Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The European Court of Human Rights Case Law on Due Process Over 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

This chapter focus on the answer provided by European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) regarding the basic requirements of the right to fair trial in civil matters. With this purpose, I use an empirical mixed method approach to study its case law over a sample of 303 cases identified using the HUDOC search engine of the ECHR. I have analyzed this case law using to set of variables. One group of variables applied to capture basic data to better describe the case, and other to identify and operationalize the ideal model described in Chap. 1. Finally, this chapter describes what I have called a concrete analysis of effectiveness as the main approach used by the ECHR to decide over the right to a fair trial in civil cases.

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.

    Alston and Goodman (2013), p. 891.

  2. 2.

    Alston and Goodman (2013), p. 892.

  3. 3.

    Alston and Goodman (2013), pp. 894–895.

  4. 4.

    Hazelhorst (2017), p. 126.

  5. 5.

    Goldman (2009), pp. 857–858.

  6. 6.

    Alston and Goodman (2013), p. 985.

  7. 7.

    Alston and Goodman (2013), p. 898.

  8. 8.

    Alston and Goodman (2013), p. 898.

  9. 9.

    European Convention on Human Rights, art. 26–31.

  10. 10.

    Alston and Goodman (2013), p. 898.

  11. 11.

    See: Scheinin (2007), p. 136.

  12. 12.

    Council of Europe (2004) Explanatory report to protocol no. 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, amending the control system of the Convention, pp. 2–3. Available at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/194.

  13. 13.

    European Court of Human Rights (2013a) Filtering Section speeds up processing of cases from highest case-count countries. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Filtering_Section_ENG.pdf.

  14. 14.

    European Court of Human Rights (2019) The ECHR in facts & figures 2018, pp. 6–8. Available at: https://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=reports/factsfigures&c=.

  15. 15.

    See: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/cf/Jurisprudencia2/busqueda_casos_contenciosos.cfm?lang=es.

  16. 16.

    European Court of Human Rights (2013b) Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Right to a fair trial (Civil limb), p. 6. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_6_eng.pdf.

  17. 17.

    Hazelhorst (2017), p. 127.

  18. 18.

    Hazelhorst (2017), p. 127.

  19. 19.

    ECHR, Case of Károly Nagy v. Hungary, no. 56665/09, Judgment of 2 May 2016, par. 65.

  20. 20.

    European Court of Human Rights (2013b) Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Right to a fair trial (Civil limb), p. 7. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_6_eng.pdf. See also: ECHR, Case of Masson and Van Zon v. the Netherlands, no. 15346/89;15,379/89, Judgment of 28 September 1995, par.17; ECHR, Case of Balmer-Schafroth and Others v. Switzerland, no. 67\1996\686\876, Judgment of 26 August 1997, par. 32; ECHR, Case of Le Calvez v. France, no. 73/1997/857/1066, Judgment of 29 July 1998, par. 56; ECHR, Case of Emine Araç v. Turkey, no. 9907/02, Judgment of 23 September 2008, par. 16; ECHR, Case of Micallef v. Malta, no. 17056/06, Judgment of 15 October 2009, par. 74; ECHR, Case of Boulois v. Luxembourg, no. 37575/04, Judgment of 3 April 2012, par. 90; ECHR, Case of Fazia Ali v. the United Kingdom, no. 40378/10, Judgment of 20 January 2016, par. 53.

  21. 21.

    ECHR, Case of Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, no. 6878/75; 7238/75, Judgment of 23 June 1983, par. 46–47.

  22. 22.

    ECHR, Case of Fayed v. United Kingdom, no. 17101/90, Judgment of 21 September 1990, par. 61.

  23. 23.

    ECHR, Case of Micallef v. Malta, no. 17056/06, Judgment of 15 October 2009, par. 83–86.

  24. 24.

    European Court of Human Rights (2013b) Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Right to a fair trial (Civil limb), p. 6. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_6_eng.pdf.

  25. 25.

    ECHR, Case of König v. Germany, no. 6232/73, Judgment of 28 June 1978, par. 89. More recently: ECHR, Case of Fazia Ali v. the United Kingdom, no. 40378/10, Judgment of 20 January 2016, par. 53–54.

  26. 26.

    See, in this regard: Cross (2010), p. 366; ECHR, Case of Ringeisen v. Austria, no 2614/65, 16 July 1971, par. 94; ECHR, Case of König v. Germany, no. 6232/73, Judgment of 28 June 1978, par. 89; ECHR, Case of Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, no. 6878/75; 7238/75, Judgment of 23 June 1983, par. 46–47; ECHR, Case Elles and Others v. Switzerland, no. 12573/06, 16 March 2011, par. 20; ECHR, Case of Shapovalov v. Ukraine, no. 45835/05, Judgment of 31 July 2012, par. 43–45; ECHR, Case of Fazia Ali v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 20 January 2016, par. 53–54.

  27. 27.

    Hazelhorst (2017), p. 127; European Court of Human Rights (2013b) Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Right to a fair trial (Civil limb), p. 9. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_6_eng.pdf.

  28. 28.

    ECHR, Case of Ringeisen v. Austria, no 2614/65, Judgment of 16 July 1971, par. 94.

  29. 29.

    European Court of Human Rights (2013b) Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Right to a fair trial (Civil limb), p. 9. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_6_eng.pdf.

  30. 30.

    ECHR, Case of König v. Germany, no. 6232/73, Judgment of 28 June 1978.

  31. 31.

    ECHR, Case of Le Compte, Van Leuven, and De Meyere v. Belgium, no. 6878/75; 7238/75, 23 June 1981.

  32. 32.

    ECHR, Case of Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, no. 7299/75; 7496/76, Judgment of 10 February 1983.

  33. 33.

    ECHR, Case of H v. Belgium, no. 8950/80, Judgment of 30 November 1987.

  34. 34.

    ECHR, Case of Chevrol v. France, no. 49636/99, Judgment of 13 February 2003.

  35. 35.

    ECHR, Case of Kök v. Turkey, no 1855/02, Judgment of 19 October 2006.

  36. 36.

    ECHR, Case of Tre Traktörer Aktiebolag v. Sweden, no. 10873/84, Judgment of 7 June 1989.

  37. 37.

    ECHR, Case of Benthem v. The Netherlands, no. 8848/80, Judgment of 23 October 1985.

  38. 38.

    ECHR, Case of Pudas v. Sweden, no. 10426/83, Judgment of 27 October 1987.

  39. 39.

    ECHR, Case of Posti and Rahko v. Finland, no. 27824/95, Judgment of 24 September 2002.

  40. 40.

    ECHR, Case of Jurisic and Collegium Mehrerau v. Austria, no. 62539/00, Judgment of 27 July 2006.

  41. 41.

    ECHR, Case of Coorplan-Jenni GmbH and Hascic v. Austria, no. 10523/02, Judgment of 27 July 2006.

  42. 42.

    European Court of Human Rights (2013b) Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Right to a fair trial (Civil limb), p. 9. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_6_eng.pdf.

  43. 43.

    ECHR, Case of Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, no. 49429/99, Judgment of 24 November 2005, par. 88.

  44. 44.

    ECHR, Case of Procola v. Luxembourg, no. 14570/89, Judgment of 28 September 1995, par. 39.

  45. 45.

    ECHR, Case of Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland, no. 63235/00, Judgment of 19 April 2007, par. 10–15.

  46. 46.

    ECHR, Case of Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland, no. 63235/00, Judgment of 19 April 2007, par. 43. As mentioned in this decision, there were cases where public employment relation triggered article 6.1 but only as they consisted in claims for purely pecuniary rights arising in law after termination of service. See: ECHR, Case of Francesco Lombardo v. Italy, no. 11519/85, Judgment of 26 November 1992, par. 17.

  47. 47.

    ECHR, Case of Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland, no. 63235/00, Judgment of 19 April 2007, par. 45.

  48. 48.

    ECHR, Case of Pellegrin v. France, no. 28541/95, Judgement of 8 December 1999, par. 60.

  49. 49.

    ECHR, Case of Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland, no. 63235/00, Judgment of 19 April 2007, par. 46.

  50. 50.

    ECHR, Case of Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland, no. 63235/00, Judgment of 19 April 2007, par. 48.

  51. 51.

    ECHR, Case of Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland, no. 63235/00, Judgment of 19 April 2007, par. 55, 56.

  52. 52.

    ECHR, Case of Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland, no. 63235/00, Judgment of 19 April 2007, par. 62.

  53. 53.

    ECHR, Case of Cudak v. Lithuania, no. 15869/02, Judgment of 23 March 2010, par. 44.

  54. 54.

    ECHR, Case of Taşkin and Others v. Turkey, no. 46117/99, Judgment of 10 November 2004, par. 23, 130–132.

  55. 55.

    European Court of Human Rights (2013b) Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Right to a fair trial (Civil limb), p. 10. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_6_eng.pdf.

  56. 56.

    ECHR, Case of Lukenda v. Slovenia, no. 23032/02, Judgment of 6 October 2005, par. 6,7, 29.

  57. 57.

    European Court of Human Rights (2013b) Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Right to a fair trial (Civil limb), p. 10. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_6_eng.pdf.

  58. 58.

    ECHR, Case of Feldbrugge v. The Netherlands, no. 8562/79, Judgment of 29 May 1986, par. 11–14.

  59. 59.

    ECHR, Case of Feldbrugge v. The Netherlands, no. 8562/79, Judgment of 29 May 1986, par. 40.

  60. 60.

    ECHR, Case of Salesi v. Italy, no. 13023/87, Judgment of 26 February 1993, par. 8.

  61. 61.

    ECHR, Case of Salesi v. Italy, no. 13023/87, Judgment of 26 February 1993, par. 18.

  62. 62.

    ECHR, Case of Salesi v. Italy, no. 13023/87, Judgment of 26 February 1993, par. 19.

  63. 63.

    ECHR, The ECHR in Facts & Figures 2018, 2019, pp. 6, 7. Available at: https://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=reports/factsfigures&c=.

  64. 64.

    See: ECHR, Case of Golder v. United Kingdom, no. 4451/70, Judgment of 21 February 1975, par. 36.

  65. 65.

    ECHR, Case of Golder v. United Kingdom, no. 4451/70, Judgment of 21 February 1975, par. 36.

  66. 66.

    ECHR, Case of Rasmusen v. Denmark, no. 8777/79, Judgment of 28 November 1984, par. 32.

  67. 67.

    ECHR, Case of Golder v. United Kingdom, no. 4451/70, Judgment of 21 February 1975, par. 26.

  68. 68.

    In fact, its incorporation into a human rights treaty is recent, being expressly mentioned for the first time in the European Union Treaty of Lisboa of 2007, at least in its English version.

  69. 69.

    ECHR, Case of Golder v. United Kingdom, no. 4451/70, Judgment of 21 February 1975, par. 36.

  70. 70.

    European Court of Human Rights (2013b) Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Right to a fair trial (Civil limb), p. 17. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_6_eng.pdf.

  71. 71.

    Francioni (2017), p. 40.

  72. 72.

    ECHR, Case of Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland, nos. 40575/10 and 67474/10, Judgment of 2 October 2018, par.94–96.

  73. 73.

    European Court of Human Rights (2013b) Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Right to a fair trial (Civil limb), p. 15. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_6_eng.pdf.

  74. 74.

    Francioni (2017), p. 39.

  75. 75.

    ECHR, Case of Lithgow and Other v. United Kingdom, no. 9006/80; 9262/81; 9263/81; 9265/81; 9266/81; 9313/81; 9405/81, Judgment of 8 June 1986, par. 194. See also: ECHR, Case of Fayed v. United Kingdom, no. 17101/90, Judgment of 21 September 1990, par. 65; ECHR, Case of Canea Catholic Church v. Greece, 143/1996/762/963, Judgment of 16 December 1997, par. 38; ECHR, Case of Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, 19 June 2001, par. 53; ECHR, Case of Forrer-Niedenthal v. Germany, no. 47316/99, Judgment of 20 February, 2003, par. 59; ECHR, Case of Weissman and Others v. Romania, no. 63945/00, Judgment of 24 May 2006, par. 34; ECHR, Case of Stankov v. Bulgaria, no. 68490/01, Judgment of 12 July 2007, par. 50. ECHR, Case of Stanev v. Bulgaria, no. 36760/06, Judgment of 17 January 2012, par. 230.

  76. 76.

    ECHR, Case of A v. The United Kingdom, no. 35373/97, Judgment of 17 December 2002, par. 77. Same reasoning in: ECHR, Case of Fayed v. The United Kingdom, no. 17101/90, Judgment of 21 September 1990, par. 70.

  77. 77.

    ECHR, Case of Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, no. 8225/78, Judgment of 28 May 1985, par. 56–59; Francioni (2017), p. 40.

  78. 78.

    See, in this regard: ECHR, Case of Fayed v. United Kingdom, no. 17101/90, Judgment of 21 September 1990, par. 65; ECHR, Case of Tinnelly & Sons Ltd. and Others and McElduff and Others v. the United Kingdom, 62/1997/846/1052–1053, Judgment of 10 July 1998, par. 72.; ECHR, Case of García Manibardo, no. 38695/97, Judgment of 15 February 2000, par. 36; ECHR, Case of T.P. and K.M. v. The United Kingdom, no. 28945/95, Judgment of 10 May 2001, par. 98; ECHR, Case of Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, 19 June 2001, par. 55; ECHR, Case of Běleš and Others v. The Czech Republic, no. 47273/99, Judgment of 12 November 2002, par. 61; ECHR, Case of Ernst and Others v. Belgium, no 33400/96, Judgment of 15 July 2003; ECHR, Case of Musumeci v. Italy, no 33695/96, Judgment of 11 January 2005, par. 49; ECHR, Case of Weissman and Others v. Romania, no. 63945/00, Judgment of 24 May 2006, par. 36; ECHR, Case of Woś v. Poland, no. 22860/02, Judgment of 08 June 2006, par. 98; ECHR, Case of Hirschhorn v. Romania, no. 29294/02, Judgment of 26 July 2007, par. 50. ECHR, Case of Faimblat v. Romaine, no. 23066/02, Judgment of 13 January 2009, par. 28; ECHR, Case of Sâmbata Bihor Greek Catholic Parish v. Romania, no 48107/99, Judgment of 12 January 2010, par. 63; ECHR, Georgel and Georgeta v. Stoicescu v. Romania, no. 9718/03, Judgment of 26 July 2011, par. 68; ECHR, Case of Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania, no. 76943/11, Judgment of 29 November 2016, par. 89.

  79. 79.

    ECHR, Case of Fayed v. United Kingdom, no. 17101/90, Judgment of 21 September 1990, par. 65. See also: ECHR, Case of Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania, no. 76943/11, Judgment of 29 November 2016, par. 89.

  80. 80.

    European Court of Human Rights (2013b) Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Right to a fair trial (Civil limb), p. 10. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_6_eng.pdf.

  81. 81.

    ECHR, Case of Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, 19 June 2001, par. 55; ECHR, Case of Apostol v. Georgia, no. 40765/02, Judgment of 28 November 2006, par. 59.

  82. 82.

    ECHR, Case of Golder v. United Kingdom, no. 4451/70, Judgment of 21 February 1975, par. 26.

  83. 83.

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

  84. 84.

    Article 13. Right to an effective remedy Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

  85. 85.

    ECHR, Case of Assunção Chaves v. Portugal, no 61226/08, Judgment of 31 January 2012, par. 62. Unofficial translation, original is in French. See also: ECHR, Case of Tinnelly & Sons Ltd. and Others and McElduff and Others v. the United Kingdom, 62/1997/846/1052–1053, Judgment of 10 July 1998, par. 77.

  86. 86.

    ECHR, Turczanik v. Poland, no. 38064/97, Judgment of 5 July 2005, par. 47, 48.

  87. 87.

    European Court of Human Rights (2013b) Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Right to a fair trial (Civil limb), p. 15. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_6_eng.pdf.

  88. 88.

    ECHR, Case of Kutić v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, Judgment of 1 March 2002, par. 8–11.

  89. 89.

    ECHR, Case of Kutić v. Croatia, no. 48778/99, Judgment of 1 March 2002, par. 25.

  90. 90.

    ECHR, Case of Běleš and Others v. The Czech Republic, no. 47273/99, Judgment of 12 November 2002, par. 50, 51.

  91. 91.

    ECHR, Case of Nelyubin v. Russia, no. 14502/04, Judgment of 2 November 2006, par. 24, 28.

  92. 92.

    ECHR, Case of Brumărescu v. Romania, no. 28342/95, Judgment of 28 October 1999, par.14–24.

  93. 93.

    ECHR, Case of Brumărescu v. Romania, no. 28342/95, Judgment of 28 October 1999, par. 65. See also: ECHR, Case of Budescu and Petrescu v. Romania, no. 33912/96, Judgment of 2 July 2002, par. 37–39; ECHR, Case of Curutiu v. Romania, no. 29769/96, Judgment of 22 October 2002, par. 39–41.

  94. 94.

    ECHR, Case of Oferta Plus S.R.L. v. Moldova, no. 14385/04, Judgment of 19 December 2006, par. 98.

  95. 95.

    ECHR, Case of Protsenko v. Russia, no. 13151/04, Judgment of 31 July 2008, par. 29–33.

  96. 96.

    ECHR, Case of Hornsby v. Greece, no. 18357/91, Judgment of 19 March 1997, par. 40.; ECHR, Scordino v. Italy (No 1), no. 36813/97, Judgment of 29 March 2006, par. 196. See also: ECHR, Case of Okyay and Others v. Turkey, no. 36220/97, Judgment of 12 July 2005, par. 72; ECHR, Case of Sukhobokov v. Russia, no. 75470/01, Judgment of 13 April 2006, par. 22; ECHR, Case of Beshiri and Others v. Albania, no. 7352/03, Judgment of 22 August 2006, par. 60; ECHR, Case of Jeličić v. Bosnia And Herzegovina, no. 41183/02, Judgment of 31 October 2006, par. 38; ECHR, Case of Hirschhorn v. Romania, no. 29294/02, Judgment of 26 July 2007 par. 49.

  97. 97.

    ECHR, Case of Apostol v. Georgia, no. 40765/02, Judgment of 28 November 2006, par. 56.

  98. 98.

    ECHR, Case of Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, Judgment of 7 May 2002, par. 34,37.

  99. 99.

    ECHR, Case of Liakopoulou v. Greece, no 20627/04, Judgment of 24 May 2006, par. 18,19.

  100. 100.

    ECHR, Case of Liakopoulou v. Greece, no 20627/04, Judgment of 24 May 2006, par. 17.

  101. 101.

    ECHR, Case of Airey v. Ireland, no. 6289/73, Judgment of 9 October 1979, par. 26; ECHR, Case of Del Sol v. France, no. 46800/99, Judgment of 26 February 2002, par. 20; ECHR, Case of McVicar v. United Kingdom, no. 46311/99, Judgment of 7 May 2002, par. 47; ECHR, Case of Bertuzzi v. France, no. 36378/97, Judgment of 13 February 2003, par. 23; ECHR, Case of Siałkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, Judgment of 22 March 2007, par. 105; ECHR, Case of Staroszczyk v. Poland, no. 59519/00, Judgment of 22 March 2007, par. 127.

  102. 102.

    ECHR, Case of Airey v. Ireland, no. 6289/73, Judgment of 9 October 1979, par. 26. See also: ECHR, Case of Steel and Morris v. The United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, Judgment of 15 February 2005, par. 60; ECHR, Case of Assunção Chaves v. Portugal, no 61226/08, Judgment of 31 January 2012, par. 70.

  103. 103.

    ECHR, Case of Golder v. The United Kingdom, no. 4451/70, Judgment of 21 February 1975, par. 26.

  104. 104.

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

  105. 105.

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

  106. 106.

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

  107. 107.

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

  108. 108.

    ECHR, Case of McVicar v. The United Kingdom, no. 46311/99, Judgment of 7 May 2002, par. 51–62.

  109. 109.

    ECHR, Case of Steel and Morris v. The United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, Judgment of 15 February 2005, par. 63–72.

  110. 110.

    ECHR, Case of Aerts v. Belgium, 61/1997/845/1051, Judgment of 30 July 1998, par. 57, 60.

  111. 111.

    ECHR, Case of Gnahoré v. France, no. 40031/98, Judgment of 19 September 2000, par. 38–40.

  112. 112.

    ECHR, Case of Gnahoré v. France, no. 40031/98, Judgment of 19 September 2000, par. 39.

  113. 113.

    ECHR, Case of Del Sol v. France, no. 46800/99, Judgment of 26 February 2002, par. 8.

  114. 114.

    ECHR, Case of Del Sol v. France, no. 46800/99, Judgment of 26 February 2002, par. 20. See also: ECHR, Ilbeyi Kemaloğlu and Meriye Kemaloğlu v. Turkey, no. 19986/06, Judgment of 10 April 2012, par. 52, 53.

  115. 115.

    ECHR, Case of Bertuzzi v. France, no. 36378/97, Judgment of 13 February 2003, par. 22.

  116. 116.

    ECHR, Case of Bertuzzi v. France, no. 36378/97, Judgment of 13 February 2003, par. 24–31.

  117. 117.

    ECHR, Case of Airey v. Ireland, no. 6289/73, Judgment of 9 October 1979, par. 24; ECHR, Case of Gnahoré v. France, no. 40031/98, Judgment of 19 September 2000, par. 38–40, ECHR, Case of McVicar v. The United Kingdom, no. 46311/99, Judgment of 7 May 2002, par. 46; ECHR, Case of P. C. And S. v. The United Kingdom, no. 56547/00, Judgment of 16 July 2002, par. 89–91; ECHR, Case of A. v. The United Kingdom, no. 35373/97, Judgment of 17 December 2002, par. 96, 97; ECHR, Case of Steel and Morris v. The United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, Judgment of 15 February 2005, par. 62, 69; ECHR, Case of Assunção Chaves v. Portugal, no 61226/08, Judgment of 31 January 2012, par. 70.

  118. 118.

    ECHR, Case of P. C. And S. v. The United Kingdom, no. 56547/00, Judgment of 16 July 2002, par. 90; ECHR, Case of Del Sol v. France, no. 46800/99, Judgment of 26 February 2002, par. 25–27; ECHR, Case of Steel and Morris v. The United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, Judgment of 15 February 2005, par. 62.

  119. 119.

    ECHR, Case of Siałkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, Judgment of 22 March 2007, par. 107; ECHR, Case of Staroszczyk v. Poland, no. 59519/00, Judgment of 22 March 2007, par. 129.

  120. 120.

    ECHR, Case of Mutu and Pechstein v. Switzerland, nos. 40575/10 and 67474/10, Judgment of 2 October 2018, par.94–96.

  121. 121.

    ECHR, Case of Pudas v. Sweden, no. 10426/83, Judgment of 27 Oct1ober 1987, par. 12–15, 39–40. . See, also: ECHR, Case of Tre Traktörer Aktiebolag v. Sweden, no. 10873/84, Judgment of 7 July 1989, par. 47, 48; ECHR, Case of Woś v. Poland, no. 22860/02, Judgment of 08 June 2006, par. 92; ECHR, Case of Sâmbata Bihor Greek Catholic Parish v. Romania, no 48107/99, Judgment of 12 January 2010, par. 70.

  122. 122.

    ECHR, Case of Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, 19 June 2001, par. 59.

  123. 123.

    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.

  124. 124.

    ECHR, Case of Stankiewicz v. Poland, no. 46917/99, Judgment of 26 July 2011, par. 60.

  125. 125.

    ECHR, Case of Lawyer Partners a.s. v. Slovakia, nos. 54252/07, 3274/08, 3377/08, 3505/08, 3526/08, 3741/08, 3786/08, 3807/08, 3824/08, 15055/08, 29548/08, 29551/08, 29552/08, 29555/08 and 29557/08, Judgment of 16 June 2009, par. 8–11.

  126. 126.

    ECHR, Case of Lawyer Partners a.s. v. Slovakia, nos. 54252/07, 3274/08, 3377/08, 3505/08, 3526/08, 3741/08, 3786/08, 3807/08, 3824/08, 15055/08, 29548/08, 29551/08, 29552/08, 29555/08 and 29557/08, Judgment of 16 June 2009, par. 52–55.

  127. 127.

    ECHR, Case of Canea Catholic Church v. Greece, 143/1996/762/963, Judgment of 16 December 1997, par. 35, 36, 40.

  128. 128.

    ECHR, Case of Canea Catholic Church v. Greece, 143/1996/762/963, Judgment of 16 December 1997, par. 41.

  129. 129.

    In fact, a simple logistic regression shows that this element of due process, in fact, increases the probability of finding a violation 1.27 times (at a p-value of.004) when compared with the other dimensions.

  130. 130.

    ECHR, Case of Deumeland v. Germany, no. 9384/81, Judgment of 29 May 1986, par. 77. More recently: ECHR, Case of X v. France, no. 18020/91, Judgment of 31 March 1992, par. 31; ECHR, Case of Siegel v. France, no. 36350/97, Judgment of 28 November 2000, par. 42; ECHR, Case of Kress v. France, no. 39594/98, Judgement of 7 June 2001, par. 90.

  131. 131.

    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. More recently: ECHR, Case of Frydlender v. France, no. 30979/96, Judgment of 27 June 2000, par. 43; ECHR, Case of Boca v. Belgium, no. 50615/99, Judgment of 15 November 2002, par. 24; ECHR, Case of O’Sullivan McCarthy Mussel Development Ltd. v. Ireland, no. 44460/16, Judgment of 7 June 2018, par. 144.

  132. 132.

    ECHR, Case of H v. The United Kingdom, 9580/81, Judgement of 8 July 1987, par. 85. See also: ECHR, Case of X. France, no. 18020/91, Judgment of 31 March 1992, par. 47; ECHR, Case of Süßmann v. Germamy, no. 20024/92, Judgment of 16 September 1996, par. 58, 61; ECHR, Case of Laino v. Italy, no. 33158/96, Judgment of 18 February 1999, par. 18; ECHR, Case of Nuutinen v. Finland, no. 32842/96, Judgment of 27 June 2000, par. 119; ECHR, Case of Frydlender v. France, no. 30979/96, Judgment of 27 June 2000, par. 45; ECHR, Case of Mikulić v. Croatia, no. 53176/99, Judgment 7 February 2002, par. 44; ECHR, Case of Szarapo v. Poland, no. 40835/98, Judgment of 23 May 2002, par. 40.

  133. 133.

    ECHR, Case of Buchholz v. Germany, no. 7759/77, Judgment of 6 May 1981, par. 49.

  134. 134.

    ECHR, Case of Zimmermann and Steiner v. Switzerland, no. 8737/79, Judgment of 13 July 1983, par. 27–29. See also: ECHR, Case of Francesco Lombardo v. Italy, no. 11519/85, Judgment of 26 November 1992, par. 20; ECHR, Case of Zwierzyński v. Poland, no. 34049/96, Judgment of 19 June 2001, par. 55.

  135. 135.

    ECHR, Case of Sürmeli v. Germany, no. 75529/01, Judgment of 8 June 2006, par. 129.

  136. 136.

    ECHR, Case of Tierce v. San Marino, no. 69700/01, Judgment of 17 June 2003, par. 31

  137. 137.

    See, e.g.: ECHR, Case of Cordova v. Italy (no. 2), no. 45649/99, Judgment of 30 January 2003, par. 58 (regarding an analysis of a limitation imposed over access to justice by parlamentary immunity); ECHR, Case of Oferta Plus S.R.L. v. Moldova, no. 14385/04, Judgment of 19 December 2006, par. 108–111 (regarding judicial enforcement of a judicial decision as an inherent element of the right of a court).

  138. 138.

    See, e.g.: ECHR Case of Hirschhorn v. Romania, no. 29294/02, Judgment of 26 July 2007, par. 82–83 (analyzing whether petitioners’ doubts as to the Independence and impartiality of the Court of Appeal could be said to be objectively justified under the particular circumstances of the case). Similarly, see: ECHR, Case of Wettstein v. Switzerland, no. 33958/96, Judgment of 21 December 2000, par. 45–49; ECHR, Case of Pétur Thór Sigurðsson v. Iceland, no. 39731/98, Judgment of 10 April 2003, par. 37–45; ECHR, Case of Pescador Valero v. Spain, no. 62435/00, Judgment of 17 June 2003, par. 27–28; ECHR, Case of San Leonard Band Club v. Malta, no. 77562/01, Judgment of 29 June 2004, par. 62; ECHR, Case of Puolitaival and Pirttiaho v. Finland, no. 54857/00, Judgment of 23 November 2004, par. 51–54.

  139. 139.

    See, e.g.: ECHR, Case of Levages Prestations Services v. France, no. 21920/93, Judgment of 23 October 1996, par. 43–44.; ECHR, Case of Miragall Escolano and Others v. Spain, nos. 38366/97, 38688/97, 40777/98, 40843/98, 41015/98, 41400/98, 41446/98, 41484/98, 41487/98 and 41509/98, Judgment of 25 January 2000, par. 37.

  140. 140.

    See, e.g.: ECHR, Case of Sukhobokov v. Russia, no. 75470/01, Judgment of 13 April 2006, par. 24; ECHR, Case of Oferta Plus S.R.L. v. Moldova, no. 14385/04, Judgment of 19 December 2006, par. 108–111.

  141. 141.

    See, e.g.: ECHR, Case of Staroszczyk v. Poland, no. 59519/00, Judgment of 22 March 2007, par. 137–138; ECHR, Case of Steel and Morris v. The United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, Judgment of 15 February 2005, par. 61.

  142. 142.

    See, e.g.: ECHR, Case of Denisov v. Ukraine, no. 76639/11, 25 September 2018, par. 61–63.

  143. 143.

    See, e.g.: ECHR, Case of Tatishvili v. Russia, no. 1509/02, 22 February 2007, par. 62–63; ECHR, Case of Blücher v. Czech Republic, no 58580/00, Judgment of 11 January 2005, par. 55–57.

  144. 144.

    See, e.g.: ECHR, Case of Blücher v. Czech Republic, no 58580/00, Judgment of 11 January 2005, par. 60–61; ECHR, Case of Yvon v. France, no. 44962/98, Judgment of 24 April 2003, par. 39–40; ECHR, Case of Stepinska v. France, no 1814/02, Judgment of 15 June 2004, par. 18.

  145. 145.

    ECHR, Case of Helmers v. Sweden, no. 11826/85, Judgment of 29 October 1991, par. 36.

  146. 146.

    ECHR, Case of Golder v. United Kingdom, no. 4451/70, Judgment of 21 February 1975, par. 26; ECHR, Case of Airey v. Ireland, no. 6289/73, Judgment of 9 October 1979, par. 24

  147. 147.

    ECHR, Case of Běleš and Others v. The Czech Republic, no. 47273/99, 12 November 2002, par. 68, 69.

  148. 148.

    ECHR, Case of Simaldone v. Italy, no 22644/03, Judgment of 31 March 2009, par. 5–10.

  149. 149.

    ECHR, Case of Simaldone v. Italy, no 22644/03, Judgment of 31 March 2009, par. 16.

  150. 150.

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

  151. 151.

    ECHR, Case of Qufaj Co. Sh.p.k. v. Albania, no. 54268/00, Judgment of 18 November 2004, par. 7–20.

  152. 152.

    ECHR, Case of Qufaj Co. Sh.p.k. v. Albania, no. 54268/00, Judgment of 18 November 2004, par. 38.

  153. 153.

    ECHR, Case of Qufaj Co. Sh.p.k. v. Albania, no. 54268/00, Judgment of 18 November 2004, par. 40–42.

  154. 154.

    ECHR, Case of Lawyer Partners a.s. v. Slovakia, nos. 54252/07, 3274/08, 3377/08, 3505/08, 3526/08, 3741/08, 3786/08, 3807/08, 3824/08, 15055/08, 29548/08, 29551/08, 29552/08, 29555/08 and 29557/08, Judgment of 16 June 2009, par. 52-55.

  155. 155.

    ECHR, Case of K.H. and Others v. Slovakia, no. 32881/04, Judgment of 28 April 2009, par. 66.

  156. 156.

    ECHR, Case of K.H. and Others v. Slovakia, no. 32881/04, Judgment of 28 April 2009, par. 6, 11–19.

  157. 157.

    ECHR, Case of K.H. and Others v. Slovakia, no. 32881/04, Judgment of 28 April 2009, par. 59–61.

  158. 158.

    ECHR, Case of K.H. and Others v. Slovakia, no. 32881/04, Judgment of 28 April 2009, par. 64.

  159. 159.

    ECHR, Case of K.H. and Others v. Slovakia, no. 32881/04, Judgment of 28 April 2009, par. 67.

  160. 160.

    ECHR, Case of Liakopoulou v. Greece, no 20627/04, Judgment of 24 May 2006, par. 11.

  161. 161.

    ECHR, Case of Liakopoulou v. Greece, no 20627/04, Judgment of 24 May 2006, par. 23, 24. Similarly, see: ECHR, Case of Sotiris and Nikos Koutras ATTEE v. Greece, no. 39442/98, Judgment of 16 November 2000, par. 22; ECHR, Case of Platakou, no. 38460/97, Judgment of 11 January 2001, par. 43; ECHR, Case of Dodov. Bulgaria, no. 59548/00, Judgment of 17 January 2008, par. 113; ECHR, Case of L’Erablière A.S.B.L. v. Belgium, no 49230/07, Judgment of 24 February 2009, par. 37, 38; ECHR, Case of RTBF v. Belgium, no 50084/06, Judgment of 29 March 2011, par. 71; ECHR, Case of Zubac v. Crotia, no. 40160/12, Judgment of 5 April 2018, par. 85.

  162. 162.

    ECHR, Case of Airey v. Ireland, no. 6289/73, Judgment of 9 October 1979, par. 26; ECHR, Case of Del Sol v. France, no. 46800/99, Judgment of 26 February 2002, par. 20; ECHR, Case of Bertuzzi v. France, no. 36378/97, Judgment of 13 February 2003, par. 23; ECHR, Case of Siałkowska v. Poland, no. 8932/05, Judgment of 22 March 2007, par. 105; par. ECHR, Case of Staroszczyk v. Poland, no. 59519/00, Judgment of 22 March 2007, par. 127.

  163. 163.

    ECHR, Case of A v. The United Kingdom, no. 35373/97, Judgment of 17 December 2002, par. 96; ECHR, Case of McVicar v. The United Kingdom, no. 46311/99, Judgment of 7 May 2002, par. 47.

  164. 164.

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

  165. 165.

    ECHR, Case of Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, Judgment of 21 May 2002, par. 68. See also: ECHR, Case of Levages Prestations Services v. France, no. 21920/93, Judgment of 23 October 1996, par. 46.

  166. 166.

    Article 6.1. establish the following: “…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.”

  167. 167.

    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, Martinie v. France, no. 58675/00, Judgment of 12 April 2006, par. 40–42.

  168. 168.

    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.

  169. 169.

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

  170. 170.

    ECHR, Kennedy v. The United Kingdom, no. 26839/05, Judgment of 18 May 2010, par. 8.

  171. 171.

    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.

  172. 172.

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

  173. 173.

    ECHR, Case of Levages Prestations Services v. France, no. 21920/93, Judgment of 23 October 1996, par. 40; ECHR Case of García Manibardo v. Spain, no. 38695/97, Judgment of 15 February 2000, par. 36; ECHR, Case of Berger v. France, no. 48221/99, Judgment of 03 December 2002, par. 30; ECHR, Case of Ernst and Other v. Belgium, no 33400/96, Judgment of 15 July 2003, par. 74; ECHR, Case of Liakopoulou v. Greece, no 20627/04, Judgment of 24 May 2006, par. 17.

  174. 174.

    ECHR, Case of Annoni di Gussola and Others v. France, nos. 31819/96 and 33293/96, Judgment of 14 November 2000, par. 50–57.

  175. 175.

    ECHR, Case of Zubac v. Croatia, no. 40160/12, Judgment of 5 April 2018, par. 85–86.

  176. 176.

    ECHR, Case of García Ruiz v. Spain, no. 30544/96, Judgment of 21 January 1999, par. 26, 29; ECHR, Case of Jokela v. Finland, no. 28856/95, Judgment of 21 May 2002, par. 72, 73; ECHR, Case of Buzescu v. Romania, no. 61302/00, Judgment of 24 May 2005, par. 63; ECHR, Case of Tatishvili v. Russia, no. 1509/02, Judgment of 22 February 2007, par. 58; ECHR, Case of Wagner and J.M.W.L. v. Luxembourg, no. 76240/01, Judgment of 28 June 2007, par. 90; ECHR, Case of Gorou v. Greece (No 2), no. 12686/03, Judgment of 20 March 2009, par. 37.

  177. 177.

    Galič (2017), pp. 30–31.

  178. 178.

    ECHR, Case of Golder v. United Kingdom, no. 4451/70, Judgment of 21 February 1975, par. 36.

  179. 179.

    ECHR, Case of Forrer-Niedenthal v. Germany, no 47316/99, Judgment of 20 February 2003, par. 60.

  180. 180.

    ECHR, Case of Blücher v. Czech Republic, no 58580/00, Judgment of 11 January 2005, par. 10, 11, 40.

  181. 181.

    ECHR, Case of Blücher v. Czech Republic, no 58580/00, Judgment of 11 January 2005, par. 52, 53. See also: ECHR, Case of ECHR, Case of Tommaso v. Italy, no. 43395/09, Judgment of 23 February 2017, par. 170.

  182. 182.

    CHR, Case of ECHR, Case of Tommaso v. Italy, no. 43395/09, Judgment of 23 February 2017, par. 171.

  183. 183.

    ECHR, Case of Steel and Morris v. The United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, Judgment of 15 February 2005, par. 59, 60. See, also: ECHR, Case of Airey v. Ireland, no. 6289/73, Judgment of 9 October 1979, par. 26; ECHR, Case of Gnahoré v. France, no. 40031/98, Judgment of 19 September 2000, par. 38; ECHR, Case of McVicar v. The United Kingdom, no. 46311/99, Judgment of 7 May 2002, par. 48–50.

  184. 184.

    Following Ronald Dworkin account for the differences between legal principles and rules. See: Dworkin (1967), pp. 22–29; Dworkin (1977), pp. 22–31.

  185. 185.

    ECHR, Di Mauro v. Italy, no. 34256/96, Judgment of 28 July 1999, par. 23.

  186. 186.

    ECHR, Case of Bottazzi v. Italy, no. 34884/97, 28 July 1999, par. 22; ECHR, Case of Mennitto v. Italy, no. 33804/96, Judgment of 5 October 2000, par. 30; ECHR, Case of Apicella v. Italy, no. 64890/01, Judgment of 29 March 2006, par. 116–118; ECHR, Case of Cocchiarella v. Italy, no. 64886/01 Judgment of 29 March 2006, par. 119–121; ECHR, Case of Giuseppe Mostacciuolo v. Italy (no. 1), no. 64705/01, Judgment of 29 March 2006, par. 115–119; ECHR, Case of Giuseppina and Orestina Procaccini v. Italy, no. 65075/01, Judgment of 29 March 2006, par. 115–119; ECHR, Case of Giuseppe Mostacciuolo v. Italy (no. 2), no. 65102/01, Judgment of 29 March 2006, par. 114–118; ECHR, Case of Musci v. Italy, no. 64699/01, Judgment of 9 March 2006, par. 117–121; ECHR, Case of Riccardi Pizzatti v. Italy, no. 62361/00, Judgment of 9 March 2006, par. 114–118; ECHR, Case of Scordino v. Italy (no. 1), no. 36813/97, Judgment of Judgment of 9 March 2006, par. 222–226; ECHR, Case of Simaldone v. Italy, no 22644/03, Judgment of 31 March 2009, par. 35–37.

  187. 187.

    ECHR, Case of Kaic and Other v. Croatia, no. 22014/04, Judgment of 17 July 2008, par. 24–27. Similarly, see: ECHR, Case of Frerot v. France, no 70204/01, Judgment of 12 June 2007, par. 67–70; ECHR, Case of Gorou v. Greece (No. 2), no 70204/01, Judgment of 20 March 2009, par. 46 (referring to the arguments of the First section); ECHR, Case of Kenedi v. Hungary, no. 31475/05, Judgment of 26 May 2009, par. 37–39; ECHR, Martins Castro et Alves Correia de Castro v. Portugal, no 33729/06, Judgment 10 June 2008, par. 40; ECHR, Case of Turek v. Slovakia, no. 57986/00, Judgment of 14 February 2006, par. 98–99.

  188. 188.

    ECHR, Case of Kleyn and Others v. The Netherlands, nos. 39343/98, 39651/98, 43147/98 and 46664/99, Judgment of 6 May 2003, par. 190.

  189. 189.

    See, e.g.: ECHR, Case of Sovtransavto Holding v. Ukraine, no. 48553/99, Judgment of 25 July 2002, par. 80.

  190. 190.

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

  191. 191.

    Hazelhorst (2017), p. 155.

  192. 192.

    ECHR, Case of Kleyn and Others v. The Netherlands, nos. 39343/98, 39651/98, 43147/98 and 46,664/99, Judgment of 6 May 2003, par. 191.

  193. 193.

    ECHR, Case of Micallef v. Malta, no. 17056/06, Judgment of 15 October 2009, par. 97; ECHR, Case of Driza v. Albania, no. 33771/02, Judgment of 13 November 2007, par. 80.

  194. 194.

    ECHR, Case of Micallef v. Malta, no. 17056/06, Judgment of 15 October 2009, par. 101–103.

  195. 195.

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

  196. 196.

    ECHR, Case of Procola v. Luxembourg, no. 14570/89, Judgment of 28 September 1995, par. 44, 45; ECHR, Case of Kress v. France, no. 39594/98, Judgment of 7 June 2001, par. 81–85; ECHR, Case of Martinie v. France, no. 58675/00, Judgment of 12 April 2006, par. 53–55; ECHR, Case of Tedesco v. France, no 11950/02, Judgment of 10 May 2007, par. 63–65.

  197. 197.

    ECHR, Case of Kleyn and Others v. The Netherlands, nos. 39343/98, 39651/98, 43147/98 and 46664/99, Judgment of 6 May 2003, par. 192.

  198. 198.

    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.

  199. 199.

    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.

  200. 200.

    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.

  201. 201.

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

  202. 202.

    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.

  203. 203.

    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.

  204. 204.

    ECHR, Case of Eisenstecken v. Austria, no. 29477/95, Judgment of 3 October 2000, par. 34. Similar approach may be found in: ECHR, Case of Göç v. Turkey, no. 36590/97, Judgment of 11 July 2002, par. 47–51.

  205. 205.

    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.

  206. 206.

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

  207. 207.

    ECHR, Case of Sramek v. Austria, no. 8790/79, Judgment of 22 October 1984, par. 36.

  208. 208.

    ECHR, Case of H. v. Belgium, no. 8950/80, Judgment of 30 November 1987, par. 50.

  209. 209.

    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.

  210. 210.

    ECHR, Case of Chevrol v. France, no. 49636/99, Judgment of 13 February 2003, par. 10–19.

  211. 211.

    ECHR, Case of Chevrol v. France, no. 49636/99, Judgment of 13 February 2003, par. 82, 83.

  212. 212.

    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.

  213. 213.

    ECHR, Case of Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, no. 14518/89, Judgment of 24 June 1993, par. 47, 52.

  214. 214.

    ECHR, Case of Pellegrini v. Italy, no. 30882/96, Judgment of 20 July 2001, par. 44; ECHR, Göç v. Turkey, no. 36590/97, Judgment of 11 July 2002, par. 55; ECHR, Case of Kök v. Turkey, no 1855/02, Judgment of 19 October 2006, par. 52–54; ECHR, Case of Augusto v. France, no 71665/01, Judgment of 11 January 2007, par. 50–52.

  215. 215.

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

  216. 216.

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

  217. 217.

    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.

  218. 218.

    ECHR, Case of Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, no. 7299/75; 7496/76, Judgement of 10 February 1983, par. 28, 30.

References

  • Alston P, Goodman R (2013) International human rights. The successor to international human rights in context: law, politics and morals. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe (2004) Explanatory report to protocol no. 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, amending the control system of the Convention. Available at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/194

  • Cross T (2010) Is there a “civil right” under article 6? Ten principles for public lawyers. Judicial Rev 15(4):366–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • European Court of Human Rights (2013a) Filtering Section speeds up processing of cases from highest case-count countries. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Filtering_Section_ENG.pdf

  • European Court of Human Rights (2013b) Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Right to a fair trial (Civil limb). Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/guide_art_6_eng.pdf

  • European Court of Human Rights (2019) The ECHR in facts & figures 2018. Available at: https://echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=reports/factsfigures&c=

  • 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 

  • Galič A (2017) The inconsistency of case law and the right to a fair trial. In: Uzelac A, van Rhee C (eds) Revisiting procedural human rights. Fundamentals of civil procedure and the changing face of civil justice. Intersentia, Cambridge, pp 17–51

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman R (2009) History and action: the inter-American human rights system and the role of the inter-American commission on human rights. Human Rights Q 31(4):856–887

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazelhorst M (2017) Free movement of civil judgments in the European Union and the right to a fair trial. The Hague, T.M.C. Asser Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Scheinin M (2007) Access to justice before international human rights bodies: reflections on the practice of the UN human rights committee and the European court of human rights. In: Francioni F (ed) Access to justice as a human right. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 135–152

    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 European Court of Human Rights Case Law on Due Process Over 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_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95534-2_7

  • 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