9. Article 6: The right to a fair trial

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Harris ◽  
Michael O’Boyle ◽  
Ed Bates ◽  
Carla Buckley
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Public Hearing ◽  
Legal Assistance ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Reasonable Time ◽  
Criminal Charge ◽  
The Right

This chapter discusses Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial in both criminal and non-criminal cases. In all cases, it guarantees the right to a fair and public hearing trial within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. There are particular guarantees for persons subject to a criminal charge, including the right to be presumed innocent, to be informed of the charge, to adequate time and facilities to prepare the accused’s defence, to legal assistance, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to an interpreter.

The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights and Its Protection of the Right to a Fair Trial

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-223
Author(s):  
Jamil Ddamulira Mujuzi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Legal Assistance ◽  
Legal Aid ◽  
Reasonable Time ◽  
African Charter ◽  
The Right

Abstract Article 3(1) of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights provides that: “[t]he jurisdiction of the Court shall extend to all cases and disputes submitted to it concerning the interpretation and application of the [African] Charter, this Protocol and any other relevant Human Rights instrument ratified by the States concerned.” Since its establishment, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights has handed down judgments dealing, inter alia, with the right to a fair trial under Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. This article discusses these judgments to highlight how the Court has interpreted or applied Article 7 of the African Charter. The author will analyse the jurisprudence of the Court on the right to a fair trial and in particular discuss the following themes that have emerged from this jurisprudence: the Court’s interpretation of the components of the right to a fair trial; the right to be heard and the right to defend oneself; the right to legal assistance, including legal aid; manifest errors in the trial; the right to be tried within a reasonable time; and the role of a prosecutor in contributing to the fairness of the trial. The author also discusses how the African Court has invoked other treaties to interpret the relevant provisions of the African Charter and how the African Court has interpreted other treaties apart from the African Charter.

scholarly journals The Right to a Fair Trial in Automated Civil Proceedings

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-44
Author(s):  
Maria Dymitruk
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Reasonable Time ◽  
European Court ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
Judicial Proceedings ◽  
The Right

Challenges associated with the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in law are one of the most hotly debated issues today. This paper draws attention to the question of how to safeguard the right to a fair trial in the light of rapidly changing technologies significantly affecting the judiciary and enabling automation of the civil procedure. The paper does not intend to comprehensively address all aspects related to the right to a fair trial in the context of the automation of civil proceedings but rather seeks to analyse some legal concerns from the perspective of the Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. Section 1 discusses the issues of using artificial intelligence in the justice and automation of the judicial proceedings. Section 2 is devoted to the judge supporting system based on artificial intelligence and psychological requirements of its practical use. Section 3 presents the right to a fair trial in civil cases established by the Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, while subsequent sections characterize its elements with respect to the possibility to automate civil proceedings: a right to have case heard within a reasonable time in section 4 and a right to a reasoned judgment in section 5.

scholarly journals Oral public hearing in an administrative dispute

2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 487-502
Author(s):  
Renata Bjelica
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Public Hearing ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Right

The right to an oral public hearing is covered by the right to a fair trial as a right guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as well as by the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia. In this sense, the Law on Administrative Disputes prescribes a rule for the court to establish the facts at an oral public hearing. This law prescribes exceptions to the rule, as well as cases in which the court will "always" and in which it is "obliged" to hold an oral public hearing. Analyzing the legal provisions, with reference to the relevant administrative and constitutional caselaw, and considering the present organization and capacity of the administrative judiciary, the author pointed to certain shortcomings of legislative solutions and administrative judicial decisions, and based on the conclusions drawn, tried to offer possible solutions so that, when it comes to holding a hearing before a court, a higher degree of fairness of trial could be achieved.

scholarly journals On the Issue of Inadmissibility of Infringing the Right to a Fair Trial of Criminal Cases under the Guise of Protecting State Sovereignty

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 176-182
Author(s):  
A A Timoshenko
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right

The author examines the issue of the prospects for the direct application of human rights standards in the regulation of criminal procedural activity. In this regard, the key attention is paid to the provisions of art. 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as art. 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the right to a fair trial of criminal cases. It is assumed that only a fair and impartial court is able to ensure the progressive development of society, its stability and security of citizens. Based on the analysis of the main possible ways of further development of the criminal procedural legislation, one of which is related to the increase of formal requirements for criminal procedural activity, and the other - with increased attention to the natural-legal principles of the application of the law, preference is given to the second approach. Based on the analysis of the monuments of world jurisprudence, the study of the history of the formation of international human rights law, it is concluded that it is impossible to overcome the progressive movement towards the triumph of the humanitarian status of the person recognized by the international community. In this regard, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, assessing the correctness of the European Court of Human Rights interpretation of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, should be guided by world standards. In addition, there is a need for widespread respect for the need to respect the right to a fair trial.

12. The Right to a Fair Trial in Civil and Criminal Cases

2020 ◽  
pp. 277-312
Author(s):  
Bernadette Rainey ◽  
Pamela McCormick ◽  
Clare Ovey
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Fair Hearing ◽  
Civil Cases ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

This chapter examines the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) on the right to a fair trial in criminal and civil cases, explaining that Article 6 of ECHR holds that the Strasbourg Court has no jurisdiction to reopen national legal proceedings or to substitute its own findings of fact for the conclusions of national courts. The chapter examines the interpretation by the Strasbourg Court of the protections provided by Article 6 in the extensive jurisprudence on this Article and discusses issues concerning the overall requirements of a fair hearing, right of access to court, and the extraterritorial effect of Article 6.

12. The Right to a Fair Trial in Civil and Criminal Cases

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernadette Rainey ◽  
Elizabeth Wicks ◽  
Andclare Ovey
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Fair Hearing ◽  
Civil Cases ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

This chapter examines the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) on the right to a fair trial in criminal and civil cases, explaining that Article 6 of ECHR holds that the Strasbourg Court has no jurisdiction to reopen national legal proceedings or to substitute its own findings of fact for the conclusions of national courts. It discusses issues concerning the overall requirements of a fair hearing, right of access to court, and the extraterritorial effect of Article 6.

Standardy należytego uzasadnienia w świetle orzecznictwa Trybunału Konstytucyjnego i Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka

2014 ◽  
pp. 33-48
Author(s):  
Przemysław Florjanowicz-Błachut
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Judicial Reasoning ◽  
The Right

The core function of the judiciary is the administration of justice through delivering judgments and other decisions. The crucial role for its acceptance and legitimization by not only lawyers, but also individulas (parties) and the hole society plays judicial reasoning. It should reflect on judge’s independence within the exercise of his office and show also judicial self-restraint or activism. The axiology and the standards of proper judicial reasoning are anchored both in constitutional and supranational law and case-law. Polish Constitutional Tribunal derives a duty to give reasoning from the right to a fair trial – right to be heard and bring own submissions before the court (Article 45 § 1 of the Constitution), the right to appeal against judgments and decisions made at first stage (Article 78), the rule of two stages of the court proceedings (Article 176) and rule of law clause (Article 2), that comprises inter alia right to due process of law and the rule of legitimate expactation / the protection of trust (Vertrauensschutz). European Court of Human Rights derives this duty to give reasons from the guarantees of the right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of European Convention of Human Rights. In its case-law the ECtHR, taking into account the margin of appreciation concept, formulated a number of positive and negative requirements, that should be met in case of proper reasoning. The obligation for courts to give sufficient reasons for their decisions is also anchored in European Union law. European Court of Justice derives this duty from the right to fair trial enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Standards of the courts reasoning developed by Polish constitutional court an the European courts (ECJ and ECtHR) are in fact convergent and coherent. National judges should take them into consideration in every case, to legitimize its outcome and enhance justice delivery.

The Inviolability of Diplomatic Agents in the Context of Employment

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Rodgers
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Employment Contracts ◽  
Domestic Servants ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Diplomatic Immunity ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Way

‘Ordinary’ employment contracts—including those of domestic servants—have been deemed to attract diplomatic immunity because they fall within the scope of diplomatic functions. This chapter highlights the potential for conflict between these forms of immunity and the rights of the employees, and reflects on cases in which personal servants of diplomatic agents have challenged both the existence of immunity and the scope of its application. The chapter examines claims that the exercise of diplomatic immunity might violate the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the way in which courts have dealt with these issues. The chapter analyses diplomats’ own employment claims and notes that they are usually blocked by the assertion of immunity, but also reflects on more recent developments in which claims had been considered which were incidental to diplomatic employment (eg Nigeria v Ogbonna [2012]).

Does the Injunction Gap Violate Implementers’ Fair Trial Rights Under the ECHR?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Léon E Dijkman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The Past ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right ◽  
Federal Supreme ◽  
Validity Of A Patent

Abstract Germany is one of few jurisdictions with a bifurcated patent system, under which infringement and validity of a patent are established in separate proceedings. Because validity proceedings normally take longer to conclude, it can occur that remedies for infringement are imposed before a decision on the patent’s validity is available. This phenomenon is colloquially known as the ‘injunction gap’ and has been the subject of increasing criticism over the past years. In this article, I examine the injunction gap from the perspective of the right to a fair trial enshrined in Art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I find that the case law of the European Court of Human Rights interpreting this provision supports criticism of the injunction gap, because imposing infringement remedies with potentially far-reaching consequences before the validity of a patent has been established by a court of law arguably violates defendants’ right to be heard. Such reliance on the patent office’s grant decision is no longer warranted in the light of contemporary invalidation rates. I conclude that the proliferation of the injunction gap should be curbed by an approach to a stay of proceedings which is in line with the test for stays as formulated by Germany’s Federal Supreme Court. Under this test, courts should stay infringement proceedings until the Federal Patent Court or the EPO’s Board of Appeal have ruled on the validity of a patent whenever it is more likely than not that it will be invalidated.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document