[PDF] [PDF] The Right to a Fair Trial and the Council of Europes - EJTN Website

[PDF] Guide on Article 6 - European Court of Human Rights - Council of

31 déc 2020 · “1 In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing 

[PDF] Guide on Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (civil limb) - European Court of

31 août 2020 · “1 In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing 

[PDF] EU Charter of Rights and ECHR: The Right to a Fair Trial - EJTN

EU Charter – Article 47 Right to effective remedy fair trial • Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right  

[PDF] RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL IN CRIMINAL MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE

One could almost draft a code of criminal procedure on the basis of the E C H R case-law The text of Article 6 reads: 1 In the determination of his civil rights and

[PDF] FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND THE RIGHT TO REPUTATION

a fair trial as recognized in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights 12 However, in Wynen v Belgium, the ECtHR defused the conflict by holding 

[PDF] The Right to a Fair Trial and the Council of Europes - EJTN Website

Human Rights (hereinafter the 'Court') that judicial proceedings before their domestic courts have taken too much time and thereby violate Article 6 of the ECHR 

[PDF] Competition law proceedings before the - College of Europe

A thorough analysis of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights ("the ECtHR") shows Article 6 ECHR ("Right to a fair trial") reads as follows: "1

[PDF] article 6 echr text

[PDF] article 7 human rights act 1998

[PDF] article 74 of the french constitution

[PDF] article 8 echr 1998

[PDF] article 8 echr and gdpr

[PDF] article 8 echr and gdpr

[PDF] article 8 echr citation

[PDF] article 8 echr human rights act

[PDF] article 8 echr legislation

[PDF] article 8 echr oscola

[PDF] article 8 echr reference

[PDF] article 8 human rights act immigration

[PDF] article 8 of the constitution

[PDF] article 81

[PDF] assembly language tutorial 8086

HumanRights LawReview 13:4?TheA uthor[2013 ].PublishedbyOxfordU niversityPre ss . Allr ightsreserved.F orPermissions,ple asee mail:journals.permissions @oup.com

TheRighttoaFairTrialandthe

CouncilofEuropes Effortsto

EnsureEffectiveRemediesona

DomesticLevel forExcessive ly

LengthyProceedings

MartinKuij er*

Keywords:rightto af ai rtrial^exc essivelen gt hofproceedings^r ight toa reme dy^Counci lo fEurope

1.I ntroduction

Everyyearhu ndreds ofapplicantscompla inbe foretheEuropeanCour tof domesticcourts havetakentoo muchtimeand therebyviolate Article 6o f withinareason abl etimebyanindepe ndentand impa rtial tribunalestab- lishedbylaw .T hissingl eissuesti llaccountsformor ejudgmentsof the Courttha nanyother. Itiscle arwhyspee dyjud icialp roceedingsare denied"isa max imthatiso ftenus edin thisregard.If societys eest hatjudi- cialse ttlementofdisputesf unction stooslow,itwillloseit sconfidencein thejud icialinstit utions.Evenmoreimportant ly,slowadmi nistra tionofjust- icew illunderm inetheconfidenceso ciet yhasinthepeacefulsettlementof disputes.Incorpor atel itigation,partiestoprocee dingsneedtoreceive legal certaintywithinarea sonableperiodo ft imeoritwilla ffecteconom ic *ProfessorofHumanR ightsLa wattheVUU niversit yAmsterda mands enior advi seronhuman rightsto theNe therland sMinisterofSec urityandJustice.Inthe latte rcapacityhe participatesinmeeti ngso ftheSteeringCommitte efor Human Rightsandisinv olvedinthe representationoftheNet herlands gover nmentbeforetheEurop eanCourtofHumanRights . Thisar ticlereflects hispersonalviews(m .kuijer@ gmail.com).

HumanRight sLawRevie w13:4(2013),777^794

by guest on December 5, 2013http://hrlr.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from activitiesandthewi llin gness ofcorporationstomakefin ancial investments. Inc ivillitigat ion,suchascustodyis sues, therei sagreatpersonal interest toha veaspe edy outcomeoftheproce edings,a lsob ecause lapseoftime mays trengthende factosituationswhichmayn otbei nconf ormit ywith de jureentitlements.Inadminist rativ elaw,onemayrefertotheundesirability ofp rolongeduncerta intyforasylumseekers .Thedet errenceprovid edbythe criminallawwillon lybee ffectivei fsoc iety seesthatperpetra tors aresen- tencedwithi nareasonableti me, whereasinnocent suspects undeniably haveah uge interes tinthespeedydete rmin ationo ftheirinnocenc e.Much morec anbesa idabout theunderlying inte rests thatArticle6se eksto protect,butthatis not theaimo fthi sart icle. Thisart iclefocusesont heCouncilofEurope" sac tiviti esinitsfightagain st thisphenome non.First,the historicalbackground ofth ispartofthe Strasbourgcase-laww illbesketched. Thearticle will thenbrieflylookat thes ubstantivecase-lawoft heEuropeanCourt ofHu manRight sunderthe headingofAr ticle 6oftheConvention :whe nist hedura tionofdomestic proceedingsdeemedunr easonablylongandwh atkindofcompensationwi ll bea ffordedbytheStras bou rgCou rt?Thesecondpartofthi sarticlef ocus es on arel atedissue:wh atkindofremed iesshould beavai lable atthedomestic levelin ordert oavoids uchcompl aints?Att ention willbepaidtotheCour t"s case-lawundert heheadingof Artic le13oftheEC HR(t herighttoaneffective remedy),butal soto theworkoft heEurop eanC ommiss ionfor theEf ficiency ofJ ustice(CEPEJ) ,theCouncilofEurope"s Venic eCommissiona ndtherep orts oft heSteer ingCommitteef orHumanRights(CDDH).L astly,i nspiration will bed rawnfromstate pract iceinvariou sEuropeancountr ies.

2.The His toricalOriginoftheC ourtsCaseLa w

The' reasonabletime"require mentlaiddow ninArticle6ofthe ECHRdi d notre ceivemuchatte ntioni ntheearlyyearsoftheS tras bourg mechanis m, butt hefew earlycas esestabl ishedsomefunda mentalprinciples. 1 Cases concerningexcessiv elylengthyproceedings becamemuchmorecom monin the1 990s.On30April 1993 ,atel evisionpro grammewasshow non Italian televisionwhichin formedt hepublicaboutseveralde ficie nciesint heIta lian administrationofjustice,includ ingt helengthydura tionofjudicialproceed- ings.The journ alistsalsoinformedthep ublicthatfi nancialcompensat ion couldbe obtained inStrasbou rgwhe ncaseshadtakentoolong. Thebroad cast

1 See,fore xample,NeumeistervAust ria A 8( 1968);1EHRR9 1a tparas20^ 21;Ringeisenv

AustriaA 13(1 971);1EHRR455a tpa ra110;and Ko"nigv Ge rmanyA 27(197 8);2EHRR17 0 atpa ra99.778HRLR13(2013),777^79 4 by guest on December 5, 2013http://hrlr.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from triggeredavery sub stantialin flowofcomplaintstothet henEuropea n CommissionofHumanR ights.T hecomplaint sweresonu meroustha tthe Commissioncreatedas pecialsub-cha mbe rforhandlingthes ecases. 2 Initially,onlyarelat ivelysma ll numberofcas esrelating tothelengtho f proceedingswasbroughtbe foretheC ourt.On cetheCourtha destab lished appropriateprinciples initscase-law,mostc ases werefac tuallydealtwith by theCo mmission.However,theCom missionwasnotco mpete nttoadopt afinaldecision(onlyjud gmentso ftheCourtbeingbind ing). The Commissioncouldmerelya doptaso -calle d'Article 31 report"andtransmitits opiniononthe mer itsof thecaseto theCo mmitt eeofMini ster s.The Commissionwouldnotus eitspowe rtot ransmit theca setotheCou rtsi nce thel egalissue sunderConven tionlawwerepret tystraightforwa rd.In pract ice, theC ommitteeofMiniste rswou ldasktheCommissiontoma keaconcret e proposalastothe approp riate amoun tofcompensation,anda doptthe Commission"sproposalasit sown.Originally ,thi swas donebya're commenda- tion"to theSta tebyt heCommitte eo fMin isters.However,theItal ianMi nister ofFi nancethendec laredthat hedidnotconsider himself co mpetent to pay suchc ompensationonthebasisofno n-bi ndingre commendations .Thi sin turnled toarefer ralo fa llthesecasest otheC ourt.As theCourtwa sinun- datedwith 'Italianle ngthofproc eedings"cases( atones tage,theItalian lengthofproc eedi ngscaseswereresponsiblefo rtwenty-fivep erce ntofthe totalwo rkloadoftheCou rt), theCo mmitteeofMini ster schangeditspolicy ands tartedtoissuebi ndingd ecisionsin casescom ingtoitfromthe Commission.Followingtha tdecision,the Commission resumeditsoldroutine andd ealtwiththe overwhelm ingm ajorityofthesecasesits elfuntilthe Conventionmechanism waschangedin19 98followi ngtheentryin tofo rceof

ProtocolNo11 .

Withthe entr yintoforce ofthatProto col,theCommi ssionc easedt oexist andt heCour tbecameaf ulltimeinst itut ionthatnowhadt odealw ithall theIta liancases itself.ThenewC ourttookarevolut ionary step ;itheldthat thes ystemicdelaysinthe Italianjudicial system const itutedana dministr a- tivepr acticethatwasinc ompatiblewit htheConv ention.Thissyste mictardi - nesswa spronounce dinacasecall edFerrari. 3

Thec onsequenceofthis

findingwastha ttheburden ofproof wasrev ersed: theCou rtwouldwork on theas sumptionthattheConve ntionhadbe enbreache dunlesstheState ina giv encasechal lengedthat presumption.TheItal iansintroduce danew lawt hatwoulde nablevic timsofthese violationsoftheCon vent ionto obtainco mpensationdomesticallyfo runduelengthofproceeding s. Unfortunately,thisdidnotmea ntheendoft heItalianc ases beforet he

2 SeeLaws onandSchermers, LeadingCasesoft heEuropea nC ourtofH umanRights, 2nded n

(Nijmegen:Ars AequiLib ri,1997) .

3Ferraria.o.vItalyApplicationNo33 440/ 96,Merits,28July1999, atpara6.Effectiveremedies onadomesticlevel forex ce ssivelylengthyp roceed ings779

by guest on December 5, 2013http://hrlr.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from Court.Newl egaliss ueswerebroug htbeforetheCou rtconce rningthe amountofc ompen sationoffereddomestical lyandthefactthatt hecompen- sationproce edingsthemselveswereta kingtoolong. Lookingatthe2 012A nnual Reportof theCourt,however ,itisclearthat lengthofproc eedi ngscasesarenotsolelyan Italianproblem. 4

In2 012most

judgmentsonthisi ss uewereagain stTurkey( 51)followe dbyGreece(35), Ukraine(31), Bulgaria(17),P ortugal(1 7),Russia(1 6)andItaly(16).Anothe r notablestat isticisthattwenty -fivep ercent ofthetotalnumberofCou rtjudg- mentst illrelatetol engthofp roceed ingscases.

3.The Sub stantiveCaseLawoftheCourt underA rticle6

of theCo nvention:WhenDoestheLeng thofDomes tic

ProceedingsViolatetheCo nvention ?

Thec aselawunde rArt icle6ofthe Conventionisrat her stra ightf orward. Thef irststepis todeterm inethe perio dtobetakenintocons ider ation, whilethes econds tepistod eterminew hether thatp eriodcanbequalifie d as 'reasonable".

A.T hePeriodto BeTake ni ntoConsideration

Inc riminalmatters,in ordertoassesswhet herthe 'reasonable time" require- mentcon tainedinArticle 6hasb eencompliedwith ,one mustbeg inbyascer - tainingthemomen tape rsonwas 'cha rged". 5

Thismayha veoc curredon a

datepr iortotheca seco mingb eforethetr ialcourt,sucha sthedateof thea rrest,thedatewhen thepe rsonconce rnedw asof ficiallynotifi edthat he wouldbep rosecute d,orthedatewhenthep relimi nary invest igation s wereop ened.Whilst'charge",forthe purposesofArtic le6,may ingene ralbe definedas'the offic ialnotif icationgiventoan individualbythecompeten t authorityofana llega tionth athehascommitteda criminal of fenc e",itmayin somein stancestaketheformo fothermea sures whichcarryt heimplic ation ofs uchana llegat ionandwhichlikewis esubs tantia llyaffectthesituation ofth esus pect.Incivilandadmi nist rativecas esth etimetobetakenintocon- siderationstartsrunningwith theinsti tution ofpro ceedin gs.However,there isa tre ndinthec asela wtomo vethedies aquof orwa rd. 6

TheCo urtwillexam-

inet heleng thofprocee dingson lyfromthedatethattheContrac tingSt ate

4 Tableofviola tionsby Articleandbyc ountry,istobefou ndonthe Cou rt"swebsiteat:www.

echr.coe.int[lastaccessed 16Sept ember2013].

5EcklevGe rm anyA-51(198 2)atpara73 ;and Fotian dOthersv ItalyA56(1982)atpara52.

6SchoutenandMe ldrumvThe Netherlands A 304(19 94);19EHRR432,inwhich theCourtto ok

theda tethepe rsonappl iedforan administrat ivedeci sionin ordertostartjudicial780HRLR13(2013),777^79 4

by guest on December 5, 2013http://hrlr.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from ratifiedtheConven tionbuta lsotakesintoaccou nt thestateand progressof the caseatt hatdat e. 7 Timece asestorunwhent heproce edingshav ebee nconc ludedatthe highestpos sibleinstance,when thedeterminationb ecomesf inal andthe judgmenthasbee nexec uted.Inc ivilcasestheperiod mayt hereforecon- tinueaft erthefinalju dgmen tofacourt,t hatis,duringsubs equen tp roceed- ingsf ortheexe cutiono fthatjudgment. 8

Likewise,proceeding sbeforea

constitutionalcourtmaybei ncludedint heper iodto betakenintoacc ount. 9 However,thestay indo mesticpr ocee dingsasaresu ltofarequestforapre- liminaryrulingo ftheCourtofJus ticeo ftheE uropeanUnion isnot taken intocons iderationbytheCourtwhendete rm ining thedurationo fthe domesticproceed ings. 10

B.Rea sonablenessoftheLengthof th eProce edings

Thene xtstep istodete rmine whethert hegivenlengthofthed omestic proceedingsmaybequali fied as'rea sonable".Nosettimel imits havebeenlaid downin theCou rt"s caselaw.Inste ad,theCour tfocus esonseveralcriteria: (i)the comple xityofthecase;(i i)the behaviou roftheapplican t;(iii)t hebeha v- iouro fthen ationa l(judicial)authorit ies;and(iv)whet herthereisareason forsp ecialdiligence. (i)Co mplexityofthecase Allas pectsofthecasea rerelev anti nassessi ngwhet heritiscomplex. Thec omplexitymayconcern quest ionsoffactaswella slegalissues.I nthe Court"scasela w'complexit y"ca nbe(amongotherfactors)due to:(i) the natureofthe facts thata retobeesta blished, (ii) thenu mbero faccusedpersons andw itnesses,(iii)inte rnationaleleme nts,(iv)thejoinderofthecase toother cases,(v)the interv ention ofotherpersonsintheprocedure .Amore complex casemay justifylonge rproceedings. 11

However,evenin veryco mplexc ases

unreasonabledelayscan occur. 12

1994,inwhich thedat etha tape rsonsubmit tedarequestf or financialcomp ensationtothe

administrativeauthoritywascons ideredthedies aquo.

7ProszakvPoland 1997-VIIIatpara s30^ 31.

8GuinchovPortugal A81(1984).

9Su"?mannv Ge rmanyApplicationNo200 24/9 2,Merits,16Septembe r1996.

10PafitisvGreece ApplicationNo20 323/ 92,Merits,26February1 998.

11S ee,forexa mple,BoddaertvBel giumA 235-D(1992);2EHRR242,inwh icha periodof

sixyear sandthre emonth swasnotcon sideredu nreasonabl ebythe Courtsinceitconcerned a difficultmurderenqui ryandthe parallelprogression oftw ocas es.

12FerantelliandSantangelo vIta ly1996-III;23EHRR28 8(conc erningamur dertria lthattook

16yea rs).Effectiveremedies onadomesticlevel forex ce ssivelylengthyp roceed ings781

by guest on December 5, 2013http://hrlr.oxfordjournals.org/Downloaded from (ii)Conduct oftheappl icant TheC ourtwille xaminetowha textenttheap plican thimsel fisresponsible force rtainperiodsof delay.However,a napplic antcannotbe blamedforusing allthe procedu ralavenuesthatare availabletohi m.Anappl icant isnot requiredtoco -oper ateactivelyinexpediting theproceedi ngsthat mightlead Spain 13 thattheap plican t"sdutyisonlyto'showd iligencei ncar ryin goutthe proceduralstepsrelev anttohim,t orefrainfromusing delayi ngtacticsand toa vailhimself ofthescopeaffo rdedbyd omest iclawforsho rteningthe proceedings". (iii)Conducto fthedome stic(j udicial )authorities Thereres tsaspecia ldu tyuponthedomestic courtto ensu retha tallthose who playarole in the procee dingsd otheirutmosttoavoi dany unnecessa ry delay.Intha tsen se,theE uropeanCourtex pect saproactiveattitude from thejudge . 14 LookingattheCou rt"s case law,delaysthatha vebeenat tributed tot heState include,in civilcase s,the adjournmen tofproceedings pendi ng theou tcomeofanothe rcas e,delayinthec onductoftheheari ngbythe courtori nthep rese ntation orproductionofevidencebytheSta te,o rdelays by thecou rtregistr yorotheradminist rativ eauthorit ies.Incriminalcases, theyinclud ethetra nsfe rofcasesbetweencou rts, thehearingofc asesquotesdbs_dbs14.pdfusesText_20