146 This is an issue that impacts on the question of legal aid (See also 6.6.7). In Airey v Ireland, the European Court found a violation of the right to effective access to a court due to the refusal of legal aid in a separation proceeding. Despite the possibility for Mrs. Airey to represent herself in person, the European Court of Human Rights considered it improbable that a person in Mrs. Airey’s position 141 Philis v Greece [1991] ECHR 38, para 65. 142 Lithgow and Others v the United Kingdom [1986] ECHR 8, para 197. 143 Weiss v Austria, HRC Communication 1086/2002, UN Doc CCPR/C/77/D/1086/2002 (2003), para 9.6. See also Dudko v Australia, HRC Communication 1347/2005, UN Doc CCPR/C/90/D/1347/2005 (2007), para 7.4. 144 Steel and Morris v the United Kingdom [2005] ECHR 103, para 59. See also Airey v Ireland [1979] ECHR 3, para 24. 145 UN Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment 32 (2007), para 9; and Oló Bahamonde v Equatorial Guinea, HRC Communication 468/1991, UN Doc CCPR/C/49/D/468/1991 (1993), para 9.4. 146 UN Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment 32 (2007), para 10; Airey v Ireland [1979] ECHR 3, para 26.