The right to a fair trial and a modern civil procedure model
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21564/2414-990x.141.131221Keywords:
model of civil procedure, "court" and "the right to a court" in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, civil proceedings and law-enforcement procedures, civil rights and obligations, fundamental principles of fair trialAbstract
In the article the author tries to depart from the previous conventional approach according to which the model of civil procedure is characterized only as adversarial one. The author’s approach to the definition of model of civil procedure is based on the requirements of art. 6 (1) ECHR and the judgments of the Court, where the content and the scope of the right to a fair trial are determined. Abovementioned has allowed to conduct a complex study and to analyze the institutional, structural-functional, substantive, and procedural features of such model.
From the institutional point of view civil procedure should involve the judicial activity of courts directly integrated into the Judicial System of Ukraine, other jurisdictional bodies as well as enforcement bodies. This order is internally structured and covers both disputable and “conditionally” disputable proceedings and law-enforcement procedures, as well as stages of logical and functional character. In this regard, despite the existence of three procedural codes in Ukraine civil, economic and administrative proceedings should be included to a single civil procedure and, accordingly, be carried out in compliance with the fundamental principles of fair trial. The latter provide, firstly, that the access to jurisdictional and enforcement bodies should not be burdened by excessive legal or economic obstacles. Secondly, the case hearing should occur in compliance with the due (fair) procedure. Thirdly, the hearing should be public. Fourthly, there should be reasonable time of a trial and execution. Fifthly, the jurisdictional body should be independent, unbiased and established by law. Sixthly, enforcement of decisions of jurisdictional bodies should be carried out without undue delay.
Civil procedure is considered to be the order for resolving civil cases according to the fundamental principles of fair trial, which is taken by courts in civil, economic and in certain occasions, administrative proceedings as well as, jurisdictional bodies and execution of court decisions by bailiffs and other authorities which make an execution of court judgments and decision of other authorities.
References
Komarov, V.V. (2012). Tsyvilne protsesualne pravo: problemy metodolohii nauky, dyferentsiatsii ta unifikatsii sudovykh protsedur. Pravo Ukrainy – Law of Ukraine, 1–2, 154–173 [in Ukrainian].
Jolowicz, J.A. (2003). Adversarial and Inquisitorial Models of Civil Procedure. International and Comparative Law Quartely. vol. 52, 281–296.
Luspenyk, D. (2004) Rol sudu v tsyvilnomu zmahalnomu protsesi. Yurydychnyi zhurnal - . Legal journal, 5, 116-120 [in Ukrainian].
Sakara, N.Yu. (2010). Problema dostupnosti pravosuddia u tsyvilnykh spravakh. Kharkiv: Pravo [in Ukrainian].
Zeder, N.B. (1962). Predmet i sistema sovetskogo grazhdanskogo processual'nogo prava. Pravovedenie - Jurisprudence, 3, 69-82 [In Russian].
Shtefan, M.Y. (2001). Tsyvilnyi protses. Kyiv: Vydavnychyi Dim «In Yure» [in Ukrainian].
Komarov, V.V. (2017). Vchennia pro predmet tsyvilnoho protsesualnoho prava. Pravo Ukrainy – Law of Ukraine, 5, 102–110 [in Ukrainian].
Cappelletti, M. (1993). Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes within the Framework of the World-Wide Access-to-Justice Movement. The Modern Law Review, May, 282–296.
Sander, F. (1979). Varieties of Dispute Processing. The Pound Conference: Perspectives of Justice in the Future. Minnesota: West Publ. Co, 65–87.
Andrews, N. (2012). The Three Paths of Justice: Court Proceedings, Arbitration, and Mediation inEngland.Netherlands: Springer.
Lin Andrian (2014). Court-Connected Mediation in Danish Civil Justice: A Happy Marriage of a Strained Relationship The Future of Civil Litigation. Access to Courts and Court-annexed Mediation in the Nordic Countries Lauro Evro and Anna Nylund (Ed.). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 157–184.
Tsuvina, T.A. (2015). Pravo na sud u tsyvilnomu sudochynstvi. Kharkiv: Slovo [in Ukrainian].
Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, no. 7299/75, 7496/76. 10 February 1983. § 29. Series A no. 58.
Kőnig v. Germany, no. 6232/73, 28 June 1978, § 98, Series A no. 27.
Bramelid and Malmstrom v. Sweden, no. 8588/79, 8589/79, 12 October 1982, § 30. DR 29.
Pastore v. Italy (dec.), no. 46483/99, 25 May 1999.
Osmo Suovaniemi and Others v. Finland (dec.), no. 31737/96, 23 February 1999.
Marmazov, V., Pushkar, P. (2011). Chy isnuie pravo na spravedlyvyi arbitrazhnyi rozghliad sprav, harantovanyi yevropeiskoiu konventsiieiu z prav liudyny? Pravo Ukrainy – Law of Ukraine, 1, 37–49 [In Ukrainian].
Hornsby v. Greece, no. 18357/91, 19 March 1997, § 40, EECHR 1997-II.
Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, no. 6878/75; 7238/75, 23 June 1981, § 45, Series A no. 43.
Ringeisen v. Austria, no. 2614/65, 16 July 1971, § 94, Series A no. 13.
Alaverdyan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 4523/04, 24 August 2010, § 35.
Procola v. Luxembourg, no. 14570/89, 28 September 1995, § 37, Series A no. 326.
Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, no. 7906/77, 24 June 1982, § 38, Series A no. 50.
Cruz de Carvalho c. Portugal, no. 18223/04, 10 Juillet 2007, § 21-27.
Nataliya Mikhalenko v.Ukraine, no. 49069/11, 30 May 2013, § 33-40.
Richard Clayron, Hugh Tomlison (2010). Fair Trial Rights.Oxford: University Press.
Libert c. la Belgium (dec.), no. 44734/988, Juillet 2004.
Micallef v. Malta [GB], no. 17056/06, 15 October 2009, § 83-86, ECHR 2009.
Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. United Kingdom, no. 18139/91, 30 July 1995, § 59, Series A. no. 316-B.
Bochan v. Ukraine (no.2), no. 22251/08, 5 February 2015, § 46, ECHR 2015.
Pravednaya v. Russia, no. 69529/01, 18 November 2004, § 27-34.
Buj v. Croatia, no. 24661/02, 1 June 2006, § 19.
Tsyvilne sudochynstvo Ukrainy: osnovni zasady ta instytuty. V.V. Komarov, K.V. Husarov, N.Yu. Sakara et al., V.V. Komarov (ed.). (2016). Kharkiv: Pravo [in Ukrainian].
Airey v. Ireland, no. 6289/73, 9 October 1979, § 21, Series A no. 32.
Ringeisen v. Austria, no. 2614/65, 16 July 1971, § 94, Series A no. 13.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2018 Наталія Юріївна Сaкара
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
