European Court of Human Rights - case of Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom (1995) (excerpts)

European Court of Human Rights - case of Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom (1995) (excerpts)

(...)

61. The Court considers that the security for costs order clearly

pursued a legitimate aim, namely to protect Lord Aldington from being

faced with an irrecoverable bill for legal costs if the applicant were

unsuccessful in the appeal. This was not disputed. Further, since

regard was also had to the lack of prospects of success of the

applicant's appeal, the requirement could also, as argued by the

Government, be said to have been imposed in the interests of a fair

administration of justice (see paragraph 17 above).