The Court said,
38. The Court considers, accepting the views of the Commission and the alternative submission of the Government, that the right of access to the courts is not absolute. As this is a right which the Convention sets forth (see Articles 13, 14, 17 and 25) (art. 13, art. 14, art. 17, art. 25) without, in the narrower sense of the term, defining, there is room, apart from the bounds delimiting the very content of any right, for limitations permitted by implication. The first sentence of Article 2 of the Protocol (P1-2) of 20 March 1952, which is limited to providing that “no person shall be denied the right to education”, raises a comparable problem. In its judgment of 23 July 1968 on the merits of the case relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium, the Court ruled that:
“The right to education … by its very nature calls for regulation by the State, regulation which may vary in time and place according to the needs and resources of the community and of individuals. It goes without saying that such regulation must never injure the substance of the right to education nor conflict with other rights enshrined in the Convention.”
(Series A no. 6, p. 32, para. 5).
These considerations are all the more valid in regard to a right which, unlike the right to education, is not mentioned in express terms.
[Formatted for ease of reading. For material on how the ECHR itself deals with litigants who fail to engage with the process see Rules 43 [here] , and rules 44A-44E [here] of the ECHR rules of Court 14th November 2016.]