nach oben

Erschienen in:

2017 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

4. The Right to a Fair Trial in Civil Cases

verfasst von : Monique Hazelhorst

Erschienen in: Free Movement of Civil Judgments in the European Union and the Right to a Fair Trial

Verlag: T.M.C. Asser Press

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This chapter shows which requirements the right to a fair trial as protected by both the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and in the EU fundamental rights framework imposes on the civil trial. It specifically explores how the right to a fair trial informs the enforcement stage of the civil trial and what this means for a legal regime on cross-border recognition and enforcement. It presents the primary sources for the right to a fair trial in Europe: Article 6(1) of the ECHR and Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (EU CFR). The chapter then discusses in general terms how the right to a fair trial has been applied by the European courts. Next it discusses the elements of the right to a fair trial and how they apply to civil cases. The elements of the right to a fair trial are examined in turn and it is shown how the CJEU and European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) apply these elements in their case law. Finally this chapter attempts to understand the principles behind the fair civil trial. It is argued that the civil trial with its emphasis on equality between the parties and adversity and presided over by an independent and impartial judge serves a dual purpose: facilitating both a fair outcome and a fair process which respects the parties’ dignity.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Protection of Fundamental Rights by EU Instruments on Free Movement of Civil Judgments

Nächstes Kapitel Free Movement of Judgments and the European Convention on Human Rights

This chapter only discusses what an enforcement procedure should look like, based on the ECtHR’s and CJEU’s case law on the right to a fair trial. Whether the ECHR requires a form of cross-border judgment inspection at all is discussed in Chap. 5.

See 4.4.2.

See under 4.4.3.

The Convention’s territorial scope is wider than the European Union, as it applies in all countries that are members of the Council of Europe. Currently, the Council of Europe has 47 Member States, that are all Contracting Parties to the Convention. See http://echr.coe.int/en/web/human-rights-convention.

Rainey et al. (2014) p. 247; Janis et al. (2008) p. 719.

Harris et al. (2014) p. 370; Grotian (1994).

Rainey et al. (2014) p. 252. ‘Civil rights and obligations’ is an autonomous concept, though in König v. Germany the ECtHR ruled that a right’s classification under domestic law can be relevant: ECtHR König v. Germany, appl. no. 6232/73 ECHR A27, para 89.

ECtHR Benthem v. Netherlands, appl. no. 5548/80 ECHR A97.

ECtHR Van Marle v. The Netherlands, appl. nos. 8543/79 8674/79 8675/79 8685/79, ECHR A101.

ECtHR Kienast v. Austria, appl. no. 23379/94, 23 January 2003.

See also 2.3.1.1.

Article 1(1) Brussels Ibis Regulation.

Article 2(1) EEO Regulation; Article 2(1) EOP Regulation; Article 2(1) ESCP Regulation; Article 1(1) Brussels Ibis Regulation; Article 1(1) Brussels IIbis Regulation.

Section 2.2.1.1; CJEU Case 125/79 Denilauler v SNC Couchet Frères, ECLI:EU:C:1980:130.

See for example ECtHR Airey v. Ireland, appl. no. 6289/73 ECHR A32, on separation, and ECtHR Mizzi v. Malta, appl. no. 26111/02, ECHR 2006-I, on paternity.

The European Order for Payment (EOP) Procedure is in principle a one-sided procedure that does not require the appearance of the defendant (Sect. 2.3.7). It should nevertheless be considered as a ‘dispute’ within the scope of Article 6(1) ECHR, since the procedure clearly determines the civil rights and obligations of the claimant and defendant vis à vis each other. The ECtHR has ruled that a procedure cannot be regarded as a dispute when it is non-contentious and unilateral and does not involve opposing parties (ECtHR Alaverdyan v. Armenia (dec.), appl. no. 4523/04, 24 August 2010) but this is clearly not the case in an application for an EOP. That the presence of the defendant is not required to issue an EOP does not negate its status as a dispute.

E.g. ECtHR Guincho v. Portugal 8990/80 ECHR A81.

ECtHR Hornsby v. Greece, appl. no. 18357/91 ECHR 1997-II.

ECtHR McDonald v. France [dec.], appl. no. 18648/04, 29 April 2008.

ECtHR Saccoccia v. Austria, appl. no. 69917/01, 18 December 2008.

The status of the EU CFR in the wider EU fundamental rights framework is discussed in Sect. 6.2; the following concerns only Article 47.

Explanations relating to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, OJ C 303/17, 2007. These Explanations do not as such have the status of law, but they are a valuable tool of interpretation intended to clarify the provisions of the EU CFR.

ECtHR Airey v. Ireland.

Explanations to the EU CFR, p. 30.

Article 51(1) EU CFR; see for a discussion of its scope Sect. 6.2.2.

Explanations to the EU CFR, p. 33; Heringa and Verhey (2001) p. 17.

ECtHR Delcourt v. Belgium, appl. no. 2689/65 ECHR A11, para 25.

See for a discussion Sect. 7.2.3.2.

Gerards (2011) pp. 185–190; Legg (2012) p. 210.

ECtHR Handyside v. UK, appl. no. 5493/72 ECHR A24 para 48; see Sect. 6.2.3.

ECtHR Delcourt v. Belgium, appl. no. 2689/65 ECHR A11, para 25.

ECtHR Ashingdane v. UK, appl. no. 8225/78 ECHR A93.

See Sect. 4.3.2.7.

Harris et al. (2014) p. 371; ECtHR Schenk v. Switzerland, appl. no. 10862/84 ECHR A140; ECtHR De Cubber v. Belgium (merits), appl. no. 9186/80 ECHR A124-B, para 35.

ECtHR Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, appl. no. 10590/83 ECHR A146; ECtHR Kostovski v. The Netherlands (merits), appl. no. 11454/85 A166.

See under 4.3.2.2.

Mole and Harby (2006) p. 6.

Van Dijk and Viering (2006) p. 579; Smits (2008) p. 99.

Section 4.4 of this chapter explores whether it is possible to distinguish a ‘core’ and a ‘periphery’ within Article 6(1); Sect. 7.3.2.1 explores whether such a distinction may help determine when refusal of recognition or enforcement is an appropriate remedy.

There are different ways of presenting these aspects and the interrelations between them: for example, sometimes the right to a reasoned judgment is presented as part of the right to a fair hearing (e.g. Van Dijk and Viering (2006) p. 430) sometimes as an element in its own right (Leanza and Pridal 2014).

See under 4.3.2.3.

CJEU Case 294/83 Les Verts ECLI:EU:C:1986:166.

CJEU Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pecheur and Factortame ECLI:EU:C:1996:79.

CJEU Case C-279/09 DEB ECLI:EU:C:2010:811.

CJEU Case 77/83 CILFIT, ECLI:EU:C:1984:91.

CJEU Case C-135/92 Fiskano, ECLI:EU:C:1994:267; CJEU Case C-32/95 P Lisrestal, ECLI:EU:C:1996:402.

GC Case T-23/99 LR af, ECLI:EU:T:2002:75; Joined cases T-10/92, T-11/92, T-12/92 and T-15/92 Cimenteries CBR and others v. Commission ECLI:EU:T:1992:123.

CJEU Case 17–74 Transoceanic Marine Paint Association, ECLI:EU:C:1974:106; CJEU Joined Cases 46/87 and 227/88 Hoechst, ECLI:EU:C:1989:337; CJEU Case 107–76 Hoffman-la Roche, ECLI:EU:C:1977:89.

Famously, in Baustahlgewebe the CJEU for the first time ruled that the European Commission had failed to respect the reasonable time requirement and annulled the Commission decision in that case; CJEU Case 185/95 P Baustahlgewebe, ECLI:EU:C:1998:608.

CJEU Case C-199/11 Otis, ECLI:EU:C:2012:684, para 47.

Article 53 of the Charter provides that “nothing in the Charter shall be interpreted as restricting or adversely affecting human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognised […] by Union law’.

CJEU Case C 396/11 Ciprian Vasile Radu, ECLI:EU:C:2013:39; CJEU Case C 399/11 Stefano Melloni v. Ministerio Fiscal, ECLI:EU:C:2013:107.

See e.g. Kowalyk-Bańczyk (2015).

Case C-562/13 Centre public d'action sociale d'Ottignies-Louvain-La-Neuve v Moussa Abdida, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2453; CJEU Case C-249/13 Khaled Boudjlida v Préfet des Pyrénées-Atlantiques, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2431.

Cases C-402 and 415/05 P Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission ECLI:EU:C:2008:461 (Kadi I); Case T-85/09 Kadi v Commission and Council ECLI:EU:T:2010:418 (Kadi II) and Case C-584/10 Commission v Kadi ECLI:EU:C:2013:518 (Kadi II).

See for an overview Gattinara (2015).

Harris et al. (2014) p. 410.

It is however important to note that Article 6(1) itself does not, in principle, distinguish between civil and criminal cases, and that the elements of Article 6(1) therefore all apply to both types of proceedings, though their implementation may differ: see Rozakis (2004) p. 97.

ECtHR Golder v. UK, appl. no. 4451/70 ECHR A18. See Francioni (2007).

ECtHR Airey v, Ireland, supra note 14.

Other situations are imaginable, for example where the defendant was barred from participating due to excessive formality; see for example ECtHR Sergey Smirnov v. Russia, appl. no. 14085/04, in which the applicant was not allowed to bring a case because he could not provide a residential address, though he could provide a correspondence address.

ECtHR Steel and Morris v. UK, appl. no. 68416/01 ECHR 2005-II.

ECtHR Weissman v. Romania, appl. no. 63945/00 ECHR 2006-VII, para 37.

ECtHR Lawyers Partners A.S. v. Slovakia, appl. no. 54252/07 ECHR 2009.

ECtHR Lawyers Partners A.S. v. Slovakia, para 54.

CJEU Case C-294/83 Les Verts, ECLI:EU:C:1986:166.

CJEU Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pecheur and Factortame.

CJEU Case C-279/09 DEB, ECLI:EU:C:2010:811.

CJEU Case 77/83 CILFIT, ECLI:EU:C:1984:91.

ECtHR Dhahbi v. Italy, appl. no. 17120/09, 8 April, 2014, para 33.

ECtHR Ankerl v. Switzerland, appl. no. 17748/91 ECHR 1996-V para 38; Centro Europa 7 S.R.L. and Di Stefano v. Italy, appl. no. 38433/09 ECHR 2012 para 197; Harris et al. (2014) p. 409; Smits (2008) p. 99; Rainey et al. (2014) p. 263.

ECtHR Nideröst-Huber v. Switzerland, appl. no. 18990/91 ECHR 1997-I, para 30.

See the European Commission of Human Rights in, among others, X v. Belgium, appl. no. 7450/46, D.R. 9 p. 108; Bricmont v. Belgium, appl. no. 9938/82 D.R. 48 p. 28.

Van Dijk and Viering (2006) p. 578.

See under 4.3.2.4 and 4.3.2.5, respectively.

Smits (2008) p. 113; Van Dijk and Viering (2006) pp. 589–590. ECtHR Helmers v. Sweden, appl. no. 11826/85 ECHR A212-A; discussed below under 4.3.2.6.

See under 4.3.2.7.

ECtHR Poitromol v. France, appl. no. 14032/88 ECHR A277-A, para 34.

CJEU Case C-7/98 Dieter Krombach v André Bamberski ECLI:EU:C:2000:164, para 39.

ECtHR Kraska v. Switzerland, appl. no. 13942/88 ECHR A254-B (see Van Dijk pp. 578–9). See also Van der Hurk v. Netherlands, appl. no. 16034/90 ECHR A288 para 59; ECtHR Perez v. France, appl. no. 47287/99 ECHR 2004-I para 80; and ECtHR Dombo Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, appl. no. 14448/88 ECHR A274 para 33 in fine.

ECtHR Kerojärvi v. Finland, appl. no. 17506/90 ECHR A322 para 42; ECtHR Göç v. Turkey, appl. no. 36590/97 ECHR 2002-V para 57.

ECtHR H. v. Belgium, appl. no. 8950/80 ECHR A127-B para 53.

CJEU Case C-322-81 Michelin ECLI:EU:C:1983:313, building in turn on CJEU Case 17–74 Transoceanic Marine Paint Association ECLI:EU:C:1974:106 para 15.

CJEU Michelin, para 8.

Case C-7/98 Dieter Krombach v André Bamberski ECLI:EU:C:2000:164.

CJEU Case C-32/95 P Lisrestal ECLI:EU:C:1996:402; CJEU Case C-135/92 Fiskano ECLI:EU:C:1994:267.

CJEU Krombach v. Bamberski, para 42. See further Sect. 3.2.5.

CJEU Krombach v. Bamberski para 39.

CJEU Case C-394/07 Marco Gambazzi v. DaimlerChrysler Canada Inc. and CIBC Mellon Trust Company ECLI:EU:C:2009:219 para 47; see for a discussion Sect. 3.2.5.

Van Bochove (2009) p. 299.

For example a limitation of the right to appeal, as applied in ECtHR Eliazer v. The Netherlands, appl. no. 38055/97 ECHR 2001-X. See also Andrews (2011) pp. 41–42.

Andrews (2011) p. 41.

Though the Italian court did allow enforcement: Corte d’appello di Milano (court of appeal, Milan) Section I, 14 December 2010, reported at http://conflictoflaws.net/2011/gambazzi-looses-in-milan/ (last visited 27/01/2016).

See the discussion in Sect. 3.4.3.

Kuipers (2010) p. 44; Cuniberti (2010) p. 8. See Sect. 3.4.3.

See Sect. 4.3.2.3.

CJEU Case C-283/05 ASML Netherlands BV v Semiconductor Industry Services GmbH (SEMIS) ECLI:EU:C:2006:787, para 36. See Sect. 3.3.1.

Case C-619/10 Trade Agency Ltd v Seramico Investments Ltd ECLI:EU:C:2012:531.

CJEU Trade Agency Ltd v Seramico Investments, paras 26–46.

100

CJEU ASML v. SEMIS, para 24.

101

CJEU Case C-420/07 Apostolides v. Orams, ECLI:EU:C:2009:271, para 77.

102

CJEU Case C-78/95 Hendrikman and Feyen/ Magenta Druck & Verlag, ECLI:EU:C:1996:380. See Sect. 3.3.1.

103

CJEU Hendrikman, para 20.

104

Ibid., para 20.

105

CJEU Case C-123/91 Minalmet GmbH v Brandeis Ltd ECLI:EU:C:1992:432, para 20.

106

CJEU Case C-112/13 A v B and Others ECLI:EU:C:2014:2195, paras 55–58.

107

CJEU A v B and Others, para 60.

108

ECtHR Beer v. Austria, appl. no. 30428/96, 6 February 2001.

109

ECtHR Beer v. Austria, para 18; see also ECtHR Nideröst-Huber, para 29; and ECtHR Kenzie Global Limited Ltd. B. Republic of Moldova, appl. no. 287/07, para 18.

110

E.g. ECtHR Colozza v. Italy, appl. no. 9024/80 ECHR A89, para 28.

111

ECtHR Petroff v. Finland, appl. no. 31021/06, 3 November 2009 para 22.

112

ECtHR Dilipak and Karakaya v. Turkey, appl. nos. 7942/05 24838/05 ECHR 2014, para 83.

113

ECtHR Zavodnik v. Slovenia, appl. no. 36261/08 ECHR 2013, paras 79–81.

114

ECtHR Yakovlev v. Russia, appl. no. 72701/01, 15 March 2005.

115

ECtHR Godorozea v. Moldova, appl. no. 17023/05 ECHR 2009, para 31; Russu v. Moldova, appl. no. 7413/05, para 23–28; ECtHR Bucuria v. Moldova, appl. no. 10758/05, 5 January 2010, paras 22–24.

116

ECtHR F.C.B. v. Italy, appl. no. 12151/86 ECHR A208-B, para 33.

117

ECtHR Hennings v. Germany, appl. no. 12129/86 ECHR A251-A.

118

See for an interpretation of the right to effective service under this Regulation C-14/07 Ingenieurbüro Michael Weiss und Partner GbR v Industrie- und Handelskammer Berlin ECLI:EU:C:2008:264; CJEU Case C-443/03 Götz Leffler v Berlin Chemie AG ECLI:EU:C:2005:665 (the recipient of documents instituting proceedings may not refuse those documents because they are not in the language of the Member State addressed); CJEU Case C-473/04 Plumex v Young Sports NV ECLI:EU:C:2006:96 (no hierarchy between the methods of service provided for in the Regulation).

119

CJEU Case C-619/10 Trade Agency Ltd v Seramico Investments Ltd, ECLI:EU:C:2012:531.

120

CJEU Hendrikman.

121

CJEU Case C-327/10 Hypoteční banka a.s. v Udo Mike Lindner, ECLI:EU:C:2011:745, para 52. See also CJEU Case C-292/10 G v Cornelius de Visser, ECLI:EU:C:2012:142, para 60.

122

ECtHR Avotins v. Latvia, appl. no. 17502/07, 25 February 2014. See for a discussion Requejo Isidro (2015).

123

ECtHR Ruiz-Mateos v. Spain, appl. no. 12952/87 ECHR A262; see for a discussion Van Dijk and Viering (2006) pp. 584–589; Leanza and Pridal (2014) pp. 126–128; Harris et al. (2014) pp. 416–418.

124

Smits (2008) p. 116.

125

ECtHR Krcmar and others v Czech Republic, appl. no. 35376/97, 3 March 2000, para 42; see also Immeuble Groupe Kosser v. France, appl. no. 38748/97, para 26; McMichael v. UK, appl. no. 16424/90 ECHR A307-B para 80; Vallauri v. Italy, appl. no. 39128/05 para 71.

126

ECtHR Nideröst-Huber, p. 22; ECtHR Zagrebacka banka v. Croatia, appl. no. 39544/05 para 203.

127

ECtHR Clinique des Acacias and others v. France, appl. nos. 65399/01 65405/01 65407/01 65406/01, 13 October 2005, para 37.

128

ECtHR Kerojärvi v. Finland, appl. no. 17506/90 ECHR A322 para 42; ECtHR Goç v. Turkey para 57.

129

ECtHR Nideröst-Huber, para 27.

130

CJEU Case C-450/06 Varec SA v Belgian State ECLI:EU:C:2008:91.

131

CJEU Varec para 47.

132

CJEU Varec paras 48–54.

133

Rowe and Davis v The United Kingdom [GC], no 28901/95, ECHR 2000–II, para 61; V v Finland no 40412/98, para 75; Edwards and Lewis v. UK, nos. 39647/98 40461/98 ECHR 2004-X.

134

Case C-437/13 Unitrading ECLI:EU:C:2014:2318, paras 23–24.

135

See for a discussion of the principle Van Dijk and Viering (2006) pp. 580–584; Janis et al. (2008) pp. 792–816; Harris et al. (2014) pp. 413–416; Rainey et al. (2014) 263–264.

136

The difference between the two elements is illustrated by the Krcmar judgment of the ECtHR: in this case, neither of the parties had been able to comment on evidence gathered by the court itself. This was deemed a violation of the right to an adversarial trial. However, because neither of the parties had been able to comment, they had been treated equally, so there was no violation of equality of arms; ECtHR Krcmar; Mole and Harby (2006) p. 49. See also ECtHR Nideröst-Huber.

137

ECtHR Dombo Beheer, para 88.

138

ECtHR Feldbrugge v Netherlands (merits), appl. no. 8562/79, ECHR A99. See also ECtHR 44962/98 ECHR 2003-V; ECtHR Platakou v. Greece, appl. no. 38460/97 ECHR 2001-I; ECtHR Apeh Uldozotteinek Szovetsege and others v. Hungary, appl. no. 32367/96 ECHR 2000-X; ECtHR K.H. and others v. Slovakia, appl. no. 32881/04 ECHR 2009-II.

139

ECtHR Ankerl v. Switzerland, appl. no. 17748/91 ECHR 1996-V.

140

Though Article 6(2) which explicitly guarantees a right to call witnesses, applies only to criminal cases, the ECtHR has found it to have a ‘certain relevance’ outside criminal cases. Courts do have more discretion in civil cases in this respect, though of course the proceedings as a whole, including the manner in which evidence was gathered, should be fair: ECtHR Dombo Beheer, para 32.

141

ECtHR Dombo Beheer.

142

ECtHR Beer v. Austria, para 19.

143

ECtHR A.B. v. Slovakia, appl. no. 41784/98, 4 March 2003.

144

Smits (2008) p. 117.

145

CJEU Case C-341/04 Eurofood IFSC Ltd, ECLI:EU:C:2006:281, para 66.

146

ECtHR Jussila v. Finland (merits), appl. no. 73053/01 ECHR 2006-XIV, para 41.

147

ECtHR Fischer v Austria, appl. no. 33382/96, 17 January 2002; ECtHR Salomonsson v Sweden, appl. no. 38978/97, 12 November 2002; ECtHR Martinie v France [GC], 58675/00 ECHR 2006-VI; ECtHR Miller v Sweden, appl. no. 55853/00, 8 February 2005, para 29.

148

ECtHR v. Finland (merits) para 42.

149

ECtHR Schuler-Zgraggen v. Austria, appl. no. 14518/89, 31 January 1995.

150

ECtHR Martinie v France [GC].

151

ECtHR Miller v Sweden, para 29; see also ECtHR Döry v Sweden, appl. no. 28394/95, 12 November 2002, para 43.

152

ECtHR Schuler-Zgraggen v. Austria, para 58.

153

European Commission on Human Rights, X. v. Sweden (dec.), appl. no. 434/58. The presence of the litigant has also been required in child access cases (X v. Sweden) and in some commercial cases: European Commission on Human Rights X. v. Germany (dec.), appl. no. 1169/61.

154

ECtHR Muyldermans v. Belgium, appl. no. 12217/86 ECHR A214-A.

155

ECtHR Helmers, para 36–39. See also ECtHR Göç v. Turkey; ECtHR Lorenzetti v Italy, appl. no. 32075/09, 10 April 2012; ECtHR Khuzhin v. Russia, appl. no. 13470/02; ECtHR Salomonsson v. Sweden.

156

ECtHR Sejdovic v Italy, appl. no. 56581/00 ECHR 2006-II.

157

See for a discussion of the ECHR and EU framework on the right to effective service 4.3.2.3.

158

ECtHR Godlevskiy v Russia, appl. no. 14888/03, 23 October 2008; ECtHR Hermi v. Italy, appl. no. 18114/02 ECHR 2006-XII.

159

Van Dijk and Viering (2006) p. 591.

160

Smits (2008) p. 109.

161

CJEU Case C-341/04 Eurofood IFSC Ltd, ECLI:EU:C:2006:281, para 66.

162

ECtHR H. v. Belgium.

163

ECtHR Hadjanastassiou v. Greece, appl. no. 12945/87 ECHR A252.

164

Smits (2008) p. 146.

165

ECtHR Hirvisaari v. Finland, appl. no. 49684/99, 27 September 2001 para 30 in fine.

166

ECtHR Tatishvili v. Russia, appl. no. 1509/02, ECHR 2007-I.

167

ECtHR Suominen v. Finland, appl. no. 37801/97, 1 July 2003.

168

ECtHR Van der Hurk v. Netherlands, para 61; Garcia Ruiz v. Spain [GC], appl. no. 30544/96, ECHR 1999-I para 26; ECtHR Jahnke and Lenoble v. France (déc.) 40490/98, ECHR 2000-IX; Perez v. France [GC], appl. no. 47287/99, ECHR 2004-I, para 81.

169

ECtHR Georgiadis v Greece, appl. no. 21522/93, ECHR 1997-III.

170

ECtHR Suominen v. Finland, paras 38–39.

171

ECtHR Ruiz Torija v. Spain, appl. no. 18390/91 ECHR A303-A, para 29.

172

Section 7.3.2.3.

173

Case C-619/10 Trade Agency Ltd v Seramico Investments Ltd ECLI:EU:C:2012:531.

174

CJEU Trade Agency Ltd v Seramico Investments, para 62.

175

ECtHR Brumarescu v. Romania, 28342/95 ECHR 2001-I; ECtHR Esertas v. Lithuania, appl. no. 50208/06.

176

ECtHR Pravednaya v. Russia, appl. no. 69529/01, 18 November 2004; Nikitin v. Russia, appl. no. 50178/99 ECHR 2004-VIII.

177

ECtHR Albu and others v. Romania, appl. no. 34796/09 and 63 other cases, 10/05/2012.

178

ECtHR Albu and others v. Romania, para 34.

179

Ibid.

180

ECtHR Borovská and Ferrai v. Slovakia, appl. no. 48554/10, 25 November 2014.

181

ECtHR Borovská and Ferrai v. Slovakia, para 67.

182

ECtHR Delcourt v. Belgium, para 31.

183

ECtHR Malhous v. Czech Republic [GC], 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII.

184

Given the fact that the word ‘hearing’ in Article 6(1) has been taken to refer to the entire trial, it has been questioned whether the ‘right to a public hearing’ also requires that all aspects of the trial, including the documents submitted by the parties, should be open to the public. Though the inference is justified, there is no ECtHR case law which affirms this viewpoint. Smits (2008) pp. 167–170.

185

ECtHR Riepan v. Austria, appl. no. 35115/97, ECHR 2000-XII, para 40.

186

Harris et al. (2014) p. 434.

187

Harris et al. (2014) p. 434.

188

ECtHR B and P v. UK, appl. nos. 36337/97 35974/97 ECHR 2001-III; ECtHR X v UK, appl. no. 7366/76, 2 Digest 452 (1977); see also European Commission on Human Rights, Guenoun v. France [dec.] 13562/88, D.R. No. 66, p. 184, and Imberechts v. Belgium [dec.] 15561/89 D.R. No 69, p. 314 on medical disciplinary proceedings in which the privacy of patients constituted a legitimate ground on which to limit publicity.

189

ECtHR V. v. United Kingdom [GC], appl. no. 24888/94, ECHR 1999-IX.

190

ECtHR Biryukov v. Russia, 14810/02 ECHR 2008-I, para 45.

191

ECtHR Malmberg and Others v. Russia, appl. nos. 23045/05 21236/09 17759/10 48402/10, 15 January 2015 para 55; however, such restrictions may be acceptable in sensitive cases (for example those involving the residence of children) provided there is some way for the public to gain insight into how courts deal with such cases: see ECtHR B and P v. UK, para 47 (no violation) and Moser v. Austria, appl. no. 12643/02, para 102–103 (violation).

192

ECtHR Biryukov v. Russia.

193

ECtHR Pretto v. Italy, appl. no. 7984/77 ECHR A71, paras 27–28.

194

ECtHR Axen v. Germany, appl. no. 8273/78 ECHR A72, para 32.

195

ECtHR Beaumartin v. France, appl. no. 15287/89 ECHR A296-B, para 38; ECtHR Ringeisen v. Austria, appl. no. 2614/65 ECHR A13; ECtHR Procola v. Luxembourg, appl. no. 14570/89 ECHR A326.

196

ECtHR Sramek v. Austria, 8790/79 ECHR A84 para 42.

197

ECtHR Agrokompleks v. Ukraine (merits), appl. no. 23465/03; Campbell and Fell v. UK,, appl. nos. 7819/77 7878/77 ECHR A80.

198

ECtHR Engel v Netherlands (merits), appl. nos. 5100/71 5101/71 5102/71 5354/72 5370/72 ECHR A22.

199

ECtHR Findlay v. UK, appl. no. 22107/93 ECHR 1997-I.

200

ECtHR Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC], 73797/01 ECHR 2005-XIII, para 118; ECtHR Gautrin and Others v. France, appl. nos. 21257/93 21258/93 21259/93 21260/93, ECHR 1998-III, para 58.

201

Ibid.

202

Micallef v. Malta [GC], appl. no. 17056/06 ECHR 2009-V, para 93.

203

ECtHR Aslaner v. Turkey, appl. no. 36073/04, 4 March 2014 para 35.

204

ECtHR Morel v. France, appl. no. 34130/96 ECHR 2000-VI, para 45; see also ECtHR Ökten v. Turkey, appl. no. 22347/07.

205

ECtHR Buscemi v. Italy 29569/95 ECHR 1999-VI.

206

ECtHR Sigurdsson v. Iceland, appl. no. 39731/98 ECHR 2003-IV; ECtHR D. v. Ireland, appl. no. 26499/02; Demicoli v. Malta, appl. no. 13057/87 ECHR A210.

207

ECtHR DMD Group v. Slovakia, appl. no. 19334/03.

208

Joined Cases C–341/06 P and C-342/06 P Chronopost and La Poste v UFEX and Others ECLI:EU:C:2008:375.

209

CJEU Chronopost and La Poste v UFEX and Others, para 46.

210

CJEU Chronopost and La Poste v UFEX and Others, para 59.

211

General Court Case T-146/04, Gorostiaga Atxandalabaso v. European Parliament, ECLI:EU:T:2005:584.

212

General Court Gorostiaga Atxandalabaso v. European Parliament, paras 46–49.

213

ECtHR Stögmüller v Austria, appl. no. 1602/62 ECHR A9; ECtHR H. v France, appl. no. 10073/82 ECHR A162-A.

214

The ECtHR’s Table of Violations 1959–2011 shows that in this period the length of proceedings had resulted in 4810 violations, more than any other Article of the ECHR; other elements of the right to a fair trial combined were found to have been violated 3672 times.

215

The European Court of Human Rights, 50 Years of Activity: Some Facts and Figures, p. 6, available at http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Facts_Figures_1959_2009_ENG.pdf.

216

See for an overview e.g. Mole and Harby (2006) pp. 24–28; Lawson and Teuben (2004) p. 161; Édel (2007) p. 34 onwards.

217

ECtHR Comingersol S.A. v Portugal [GC] 35382/97 ECHR 2000-IV; ECtHR Frydlender v France, appl. no. 30979/96 ECHR 2000-VII; ECtHR Sürmerli v. Germany, appl. no. 75529/01 ECHR 2006-VII.

218

ECtHR Katte Klitsche de la Grange v. Italy, appl. no. 12539/86 ECHR A293-B, para 55; ECtHR Papachelas v. Greece [GC], appl. no. 31423/96 ECHR 1999-II, para 39.

219

ECtHR H. v. the United Kingdom 9580/81 ECHR A120, para 72.

220

ECtHR Humen v. Poland [GC], appl. no. 26614/95, 15 September 1999 para 63.

221

ECtHR Erkner and Hofauer v. Austria, appl. no. 9616/81 ECHR A117, para 68.

222

ECtHR Unión Alimentaria Sanders S.A. v. Spain, appl. no. 11681/85 ECHR A157, para 35.

223

ECtHR Mincheva v. Bulgaria, appl. no. 21558/03, 2 September 2010 para 68.

224

ECtHR Poiss v. Austria, appl. no. 9816/82 ECHR A117 para 57; Wiesinger v. Austria, appl. no. 11796/85 ECHR A213 para 57; ECtHR Humen v. Poland [GC], para 66.

225

ECtHR Vernillo v. France, appl. no. 11889/85 ECHR A198; Janis et al. (2008) p. 819.

226

ECtHR Vocaturo v. Italy, appl. no. 11891/85 ECHR A206-C, para 17.

227

ECtHR Hokkanen v. Finland, appl. no. 19823/92 ECHR A299-A, para 72; ECtHR Niederböster v. Germany, appl. no. 39547/98 ECHR 2003-IV, para 39.

228

ECHR, Violations by article and by state 1959–2011, 31 December 2011, available at http://www.echr.coe.int.

229

ECtHR Kudla v. Poland, appl. no. 30210/96 ECHR 2000-XI; ECtHR Mifsud, appl. no. 57220/00 ECHR 2002-VIII.

230

CJEU Baustahlgewebe, para 21. Since then the CJEU has found more violations of the reasonable time requirement in competition cases, for instance in C-385/07 P Der Grüne Punkt - Duales System Deutschland GmbH v Commission of the European Communities ECLI:EU:C:2009:456.

231

Ibid, para 29.

232

CJEU Der Grüne Punkt para 195.

233

See for a discussion Kiestra (2014) pp. 203–216; Kinsch (2014); Kodek (2005).

234

ECtHR Hornsby v. Greece, para 40; see also ECtHR Marinkovic v Serbia, appl. no. 5353/11, 22 October 2013.

235

ECtHR McDonald v. France.

236

ECtHR Négrépontis-Giannisis (merits), appl. no. 56759/08, 3 May 2011, para 91.

237

ECtHR Saccoccia v. Greece.

238

Kiestra (2014) p. 204.

239

ECtHR Matrakas and others v. Poland and Greece, appl. no. 47268/06, 7 November 2013.

240

ECtHR Románczyk v. France, 7618/05, 18 November 2010.

241

ECtHR Vrbica v. Croatia, appl. no. 32540/05, 1 April 2014, para 66.

242

ECtHR Scollo v. Italy 19133/91 ECHR A315-C, para 44; ECtHR Fuklev v. Ukraine, appl. no. 71186/01, 7 June 2005.

243

ECtHR Sud Est Réalisations v. France, appl. no. 6722/05, 2 December 2010.

244

ECtHR Société Cofinfo v. France, appl. no. 23516/08, 12 October 2010.

245

ECtHR Sanglier v. France, appl. no. 50342/99, 27 May 2003, para 39.

246

Article 46 ECHR.

247

CJEU Case C-101/01 Criminal proceedings against Bodil Lindqvist, ECLI:EU:C:2003:596, para 87.

248

CJEU Case C-77/83 CILFIT ECLI:EU:C:1984:91; see also specifically on Article 47 A v. B and others, in which the CJEU ruled that the right of domestic courts to refer questions for a preliminary ruling may not be limited by a national rule which authorises the national constitutional court to generally strike down legislation deemed to be contrary to Article 47. CJEU Case C-112/13 A v B and Others ECLI:EU:C:2014:2195.

249

CJEU Joined Cases C-92/09 and C-93/09 Volker und Schecke ECLI:EU:C:2010:662. This is an exclusive competence of the CJEU: CJEU Case C-314/85 Foto-Frost ECLI:EU:C:1987:452.

250

Article 47 of the EU CFR is explicitly not intended to change the system of judicial review within the EU: Explanations on Article 47.

251

ECtHR Kudla v. Poland, para 157.

252

ECtHR Kudla v. Poland paras 157–158.

253

The Guide to good practice in respect of domestic remedies, adopted by the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers, also does not contain specific remedies for violations of Article 6(1).

254

Section 7.3 discusses when refusal of enforcement can be considered appropriate as a remedy.

255

ECtHR Kudla v Poland, paras 154–155.

256

Venice Commission (2007) paras 69–78. The Report also mentions assumption of a decision in the applicant’s favour as a sanction, but this applies only in administrative cases: see para 79.

257

CJEU Der Grüne Punkt, para 195.

258

ECtHR Sürmerli v. Germany, para 100.

259

ECtHR Nesevski v. FYR Macedonia, appl. no. 14438/03, 24 April 2008. See also Burdov v. Russia, appl. no. 59498/00 ECHR 2002-III; ECtHR Gerasimov v. Russia, appl. no. 29920/05, 1 July 2014; ECtHR Nosov v. Russia, appl. no. 9117/04 and 10441/04, 20 February 2014.

260

See also ECtHR Garcia Mateos v. Spain, appl. no. 38285/09, para 48, in which the ECtHR considered that a constitutional complaint (recurso de amparo) was not effective, because it was not capable of providing the applicant with the appropriate remedy, which should have involved restoring her rights in full.

261

Council of Europe Guide to good practice in respect of domestic remedies p. 39.

262

Council of Europe Guide to good practice in respect of domestic remedies pp. 40–41.

263

In the Netherlands, enforcement may only be refused in a domestic enforcement dispute if enforcement would amount to an abuse of rights by the creditor, for example where the debtor would be made homeless through eviction from his home, where the judgment is manifestly legally or factually wrong, or where there has been a significant change in the circumstances after the delivery of the judgment. See Hoge Raad 22 April 1983, Ritzen v. Hoekstra. ECLI:NL:HR:1983:AG4575.

264

Brems (2005) pp. 303–304; Sullivan (1992) pp. 821–823.

265

Van Kempen (2008).

266

Van Kempen (2008) p. 16.

267

Ibid., pp. 21–24.

268

Rivers and Alexy (2002).

269

Rivers and Alexy (2002) p. 325.

270

Rivers and Alexy (2002) p. 326.

271

Ibid.

272

See on the connection between the adversarial trial and establishing the truth De Bock (2011) pp. 66–67.

273

Luban (1988) p. 69; referring to Popper (1963).

274

ECtHR Clinique des Acacias, para 37.

275

ECtHR Krcmar and others v Czech Republic, para 42; see also Immeuble Groupe Kosser v. France, para 26; McMichael v. UK, para 80; ECtHR Vallauri v. Italy, para 71.

276

Harris et al. (2014) p. 429.

277

ECtHR H. v. Belgium.

278

ECtHR Georgiadis v Greece, appl. no. 21522/93 ECHR 1997-III.

279

ECtHR Khamidov v. Russia, appl. no. 72118/01, 15 November 2007, para 174.

280

ECtHR Andelkovic v. Serbia, appl. no. 1401/08, 9 April 2013, para 27.

281

See Sect. 4.3.2.6.

282

ECtHR Muyldermans v. Belgium.

283

Luban (1988) p. 69.

284

Ten Kate (1983); De Bock (2011) p. 65.

285

Luban (2009).

286

The concept of human dignity has been given extensive attention in legal philosophy and within the context of fundamental rights. It has been defined in various ways according to its context. Though this is not the place for an extensive discussion on its various meanings, it can be said that most definitions emphasize the autonomy of the person. Dignity is an intrinsic value or quality that each person possesses by virtue of being a human, that acknowledges his consciousness, freedom, and responsibility and allows him to be the bearer of legal rights and obligations. See Rendtorff and Kemp (2000) pp. 31–32.

287

Luban (1988) p. 85.

288

Klaming and Giesen (2008) p. 4.

289

Klaming and Giesen (2008) p. 7.

290

Klaming and Giesen (2008) p. 7.

291

ECtHR Nideröst-Huber, para 27.

292

ECtHR Nideröst-Huber p. 22; ECtHR Zagrebacka banka v. Croatia, para 203.

293

ECtHR A.B. v. Slovakia.

294

ECtHR Schuler-Zgraggen v. Austria.

295

ECtHR Schuler-Zgraggen v. Austria. See under 4.3.2.6.

296

As cited under 4.4.3.2.

297

See also De Bock, p. 67, who speaks of the ‘procedural value’ of establishing the truth: the parties’ sense of procedural justice is increased if the judge is seen to carry out a careful investigation into the facts.

298

ECtHR Van der Hurk v. Netherlands, para 61; Garcia Ruiz v. Spain [GC], para 26; Jahnke and Lenoble v. France (déc.); Perez v. France [GC], para 81.

Andrews N (2011) Parere del Prof. Neil Andrews, University of Cambridge, del 23.11.2007 (Legal Opinion of Prof. Neil Andrews). Problemi di diritto processuale internazionale Italiano 2011:38–43

Brems E (2005) Conflicting Human Rights: An Exploration in the Context of the Right to a Fair Trial in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Human Rights Q 27:294–326CrossRef

Cuniberti G (2010) Debarment from defending, default judgments and public policy in Europe. A case note on Gambazzi. Praxis der Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrenrechts (IPRax) 30:148–153. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1515363

Dahl Rendtorff J, Kemp P (2000) Basic Ethical Principles in European bioethics and biolaw. Vol I: Autonomy, dignity, integrity and vulnerability. Report to the European Commission of the BIOMED-II Project. Centre for Ethics and Law/Borja de Bioètica, Copenhagen/Barcelona

De Bock RH (2011) Tussen waarheid en onzekerheid: over het vaststellen van feiten in de civiele procedure. Kluwer, Deventer

Édel F (2007) The length of civil and criminal proceedings in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg

European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) (2007) Can excessive length of proceedings be remedied? Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg

Francioni F (ed) (2007) Access to justice as a human right. Oxford University Press, New York

Gattinara G (2015) Fundamental rights in European Union civil service law. ERA Forum 16:1–17CrossRef

Gerards J (2011) EVRM—algemene beginselen. Sdu Uitgevers, Den Haag

Grotian (1994) Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights: the Right to a Fair Trial. Council of Europe Human Rights File No 13

Harris D et al (2014) Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Heringa A, Verhey L (2001) The EU Charter: Text and Structure. Maastricht J Eur Comparative Law 8:11–32CrossRef

Janis M, Kay R, Bradley A (2008) European Human Rights Law. Text and Materials. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Kiestra L (2014) The impact of the ECHR on private international law. An analysis of Strasbourg and selected national case law. TMC Asser Press, The Hague

Kinsch P (2014) Enforcement as a fundamental right. Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht 32(4):540–544

Klaming L, Giesen I (2008) Access to Justice: the quality of the procedure. TISCO Working Paper Series on Civil Law and Conflict Resolution Systems, No. 002/2008. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1091105. Accessed 8 July 2016

Kodek G (2005) The Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Liberties on Enforcement Practices. In: Andenas M, Hess B, Oberhammer P (eds) Enforcement Agency Practice in Europe. London, British Institute for International and Comparative Law, pp 303–333

Kowalyk-Bańczyk K (2015) An elusive convergence—rights of defence in competition matters in the jurisprudence of the CJEU. In: Nihoul P, Skoczny T (2015) Procedural Fairness in Competition Proceedings. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 182–208

Kuipers J-J (2010) The right to a fair trial and the free movement of civil judgments. Croatian Yearbook Eur Law Policy 6:23–51

Lawson R, Teuben K (2004) De redelijke termijn in het Nederlandse burgerlijk procesrecht. In: Hoogervorst E et al (eds) Termijnen. BW-Krant Jaarboek 20. Kluwer, Deventer

Leanza P, Pridal O (2014) The Right to a Fair Trial. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn

Legg A (2012) The Margin of Appreciation in International Human Rights Law. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef

Luban D (1988) Lawyers and Justice. An Ethical Study. Princeton University Press, Princeton

Mole N, Harby C (2006) The right to a fair trial. A guide to the implementation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Human Rights Handbooks, no. 3. Council of Europe

Popper K (1963) Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge. Harper and Row, New York

Rainey B, Wicks E, Ovey C (2014) The European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Requejo Isidro M (2015) On Exequatur and the ECHR: Brussels I Regulation before the ECtHR. Praxis der Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrenrechts (IPRax) 35:69–75

Rivers J, Alexy R (2002) A Theory of Constitutional Rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Rozakis C (2004) The Right to a Fair Trial in Civil Cases. Judicial Stud Inst J 4:96–106

Smits P (2008) Artikel 6 EVRM en de civiele procedure. Kluwer, Deventer

Sullivan D (1992) Gender Equality and Religious Freedom: Toward a Framework for Conflict Resolution. NYU J Int Law Polit 24:795–856

Ten Kate ThB (1983) Procesregels naar de kern genomen. In: Heemskerk WH et al (eds) Een goede procesorde (Haardt-Bundel). Kluwer, Deventer, pp 71–82

Van Bochove L (2009) Een onwillige gedaagde uitsluiten van het proces: weigeringsgrond voor tenuitvoerlegging onder het EEX? Hof van Justitie EG 2 April 2009 (Marco Gambazzi/Daimler Chrysler Canada Inc. c.s.). Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht 2009:295–301

Van Dijk P, Viering M (2006) Right to a fair and public hearing (Article 6). In: Van Dijk P et al. (eds) Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights. Intersentia, Antwerpen/Oxford, pp 511–650

Van Kempen PHPHMC (2008) Repression through fundamental rights, inaugural lecture, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen

Titel: The Right to a Fair Trial in Civil Cases
verfasst von: Monique Hazelhorst
Verlag: T.M.C. Asser Press
Buch: Free Movement of Civil Judgments in the European Union and the Right to a Fair Trial
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-161-6

Electronic ISBN: 978-94-6265-162-3

Copyright-Jahr: 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-162-3_4

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Premium Partner