Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Right to Access to Justice as a Key to Understand the Right to a Fair Trial in Civil Matters

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Understanding Due Process in Non-Criminal Matters

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 97))

Abstract

In this chapter it is argued that based on the findings of the research on how due process is applied in practice in non-criminal matters, the right to a access to justice is a basic right which procedural fairness entails. Either a process-based or an outcome-based theory on procedural fairness presuppose access to a court in a meaningful way. Later, it is explained why such an understanding of procedural due process is consistent with the common use of due process as a legal institution in both the international and national jurisdictions studied in the previous chapters. Finally, I analyze the role played by the flexible and the checklist models under this conception based on the right to access to justice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See: Genn (2010), p. 11.

  2. 2.

    See, e.g.: Couture (1950).

  3. 3.

    As in previous chapters, I use both concepts, access to justice and right to a court as synonymous. While they are not the same, for these purposes I understand that both implies not just the possibility of filing a claim but also effectively pursing a case until the end.

  4. 4.

    For an explanation on legitimacy as a process value, see: Summers (1974), pp. 21–22.

  5. 5.

    In the field of administrative law, see: Mashaw (1981), pp. 885–931. In civil matters, Bayles provides an interesting account of process values independent from accuracy. See: Bayles (1986), pp. 53–57. See also, Saphire (1978), pp. 119–125.

  6. 6.

    Waldron (2011), pp. 12–16.

  7. 7.

    Yeazell and Schwartz (2016), p. 25.

  8. 8.

    Francioni (2017), p. 1.

  9. 9.

    Palombella (2021), p. 122.

  10. 10.

    Dworkin (1977), pp. 22–31.

  11. 11.

    Dworkin (1985), p. 90.

  12. 12.

    Bone (2010), pp. 1018–1020.

  13. 13.

    Dworkin (1985), p. 95.

  14. 14.

    Zuckerman (1999), p. 48.

  15. 15.

    Dworkin (1985), p. 87.

  16. 16.

    Dworkin (1985), p. 85.

  17. 17.

    Dworkin (1985), p. 96.

  18. 18.

    Notwithstanding, many States constitutions follow such path and incorporates provisions in this regard by using the formula of the Magna Carta of Chapter 40.

  19. 19.

    Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, (1971), pp. 382–383.

  20. 20.

    West’s Ann. Cal. C.C.P. § 116.120.

  21. 21.

    ECHR, Case of Golder v. United Kingdom, no. 4451/70, Judgment of 21 February 1975, par. 33, 34.

  22. 22.

    Regarding access to justice as customary international law, see: Francioni (2017).

  23. 23.

    ECHR, Case of Golder v. United Kingdom, no. 4451/70, Judgment of 21 February 1975, par. 35.

  24. 24.

    ECHR, Case of Airey v. Ireland, no. 6289/73, Judgment of 9 October 1979, par. 11, 20.

  25. 25.

    ECHR, Case of Airey v. Ireland, no. 6289/73, Judgment of 9 October 1979, par. 24.

  26. 26.

    ECHR, Case of Airey v. Ireland, no. 6289/73, Judgment of 9 October 1979, par. 24.

  27. 27.

    I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantos v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C No. 97, par. 50–52.

  28. 28.

    I/A Court H.R., Case of Furlan and family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, par. 78, 99.

  29. 29.

    I/A Court H.R., Case of Furlan and family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, par. 268, 269.

  30. 30.

    Mashaw (1976), p. 48.

  31. 31.

    Croley (2017), pp. 93–130.

  32. 32.

    Little v. Streater, 452 U.S. 1, (1981), p. 9.

  33. 33.

    Little v. Streater, 452 U.S. 1, (1981), p. 16.

  34. 34.

    Redish and Marshall (1986), pp. 472–474.

  35. 35.

    Redish and Marshall (1986), p. 472.

  36. 36.

    Sunstein (2006), p. 633.

  37. 37.

    Notwithstanding, beyond the text as explained in Chap. 5, in the Inter-American regional system procedural rights of the paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5 has been applied in cases involving non-punitive legal procedures.

  38. 38.

    ECHR, Case of König v. Germany, no. 6232/73, Judgment of 28 June 1978, par. 99, 111; ECHR, Case of Buchholz v. Germany, no. 7759/77, Judgment of 6 May 1981, par. 49; ECHR, Case of Zimmermann and Steiner v. Switzerland, no. 8737/79, Judgment of 13 July 1983, par. 24; ECHR, Case of Deumeland v. Germany, no. 9384/81, Judgment of 29 May 1986, par. 78. In the case of the IACHR, see: I/A Court H.R., Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, par. 88–89; I/A Court H.R., Case of Fornerón and daughter v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 242, par. 66–77.

  39. 39.

    Hittner and Weisz (1990), pp. 353–354.

  40. 40.

    I/A Court H.R., Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C No. 234, par. 122.

  41. 41.

    The requirements of article 31 of Law 17,613 were: (1) to be a “depositor” of the Banco de Montevideo or the Banco La Caja Obrera; (2) whose savings had been transferred to other institutions, and (3) without his consent. I/A Court H.R., Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C No. 234, par. 141, 142, 153.

  42. 42.

    I/A Court H.R., Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, par. 62; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, par. 83.

  43. 43.

    I/A Court H.R., Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 4, 2019. Series C No. 373, par. 53–55, 114–119.

  44. 44.

    ECHR, Case of Simaldone v. Italy, no 22644/03, Judgment of 31 March 2009, par. 55.

  45. 45.

    Saphire (1978), pp. 161–166.

  46. 46.

    Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1 (1978), p. 19.

  47. 47.

    Friendly (1975), p. 1281.

  48. 48.

    Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, (1971), p. 377.

  49. 49.

    ECHR, Case of Ernst and Other v. Belgium, no 33400/96, Judgment of 15 July 2003, par. 66. More recently: ECHR, Case of Nikolova and Vandova v. Bulgaria, no. 20688/04, Judgment of 17 December 2013, par.70.

  50. 50.

    ECHR, Case of Miller v. Sweden, no. 55853/00, Judgment of 8 February 2005, par. 30.

  51. 51.

    ECHR, Kennedy v. The United Kingdom, no. 26839/05, Judgment of 18 May 2010, par. 188. See, also: ECHR, Case of Tommaso v. Italy, no. 43395/09, Judgment of 23 February 2017, par. 163.

  52. 52.

    ECHR, Case of Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland, nos. 40575/10 and 67474/10, Judgment of 2 October 2018, par. 177.

  53. 53.

    I/A Court H.R., Case of Mémoli v Argentina, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 22, 2013. Series C No. 265, par. 193.

  54. 54.

    I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantos v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C No. 97, par. 55.

  55. 55.

    Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, (1971), pp. 380–381.

  56. 56.

    Scherer (2006), p. 677.

  57. 57.

    ECHR, Case of Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, 19 June 2001, par. 60, 61. See also: ECHR, Case of Weissman and Others v. Romania, no. 63945/00, Judgment of 24 May 2006, par. 34–37; ECHR, Case of Apostol v. Georgia, no. 40765/02, Judgment of 28 November 2006, par. 59; ECHR, Case of Bakan v. Turkey, no. 50939/99, Judgment of 12 June 2007, par. 67, 68; ECHR, Case of Stankov v. Bulgaria, no. 68490/01, Judgment of 12 July 2007, par. 51, 52; ECHR, Case of Anakomba Yula v. Belgium, no. 45413/07, Judgment of 10 March 2009, par. 32; ECHR, Georgel and Georgeta v. Stoicescu v. Romania, no. 9718/03, Judgment of 26 July 2011, par. 69.

  58. 58.

    ECHR, Case of Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, Judgment of 21 May 2002, par. 66.

  59. 59.

    Sullivan and Massaro (2013), pp. 87–88. See: Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 599, 99 S.Ct. 2493, 2502, 61 L.Ed.2d 101 (1979).

  60. 60.

    Rubin (1984), p. 1109.

  61. 61.

    Dripps (2018), p. 67.

  62. 62.

    Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437, 443, 112 S. Ct. 2572, 2576, 120 L. Ed. 2d 353. More recently, by applying the Mathews v. Elridge test to a post-and-forfeit procedure, the Court of Appeal of the District of Columbia Circuit, gave the same rationale to not apply this test to criminal procedure. Kincaid v. Gov’t of D.C., 854 F.3d 721, 726 (D.C. Cir. 2017).

  63. 63.

    Redish and Marshall (1986), pp. 474–475. See also: Dworkin (1985), p. 90.

  64. 64.

    Sunstein (2006), p. 634.

  65. 65.

    I/A Court H.R., Case of the Pacheco Tineo family v. Bolivia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 272, par. 159.

  66. 66.

    I/A Court H.R., Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, par. 76.e).

  67. 67.

    I/A Court H.R., Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, par. 102.

  68. 68.

    I/A Court H.R., Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, par. 107.

  69. 69.

    I/A Court H.R., Case of Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, par. 263. Similar strict approach might be seen in: I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, par. 138; I/A Court H.R., Case of Furlan and family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, par. 209.

  70. 70.

    I/A Court H.R., Case of Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, par. 263. Similar strict approach might be seen in: I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, par. 138; I/A Court H.R., Case of Furlan and family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, par. 209.

  71. 71.

    ECHR, Case of Driza v. Albania, no. 33771/02, Judgment of 13 November 2007, par. 63–70. See, also: ECHR, Case of Brumărescu v. Romania, no. 28342/95, Judgment of 28 October 1999, par. 62.

  72. 72.

    ECHR, Case of Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, no. 22774/93, Judgment of 28 July 1999, par. 74. Similar reasoning may be found in: ECHR, Case of Okyay and Others v. Turkey, no. 36220/97, Judgment of 12 July 2005, par. 72–74.

  73. 73.

    ECHR, Case of Sramek v. Austria, no. 8790/79, Judgment of 22 October 1984.

  74. 74.

    ECHR, Case of Brudnicka and Others v. Poland, no. 54723/00, Judgment of 03 March 2005, par. 41. See, also: ECHR, Case of Langborger v. Sweden, no. 11179/84, Judgment of 22 June 1989, par. 32–35; ECHR, Case of McGonell v. The United Kingdom, no. 28488/95, Judgment of 8 February 2000, par. 52–57.

  75. 75.

    ECHR, Case of Buscemi v. Italy, no. 29569/95, Judgment of 16 September 1999, par. 64, 67–68.

  76. 76.

    This was the basic argument of Sir Edward Coke in the famous Dr. Bonham case. See: Williams (2006), pp. 111–128.

  77. 77.

    Article III. Section 1. “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

  78. 78.

    Redish and Marshall (1986), p. 480.

  79. 79.

    Article III. Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

  80. 80.

    Michelman (1974), p. 557.

  81. 81.

    Bayles (1986), p. 55.

  82. 82.

    There might be different conceptions of impartiality. For example, while in adversarial type of proceeding, which has been characterized as party driven impartiality means neutrality and even passivity. On the contrary, in inquisitorial model impartiality may have be disinterested in relation with the parties but active in terms of attitude towards establishing facts and gathering evidence. See: Langer (2014).

  83. 83.

    Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238 (1980), p. 242.

  84. 84.

    Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238 (1980), p. 242.

  85. 85.

    Redish and Marshall (1986), pp. 475–476.

  86. 86.

    Fuller (1978), pp. 385–386.

  87. 87.

    Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U.S. 188 (1982), pp. 195–196.

  88. 88.

    Concrete Pipe & Prods. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust, 508 U.S. 602 (1993), pp. 617–618.

  89. 89.

    Redish and Marshall (1986), p. 492.

  90. 90.

    United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200 (1980), p. 214.

  91. 91.

    Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U.S. 188, (1982), pp. 195–196.

  92. 92.

    ECHR, Case of Le Compte, Van Leuven, and De Meyere v. Belgium, no. 6878/75; 7238/75, Judgement of 23 June 1981, par. 55; ECHR, Case of Vasilescu v. Romania, 53/1997/837/1043, Judgment of 22 May 1998, par. 41; ECHR, Case of Chevrol v. France, no. 49636/99, Judgment of 13 February 2003, par. 76, 77; ECHR, Case of Fedotova v. Russia, no. 73225/01, Judgment of 13 April 2006, par. 38, 43; ECHR, Case of Woś v. Poland, no. 22860/02, Judgment of 08 June 2006, par. 94; ECHR, Case of Savino and Other v. Italy, nos 17214/05, 20329/05, 42113/04, Judgment of 28 April 2009, par. 94.

  93. 93.

    ECHR, Case of DMD Group, a.s. v. Slovakia, no. 19334/03, Judgment of 5 October 2010, par. 58–61; ECHR, Case of Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, no. 21722/11, Judgment of 9 January 2013, par. 150–156.

  94. 94.

    ECHR, Case of Malhous v. the Czech Republic, no. 33071/96, Judgment of 12 July 2001, par. 62.

  95. 95.

    Article 6.1.: Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

  96. 96.

    ECHR, Case of Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, no. 6878/75; 7238/75, Judgment of 23 June 1981, par. 59, 60; ECHR, Case of Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, no. 7299/75; 7496/76, Judgment of 10 February 1983, par. 34, 35; ECHR, Case of H. v. Belgium, no. 8950/80, Judgment of 30 November 1987, par. 54; ECHR, Case De Moor v. Belgium, no. 16997/90, Judgment of 23 June 1994, par. 55, 56.

  97. 97.

    ECHR, Case of Eisenstecken v. Austria, no. 29477/95, Judgment of 3 October 2000, par. 31–36. See also: ECHR, Case of Miller v. Sweden, no. 55853/00, Judgment of 8 February 2005, par. 29; ECHR, Case of Jurisic and Collegium Mehrerau v. Austria, no. 62539/00, Judgment of 27 July 2006, par. 65–67; ECHR, Case of Koottummel v. Austria, no. 49616/06, Judgment of 10 December 2009, par. 19, 20; ECHR, Case of Nikolova and Vandova v. Bulgaria, no. 20688/04, Judgment of 17 December 2013, par. 69, 70.

  98. 98.

    ECHR, Case of Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, no. 14518/89, Judgment of 24 June 1993, par. 58, 59.

  99. 99.

    Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U.S. 385 (1914), p. 394. See, also: See, e.g.: Roller v. Holly, 176 U.S. 398 (1900).

  100. 100.

    Ballard v. Hunter, 204 U.S. 241 (1907), p. 255.

  101. 101.

    Londoner v. Denver, 210 U.S. 373, (1908), p. 386.

  102. 102.

    Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972), pp. 569–570.

  103. 103.

    Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1 (1978), p. 19. But see: Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975), pp. 575–576. Holding that “…the length and consequent severity of a deprivation, while another factor to weigh in determining the appropriate form of hearing, ‘is not decisive of the basic right’ to a hearing of some kind. The Court’s view has been that as long as a property deprivation is not de minimis, its gravity is irrelevant to the question whether account must be taken of the Due Process Clause.”

  104. 104.

    Saphire (1978), pp. 161–166.

  105. 105.

    Dworkin (1967), p. 27.

  106. 106.

    Richards v. Jefferson County, 517 U.S. 793 (1996), p. 797.

  107. 107.

    Richards v. Jefferson County, 517 U.S. 793 (1996), p. 798. More recently but providing some exception to this general principle: Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008), pp. 893–895.

  108. 108.

    Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971), p. 378.

  109. 109.

    Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985), p. 542.

  110. 110.

    Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, (1971), pp. 378–379.

  111. 111.

    Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, (1974), 157.

  112. 112.

    Calero–Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663 (1974).

  113. 113.

    United States v. James Daniel Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. 43 (1993), p. 46.

  114. 114.

    United States v. James Daniel Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. 43 (1993), p. 53.

  115. 115.

    Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 719 (1879).

  116. 116.

    Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950), p. 314.

  117. 117.

    Richards v. Jefferson County, 517 U.S. 793 (1996), p. 797.

  118. 118.

    Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950), pp. 314–315.

  119. 119.

    Greene v. Lindsey, 456 U.S. 444 (1982), pp. 449–450.

  120. 120.

    Richards v. Jefferson County, 517 U.S. 793 (1996), pp. 800–801.

  121. 121.

    Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 (1974), p. 176.

  122. 122.

    Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815, (1999), p. 848. Similarly, see: Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, (2008), p. 900.

  123. 123.

    Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965), p. 550.

  124. 124.

    Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965), p. 550.

  125. 125.

    Sunstein (2006), p. 619.

  126. 126.

    Kennedy (1976), p. 1688.

  127. 127.

    Sunstein (2006), p. 629.

  128. 128.

    ECHR, Case of García Ruiz v. Spain, no. 30544/96, Judgment of 21 January 1999, par. 11–15, 28.

  129. 129.

    ECHR, Case of Del Sol v. France, no. 46800/99, Judgment of 26 February 2002, par. 20–26.

  130. 130.

    ECHR, Case of Cañete de Goñi v. Spain, no. 55782/00, Judgment of 15 October 2002, par. 36; ECHR, Case of Běleš and Others v. The Czech Republic, no. 47273/99, Judgment of 12 November 2002, par. 60; ECHR, Case of Zvolský and Zvolská v. the Czech Republic, no. 46129/99, Judgment of 12 November 2002, par. 46.

  131. 131.

    I have argued as well that while access to justice and the right to a court might be conceptually different in strict sense, for practical reasons they might be treated as the same. It does not make any sense to have only a right to file a claim or to “knock at the door of the court” but not been able to sustain and endure the whole proceeding until a final decision and its enforcement. That is why I take both as synonymous and I have argued that the ECHR follow a similar approach.

  132. 132.

    West’s Ann. Cal. C.C.P. § 116.120.

  133. 133.

    Available at: http://data.worldjusticeproject.org/accesstojustice/#/.

  134. 134.

    Bayles (1986), pp. 36–39; Fuller (1978), pp. 363–372.

  135. 135.

    Hensler and Khatam (2018), pp. 395–397.

References

  • Bayles M (1986) Principles for legal procedure. Law Philos 5(1):33–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bone R (2010) Procedure, participation, rights. Boston Univ Law Rev 90:1011–1028

    Google Scholar 

  • Couture (1950) The nature of the judicial process. Tul Law Rev 25(1):1–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Croley S (2017) Civil justice reconsidered. Toward a less costly, more accessible litigation system. New York University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dripps D (2018) Due process: a unified understanding. In: Orren K, Compton J (eds) The Cambridge Companion to the United States Constitution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 45–71

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin R (1967) The model of rules. Univ Chic Law Rev 35:14–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin R (1977) Taking rights seriously. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin R (1985) A matter of principle. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Francioni F (2017) The rights of access to justice under customary international law. In: Francioni F (ed) Access to justice as a human right. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Friendly H (1975) Some kind of hearing. Univ Pa Law Rev 123:1267–1317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller L (1978) The forms and limits of adjudication. Harv Law Rev 92(2):353–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Genn H (2010) Judging civil justice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hensler D, Khatam D (2018) Re-inventing arbitration: how expanding the scope of arbitration is re-shaping its form and blurring the line between private and public adjudication. Nev Law J 18(2):381–426

    Google Scholar 

  • Hittner D, Weisz K (1990) Federal civil trials delays: a constitutional dilemma? S Tex Law Rev 31:341–360

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy D (1976) Form and substance in private law adjudication. Harv Law Rev 89(8):1685–1778

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langer M (2014) The long shadow of the adversarial and inquisitorial categories. In: Dubber M, Hörnle T (eds) The Oxford handbook of criminal law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 887–912

    Google Scholar 

  • Mashaw J (1976) The Supreme Court’s due process calculus for administrative adjudication in Mathews v. Eldridge: three factors in search of a theory of value. Univ Chic Law Rev 44(1):28–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mashaw J (1981) Administrative due process: the quest for a dignitary theory. Boston Univ Law Rev 61(4):885–931

    Google Scholar 

  • Michelman F (1974) Supreme court and litigation access fees: the right to protect one’s rights, Part II. Duke Law J 1974(3):527–570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palombella G (2021) Access to justice: dynamic, foundational, and generative. Ratio Juris 34(2):121–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redish M, Marshall L (1986) Adjudicatory independence and the values of procedural due process. Yale Law J 95(3):455–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin E (1984) Due process and the administrative state. Cal Law Rev 72(6):1044–1179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saphire R (1978) Specifying due process values: toward a more responsive approach to procedural protection. Univ Pa Law Rev 127(1):111–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer A (2006) Securing a civil right to counsel: the importance of collaborating. N Y Univ Rev Law Soc Change 30(4):675–688

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan T, Massaro T (2013) The arc of due process in American Constitutional Law. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Summers R (1974) Evaluating and improving legal processes. A plea for “process values”. Cornell Law Rev 60(1):1–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein C (2006) Two conceptions of procedural fairness. Soc Res 73(2):619–646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldron J (2011) The rule of law and the importance of procedure. Nomos 50:3–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams I (2006) Dr. Bonham’s case and void statutes. J Leg Hist 27(11):111–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeazell S, Schwartz J (2016) Civil procedure, 9th edn. Aspen Casebook Series, Wolters Kluwer, United States

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman A (1999) Justice in crisis: comparative dimensions of civil procedure. In: Zuckerman A (ed) Civil justice in crisis. Comparative perspectives of civil procedure. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3–52

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, Universidad Adolfo Ibañez, Santiago, Chile

    Ricardo Lillo Lobos

Authors
  1. Ricardo Lillo Lobos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lillo Lobos, R. (2022). The Right to Access to Justice as a Key to Understand the Right to a Fair Trial in Civil Matters. In: Understanding Due Process in Non-Criminal Matters. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 97. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95534-2_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95534-2_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-95533-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-95534-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation