The ECHR memorandum suggests that a claim to recover fees would not meet this test, because its legal basis would be too uncertain.179 The Government argues that the relevant case law180 only covers claims wrongly levied by the State, and that it is open to question whether it would apply to claims against third party contractors. This seems doubtful, given that subsequent case law has established that the same principle applies to 176 European Convention on Human Rights Memorandum to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill [HL Bill 101 (2024–25)], para 188 177 House of Lords Debate 11 November 2024, vol 842, col 1455 178 Kopecky v Slovakia [GC], Application No. 44912/98, 28 September 2004, para 52 179 European Convention on Human Rights Memorandum to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill [HL Bill 101 (2024–25), para.189 180 R v Commissioners of Inland Revenue ex p Woolwich Equitable Building Society [1990] 1 WLR 1400 50 transactions which are not purely private (where the fee is agreed as part of a normal contractual bargain) but have a public character (where the fee is the compulsory cost of a public service).181