Chapter ii  Rights of Access to Justice and Equality in the Administration of Justice 49 checklist: Rights of access and equality in the administration of justice 1. In the monitored case, were there any statutory restrictions imposed on the ability of a party to bring a claim to court? a. What kind of restrictions (substantive or procedural) were imposed on bringing a specific case for examination before the courts? b. Did these restrictions pursue a legitimate aim? (If the restrictions are based on the person’s race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, such restrictions will not be treated as pursuing a legitimate aim.) c. Did a relationship of proportionality exist between the restriction imposed in the specific case and the aims sought to be achieved by the restriction on access to a court? d. Did the bar restrict the access left to the individual in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right was impaired? Please provide details. 2. In the monitored case, were there any practical obstacles to a person’s access to courts or tribunals? This might include, for example, lack of legal aid, excessive costs and fees imposed by the courts, lack of information regarding the place and time of hearing, the location of the court and whether it is accessible to the public, or a lack of reasonable facilities to allow access by disabled persons. a. Did the party or the legal counsel officially complain about the obstacle? b. Was the complaint dealt with by the judicial authority? c. Did the judicial authority (including the law enforcement agencies and the court staff) take any action to overcome the practical obstacle in the specific case? How? 3. Are the parties to the proceedings treated equally, i.e., not in a way that discriminates against them based on their race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status? 4. Are the procedures applied to the case the same as would be applied in similar cases? If not, are there objective and reasonable grounds justifying the application of different procedures?