The European Court of Human Rights: The Fair Trial Analysis Under Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights

Ölçer, F. Pınar

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5348-8_16

F. Pınar Ölçer²

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 20))

1665 Accesses
3 Citations

Abstract

The European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) are binding on all of the countries featured in this book, with the exception of the United States and Taiwan. Despite this importance, however, the ECtHR treats the decision to exclude evidence, or not, as a question of domestic law with which it will not interfere unless the use of the evidence at trial would violate the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 ECHR. The ECtHR thus uses a balancing test not dissimilar to that used in England and Wales. While the ECtHR has never found a violation of the Art. 8 ECHR right to privacy in one’s home or communications to affect the fair trial right and thus require exclusion, it has, with the decision of Salduz v. Turkey in 2009 developed strong case law finding a violation of the right to a fair trial if a confession taken in violation of the right to counsel is admitted into evidence. It has also enunciated a categorical exclusionary rule for statements taken in violation of the Article 3 ECHR prohibition of torture or inhuman and degrading treatment and has extended this unequivocally to the physical fruits of the poisonous tree in cases of torture.

This chapter is a summary of the ECHR-report presented at The XVIIIth International Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law (Criminal Procedure Section, “The Exclusionary Rule”), which took place in Washington D.C. from July 25 to August 1, 2010.

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)

eBook: USD 129.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 169.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 169.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Myjer (2002, 5), referring to: Lawson and Myjer (2000, xiii).
2.
Art. 6(1) ECHR provides, in pertinent part: “In the determination…of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing…”.
3.
Salduz v. Turkey (G.C.)(2009), 49 E.H.R.R. 19, 421.
4.
Schenk v. Switzerland (1991), 13 E.H.R.R. 1342, 265–266, § 46.
5.
Gäfgen v. Germany (2011), 52 E.H.R.R. 1, 41, § 163, citing Khan v United Kingdom (2001) 31 E.H.R.R. 45, 1016, 1025–1026, §34; PG v United Kingdom (2008) 46 E.H.R.R. 51, 1272, 1294–1295, §76; and Allan v United Kingdom (2003) 36 E.H.R.R. 12, 143, 155–156, §42.
6.
In reflecting on this case law, Bradley predicted that it “(…) will likely solidify the resistance of other countries to America’s mandatory exclusionary rule” Bradley (2001, 376).
7.
Information rights in Art. 6 ECHR can be understood as the aggregate of the right to information as that right follows from the principle of equality of arms (implicitly read in the notion of fairness in Art. 6 (1) ECHR) and the various explicit information rights enumerated in Art. 6 (3) ECHR.
8.
See Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, ECHR, 21 January 2009, § 90 and more recently, Lisica v. Croatia, No. 20100/06, ECHR, 25 Feb. 2010, § 49: “In determining whether the proceedings as a whole were fair, regard must also be had to whether the rights of the defence were respected. It must be examined in particular whether the applicant was given the opportunity of challenging the authenticity of the evidence and of opposing its use”.
9.
Ibid., § 95–96, where the Court noted that “the impugned recording, together with the physical evidence obtained through the covert operation, was not the only evidence relied on by the domestic court as the basis for the applicant’s conviction” and pointed to what it saw to be the “key evidence” in the form of a “statement by V., who had reported to the FSB that the applicant had ordered him to kill S., and had handed in the gun”.
10.
Micallef v. Malta (G.C.)(2010), 50 E.H.R.R. 37, 920, 940, § 81.
11.
See for early pretrial application of Art. 6 ECHR, Imbrioscia v. Switzerland (1994), 17 E.H.R.R. 441, § 36.
12.
See Allan v. United Kingdom (2003), 36 E.H.R.R. 12, 143, 160, § 60, where the petitioner was awarded Є 1642 for non-pecuniary damages for violations of the right to privacy, though no Art. 6 violation was found.
13.
See Gäfgen v. Germany (G.C.)(2011), 52 E.H.R.R. 1, 31–33, §§ 122–125.
14.
Delcourt v. Belgium (1979–1980), 1 E.H.R.R. 355, 366–367, § 25.
15.
O’Halloran and Francis v. United Kingdom (G.C.) (2008), 46 E.H.R.R. 21, 397, 413, § 53.
16.
Gerards (2009, 420).
17.
Ibid, 422.
18.
Ibid.
19.
Ibid.
20.
Gäfgen v. Germany (G.C.)(2011), 52 E.H.R.R. 1, 45, § 178.
21.
Delta v. France (1993), 16 E.H.R.R. 574 and Kostovski v. Netherlands (1990), 12 E.H.R.R. 434, and discussion in Thaman (2008, 129–130, 137–140).
22.
Damaška (1973, 513).
23.
Ibid.
24.
Ibid, 525.
25.
Allan v. United Kingdom (2003), 36 E.H.R.R. 12, 143, 156, § 43.
26.
Jalloh v. Germany(G.C.) (2007), 44 E.H.R.R. 42, 667, 694, § 106.
27.
Gäfgen v. Germany (G.C.)(2011), 52 E.H.R.R. 1, 42, §§ 165–167.
28.
Jalloh v. Germany (G.C.)(2007), 44 E.H.R.R. 42, 692–693, § 97.
29.
Ibid, 693–694, § 106.
30.
Saunders (1997), 23 E.H.R.R. 313, 340, § 74.
31.
Salduz v. Turkey (GC)(2009), 49 E.H.R.R. 19, 421, 437, § 54.
32.
Schenk v. Switzerland (1991), 13 E.H.R.R. 242, 266, § 48.
33.
Gäfgen v. Germany (G.C.)(2011), 52 E.H.R.R. 1, 46, § 180.
34.
Ibid, 44, § 174.
35.
Jalloh v. Germany (G.C.) (2007), 44 E.H.R.R. 42, 693, § 100.
36.
Ibid, § 97.
37.
Ibid, § 100.
38.
In Murray v. United Kingdom (1996), 22 E.H.R.R. 29, 44, §§ 56, 57, the court eventually held that allowing comment on a suspect’s exercise of the right to silence and its use to justify a judgment of guilt did not violate the presumption of innocence. Ibid, 46–47, § 65.
39.
Saunders v. United Kingdom (1997), 23 E.H.R.R. 313, 352-353 (§ 9, Martens, dissent).
40.
Jalloh v. Germany (G.C.)(2007), 44 E.H.R.R. 32, 667, 693, §§ 100–102.
41.
Saunders v. United Kingdom (1997), 23 E.H.R.R. 313, 337–339, §§ 69–71.
42.
Jalloh v. Germany (G.C.)(2007), 44 E.H.R.R. 32, 667, 695, §§ 113–116.
43.
O’Halloran and Francis v. United Kingdom (G.C.)(2008), 46 E.H.R.R. 21, 397, 414–415,§§ 57–58.
44.
Ibid, 413–414, § 54.
45.
Gäfgen v. Germany (G.C.)(2011), 53 E.H.R.R. 1, 6–7, 9–10, §§ 15–18, 29–31.
46.
Ibid, 44–46, §§ 177–183.
47.
Ibid, 23, § 87.
48.
Ibid, 23, § 88.
49.
Ibid, § 89.
50.
Ibid, § 90.
51.
Ibid, 24, §91.
52.
Ibid, § 92.
53.
Ibid, § 93.
54.
Ibid, 26–27, §§ 103–107.
55.
Ibid, 27, § 107.
56.
Ibid, § 108.
57.
Ibid, 41–42, § 165.
58.
Ibid, 42, § 167.
59.
Ibid.
60.
Ibid, 43, § 171.
61.
Ibid, 44, § 174.
62.
Ibid, § 175.
63.
Ibid, 45, § 178.
64.
Ibid.
65.
Ibid, 46, §§ 179, 180.
66.
Ibid, §§ 181–183.
67.
Allan v. United Kingdom (2003), 36 E.H.R.R. 12, 143, 158, § 50.
68.
Ibid, 158, § 51.
69.
Ibid, 159, § 52.
70.
Ibid.
71.
Bykov v. Russia (G.C.), No. 4378/02, ECHR, 10 March 2009.
72.
Ibid, §§ 10–14.
73.
Ibid, §§ 101–102.
74.
Ibid, §§ 30–35 (partly dissenting opinion of Judge Spielmann).
75.
Salduz v. Turkey (GC), (2009), 49 E.H.R.R. 19, 421.
76.
Ibid, 436–437, §§ 52–55.
77.
The right to pretrial legal assistance in relation to police interrogation was first recognized in Imbrioscia v. Switzerland (1994), 17 E.H.R.R. 441, 455–456, §§ 36–38. The principles deployed with regards to this right prior to the enunciation of Salduz-rules were formulated in Murray v. United Kingdom (1996), 22 E.H.R.R. 29, 47, § 67.
78.
Salduz (GC)(2009), 49 E.H.R.R., 19, 421, 436, § 52.
79.
Salduz v. Turkey, No. 36391/02, ECHR, 26 April 2007, §§ 22–24. That decision was not unanimous, the Court’s Second Section finding by five votes to two that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 3 (c) ECHR.
80.
As of February, 2009, the right to legal assistance during police interrogation was provided for by law in only 17 out of the 27 member states of the European Union. Spronken (2009, 94–95).
81.
See notably, Pishchalnikov v. Russia, No. 7205/04, ECHR, 24 Sept. 2009, §§ 77–79.
82.
Lisica v. Croatia, No. 20100/06 ECHR, 25 Feb. 2010, §§ 55–61.
83.
Salduz v. Turkey (G.C.) (2009), 49 E.H.R.R. 19, 421, 436, § 53.
84.
Ibid, § 54.
85.
Ibid.
86.
See, amongst others, P.G. v. The United Kingdom (2008), 46 E.H.R.R. 51, 1272 (use of a covert listening device at a residence and at a police station and telephone metering); Perry v. The United Kingdom (2004), 39 E.H.R.R. 3, 76 (covert video-taping at a police station) and Uzun v. Germany (2011), 53 E.H.R.R. 24, 852 (observation via GPS in a vehicle).
87.
See, again, amongst others, P.G. v. The United Kingdom, 46 E.H.R.R. 51, 1272, 1288, § 57, and Perry v. The United Kingdom, 39 E.H.R.R. 3, 19, 85, § 38.
88.
Ibid: “The monitoring of the actions of an individual in a public place by the use of photographic equipment which does not record the visual data does not, as such, give rise to an interference with the individual’s private life (…). On the other hand, the recording of the data and the systematic or permanent nature of the record may give rise to such considerations”.
89.
Van Dijk et al. (2006, 747).
90.
Perry v. The United Kingdom (2004), 39 E.H.R.R. 3, 76, 87, §45.
91.
See P.G. v. The United Kingdom (2008), 46 E.H.R.R. 51, 1272, 1286 § 46: “What is required by way of safeguard will depend, to some extent at least, on the nature and extent of the interference in question. In this case, the information obtained concerned the telephone numbers called from B.’s flat between two specific dates. It did not include any information about the contents of those calls, or who made or received them. The data obtained, and the use that could be made of them, were therefore strictly limited”.
92.
Thaman (2008, 56–59).
93.
Funke v. France (1993), 16 E.H.R.R. 297, 329, §§ 53–59; Miailhe v. France (1993), 16 E.H.R.R. 332, 354, §§ 36–40; Cremieux v. France (1993), 16 E.H.R.R. 357, 376, §§ 36–41.
94.
Camenzind v. Switzerland (1999), 28 E.H.R.R. 458.
95.
Ibid, 461, §§ 8–11.
96.
Ibid, 475–476, § 45.
97.
Ibid, 477, § 47.
98.
Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 US 523 (l967); Marshall v. Barlow’s, 436 U.S. 307 (l978).
99.
Klass v. Germany (1978), 2 E.H.R.R. 214 (1978).
100.
Ibid, 234–235, §§ 55, 56.
101.
Kruslin v. France (1990), 12 E.H.R.R.547.
102.
Ibid, 563–564, § 33
103.
Ibid, 564, § 35.
104.
Valenzuela Contreras v. Spain (1998), 28 E.H.R.R. 43; Prado Bugallo v. Spain, No. 58796/00, ECHR, 18 Feb 2003.
105.
Uzun v. Germany (2011), 53 E.H.R.R. 24, 852, § 61.
106.
Ibid, § 62.
107.
Ibid, § 63.
108.
Schenk v. Switzerland (1991), 13 E.H.R.R. 242, 266, § 48.
109.
Khan v. United Kingdom (2001), 31 E.H.R.R. 45, 1016.
110.
Ibid, 1023, §§ 27–28.
111.
Indeed, the applicant alleged that the House of Lords had ruled that evidence obtained in violation of the right to privacy is not excludable under the applicable rule in England and Wales. Ibid, 1028, §§ 38–40.
112.
Van Dijk et al. (2006, 664–744).
113.
Bykov v. Russia [G.C.], No. 4378/02, ECHR, 10 March 2009, § 3.3 (concurring opinion of Judge Cabral Barreto).
114.
For the chamber judgment, see Al-Khawaja and Tabery v. United Kingdom (2009), 49 E.H.R.R. 1, 16–18, §§ 39–48.
115.
Al-Khawaja and Tabery v. United Kingdom [G.C.], Nos. 26766/05, 22228/06, ECHR, 15 Dec. 2011, § 146.
116.
Joint partly dissenting and partly concurring opinion Judges Sajó and Karakaş attached to Al-Khawaja en Tahery.
117.
Salduz, § 54.

Bibliography

Bradley, C.M. 2001. Mapp goes abroad. 52 Case Western Law Review 52: 375–400.
Google Scholar
Damaška, M. 1973. Evidentiary barriers to conviction and two models of criminal procedure: A comparative study. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 121: 506–589.
Article Google Scholar
Gerards, J.H. 2009. Judicial deliberations in the European Court of Human Rights. In The legitimacy of highest courts’ rulings. Judicial deliberations and beyond, ed. N. Huls, M. Adams, and J. Bomhoff, 407–436. The Hague: T.M.C Asser Press.
Chapter Google Scholar
Lawson, R.A., and E. Myjer. 2000. Ten geleide. In: R.A. Lawson, E. Myjer (ed.), “50 jaar Europees Verdrag voor de Rechten van de Mens 1950-2000, Bijzondere aflevering NJCM-Bulletin”, Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Mensenrechten, 25, 1, XIII–XIV.
Google Scholar
Myjer, B.E.P. 2002. De vijftig voorbij. Aantekeningen over het ‘Europees Verdrag tot bescherming van de rechten van de mens en de fundamentele vrijheden’ en de Nederlandse strafrechtspleging. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.
Google Scholar
Spronken, T. 2009. Ja, de zon komt op voor de raadsman bij het politieverhoor! Nederlands Juristenblad 2: 94–100.
Google Scholar
Thaman, S.C. 2008. Comparative criminal procedure: A casebook approach, 2nd ed. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.
Google Scholar
Van Dijk, P., F. Van Hoof, A. Van Rijn, and L. Zwaak (eds.). 2006. Theory and practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, 4th ed. Antwerp/London: Intersentia.
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Leiden Law School, Steenschuur 25, 2311 ES, Leiden, The Netherlands
F. Pınar Ölçer

Authors

F. Pınar Ölçer
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. Pınar Ölçer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

, School of Law, Saint Louis University, Lindell Boulevard 3700, St. Louis, 63108, Missouri, USA
Stephen C. Thaman

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ölçer, F.P. (2013). The European Court of Human Rights: The Fair Trial Analysis Under Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights. In: Thaman, S. (eds) Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 20. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5348-8_16

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5348-8_16
Published: 16 October 2012
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5347-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5348-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics