6.  The applicant company is registered under Peruvian Law and is based in Lima. 7.  The applicant company exported organic bananas to Europe. In 2001/2002 it concluded a commission contract with two German companies, agreeing that all legal disputes would be brought before the courts in Hamburg. The contract also included a clause that legal disputes be settled by an arbitration tribunal in Hamburg. 8.  On 31 December 2005 the applicant company requested legal aid to bring a civil action before the Hamburg Regional Court (Landgericht) against the two German companies for breach of the commission contract, submitting that the applicant company and its shareholder were insolvent and could thus not afford an advance payment of the court fees. 9.  On 4 January 2006 the Hamburg Regional Court dismissed the request for legal aid. It held that, according to section 116 (2) of the German Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung, see Relevant domestic law, below), only legal persons founded or based in one of the member States of the European Union or the European Economic Area were entitled to legal aid. 10.  On 17 January 2006 the Regional Court rejected an objection by the applicant company. It held that section 116 of the German Code of Civil Procedure exhaustively determined which legal persons were entitled to receive legal aid, and it was not for the court to extend this provision to include companies based outside Europe. Germany was not obliged to enable all legal persons in the world to benefit from legal aid. 11.  On 23 January 2006 the Hanseatic Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) confirmed the Regional Court’s decisions. It added that the interference with the applicant company’s right of access to a court was justified. The restriction imposed on the applicant’s right of access to a court was justified by the principle of reciprocity: if equal treatment was codified under constitutional law, there would be no incentive for foreign States to provide German legal persons with the same legal standard. The court also held that, even if the applicant company were to be put on a par with a domestic legal person, the non-litigation of the applicant company’s case did not run counter to the general interest. Relying on a ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court of 3 July 1973 (no. 1 BvR 153/69, report BVerfGE 35, 356), it considered in this regard that even a domestic legal entity retained its right to exist under the legal order only if it was able to pursue its objectives by virtue of its own strength and means. 12.  On 25 October 2006 the Federal Constitutional Court refused to admit the applicant company’s constitutional complaint. This decision was served on the applicant company on 2 November 2006.