Chapter ii  Rights of Access to Justice and Equality in the Administration of Justice 45 could effectively present her own case.147 However, the Court rejected that this would imply that the State must provide free legal aid for every dispute relating to a “civil right”. Effective access might be secured in other ways, such as a simplification of procedures. 148 Another financial obstacle to the right of access to court is the imposition of fees as a precondition to lodge a complaint or as a consequence of appealing against a verdict. The Human Rights Committee has held that the imposition of fees on the parties to proceedings that would de facto prevent their access to justice might give rise to issues under Article 14(1) of ICCPR. In particular, a rigid duty under law to award costs to a winning party without consideration of the implications thereof or without providing legal aid may have a deterrent effect on the ability of persons to pursue the vindication of their rights.149 In Äärelä and Näkkäläjärvi v Finland, the Human Rights Committee concluded that the imposition by the Court of Appeal of a uniform and substantial costs award, without the discretion to consider its implications for the particular authors or its effect on the access to court of other similarly situated claimants, constituted a violation of the authors’ rights under Article 14(1), in conjunction with Article 2 of the ICCPR (concerning the right to effective remedies).150 The Human Rights Committee has noted, however, that the right of access is not absolute and that it is permissible to impose reasonable fees, or deposits, where this is rationally linked to ensuring the proper administration of justice.151 Fees must be reasonable, however, and an excessive level of court fees has been treated by the European Court of Human Rights as amounting to a disproportionate restriction on the right to access to a court.152 In determining whether or not a person has enjoyed her/his right of access to a court – or whether, on account of the amount of fees payable, the very essence of the right of access to a court has been impaired – the European Court of Human Rights has said that the amount of the fees ought to be considered in light of the particular circumstances of a given case, including the applicant’s ability to pay them and the phase of the proceedings at which the fees are imposed.153 In Weissman and Others v Romania, the European Court found to be disproportionate a stamp duty of EUR 323,264 for lodging a claim of lost 147 Airey v Ireland [1979] ECHR 3, paras 24–25. 148 Airey v Ireland [1979] ECHR 3, para 26. 149 UN Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment 32 (2007), para 11; Lindon v Australia, HRC Communication 646/1995, UN Doc CCPR/C/64/D/646/1995 (1998), para 6.4. See also Sankara et al. v  Burkina Faso, HRC Communication 1159/2003, UN Doc CCPR/C/86/D/1159/2003 (2006) concerning a failure on the part of a court registrar to advise the author of the requirement to deposit a security, resulting in a dismissal of the appeal by the court (para 12.5). 150 Äärelä and Näkkäläjärvi v Finland, HRC Communication 779/1997, UN Doc CCPR/C/73/D/779/1997 (2001), para 7.2. 151 Casanovas v France, HRC Communication 1514/2006, UN Doc CCPR/C/94/D/1514/2006 (2008), para 11.3. 152 Kreuz v Poland [2001] ECHR 398, paras 59, 60. 153 Weissman and Others v Romania [2006] ECHR, para 37. See also: Tolstoy Miloslavsky v the United Kingdom [1995] ECHR 25, para 63–67; Kreuz v Poland [2001] ECHR 398, para 60; Teltronic­-CATV v Poland [2006] ECHR 21, para 48.