Key facts of the case:
The plaintiff initiated legal proceedings against the federal state of Berlin in order to receive compensation for the inadequate length of another lawsuit he had filed before. The Federal Finance Court advised him that his lawsuit for compensation was inadmissible because he was not represented by a lawyer although legal representation was necessary. The plaintiff argued that in a simple case such as the present one mandatory legal representation was not applicable. Instead, the court had to apply the regulations of original jurisdiction which does not dictate legal representation in all cases. Furthermore he argued that mandatory legal representation regulations violated Art. 6 (1) of the ECHR.
Margin number 13: “According to settled case-law of the Federal Finance Court, Section 62 (4) of the Financial Procedure Act does not lead to a violation of Art. 47 (2) of the Charter. Accordingly, every person has the possibility of being advised, defended, and represented. This regulation gives every individual the right to be legally represented in court. This right does not, however, hinder the member states to require mandatory representation before a specific court for reasons of procedural economy (see ruling of the Federal Finance Court of July 22nd 2010 V S 8/10, BFH/NV 2010, 2095 and BFH/NV 2012, 759).”