Author: Evgeniy Fokin
Keywords: access to justice; fair trial; the effectiveness of justice; the initiation of the proceedings in court; the practice of the ECHR; the right to access to justice
The problem of access to justice continues to be relevant both in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights and at the level of national legal regulation. The purpose of this article is to systematize the accumulated theoretical ideas about access to justice and analyze their practical implementation by the ECHR. The study begins with a historical overview of views on access to justice. It is concluded that this problem has been indirectly understood by mankind since the time of Roman law, but systematization and specification were obtained only in the second half of the twentieth century. The article then gives a brief comparative analysis of the concepts of “access to justice”, “the right to access to justice” and “access to court”. This analysis is based, among other things, on Russian legal doctrine. The main part of the article is devoted to the practice of the ECHR. Thus, the analysis of the practice begins with a review of the case of Golder v. the United Kingdom, which became the basis for further positions of the ECHR. It also provides an overview of the dissenting opinions of judges who have not accepted the need to ensure access to justice as an independent element of the right to a fair trial. Further, the article describes the approaches of the ECHR to restrictions on the right of access to justice, compares the legal position of the ECHR, when such restrictions are possible, and when they violate the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention). Finally, considerable attention is paid to the question of what essential features justice should possess for the purposes of the right of access to justice. At the end of the article, a brief overview of the areas where access to justice intersects with other elements of the right to a fair trial is given. The article is based on comparative legal and historical methods of analysis.
About the author: Evgeniy Fokin – Research fellow, Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation; Postgraduate student, Department of judicial power at the Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia.
Citation: Fokin E. (2018) Evolyutsiya idey dostupnosti pravosudiya v pravovoy nauke i praktike Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka [The evolution of ideas of access to justice in the legal studies and practice of the European Court of Human Rights]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.8, no.4, pp.97–112. (In Russian).
Abolonin V.O. (2013) Printsipy dobrosovestnosti i sotrudnichestva v “novom” grazhdanskom protsesse [Principles of integrity and cooperation in the “new” civil process]. Arbitrazhnyy i grazhdanskiy protsess, no.8, pp.2–8. (In Russian).
Bannikov I.A. (2017) Printsip osushchestvleniya pravosudiya tol'ko sudom v grazhdanskom sudoproizvodstve: dis. … kand. yurid. nauk [The execution of justice solely by a court as a principle in civil proceedings: Cand. (Ph.D.) of science in Law dis. ], Moscow. (In Russian).
Bülow O. (1868) Die Lehre von den Processeinreden und die Processvoraussetzungen, Gissen: Verlag von Emil Roth.
Cappelletti M., Garth B. (1978) Access to Justice: The Newest Wave in the Worldwide Movement to Make Rights Effective. Buffalo Law Review, vol.27, no.2, pp.181–292. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/1142 (accessed: 20.10.2018).
Cappelletti M., Garth B., Trocker T. (1976) Access to Justice: Comparative General Report. The Rabel Journal of Comparative and International Private Law. vol.40, no.3–4, pp.669–717. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/2485 (accessed: 22.10.2018).
Cardozo B.N. (1921) The Nature of Judicial Process, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Erlikh O. (2011) Osnovopolozhenie sotsiologii prava [Fundamental principles of the sociology of law], Antonov M.V. (transl.), Grafskiy V.G., Grevtsov Yu.I. (eds.), Saint Petersburg: OOO “Universitetskiy izdatel'skiy konsortsium”. (In Russian).
Gegel' G. (1934) Sochineniya [Compositions], vol.7, Moscow; Leningrad: Socekgiz. (In Russian).
Goldstein S. (2001) The Proposed ALI/UNIDROIT Principles and Rules of Transnational Civil Procedure: The Utility of Such Harmonization Project. Uniform Law Review, vol.6, no.4, pp.789–801.
Gordon V.M. (1906) Iski o priznanii [Claims for declaration], Yaroslavl': Tipografiya Gubernskogo Pravleniya. (In Russian).
Hajiyev Kh.I. (2018) Pravovye doktriny, sodeystvuyushchie effektivnosti implementatsii Konventsii v natsional'nyy pravovoy poryadok [Legal doctrines promoting the effectiveness of the implementation of the Convention in the national legal order]. In: Implementatsiya resheniy Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka v rossiyskoy pravovoy sisteme: kontseptsii, pravovye podhody i praktika obespecheniya[Implementation of the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the Russian Legal System: concepts, legal approaches and practice: monograph], Moscow: Institut zakonodatel'stva i sravnitel'nogo pravovedeniya pri Pravitel'stve RF. (In Russian).
Harlow C. (1999) Access to Justice as a Human Right: The European Convention and the European Union. In: Alston Ph., Bustelo M., Heenan J. (eds.) The EU and Human Rights, Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, pp.187–214.
Harris M., O’Boyle M., Warbrick K. (2016) Pravo Evropeyskoy konventsii po pravam cheloveka [Law on the European Convention on Human Rights], Moscow: Razvitie pravovykh sistem. (In Russian).
Jones D.L. (2003) Article 6 ECHR and Immunities Arising in Public International Law. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol.52, no.2, pp.463–472.
Kovler A.I. (2016) Yavlenie sudeyskogo aktivizma: osobye mneniya sudey Evropeyskogo suda po pravam cheloveka [The phenomenon of judicial activism: dissenting opinions of judges of the European Court of Human Rights]. In: Rossiyskiy ezhegodnik Evropeyskoy konventsii po pravam cheloveka No.2 (2016): “Avtonomnoe tolkovanie” Konventsii i “sudeyskiy aktivizm” [Russian Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights. No.2 (2016): “Autonomous interpretation” of the Convention and “judicial activism”], Moscow: Statut, pp.30–57. (In Russian).
Kovler A.I. (2009) Nadzornaya instantsiya v sisteme grazhdanskogo sudoproizvodstva Rossii: Vzglyad iz Strasburga [Supervisory instance in the civil procedure of Russia: A look from Strasbourg], Zakon, no.5. pp.121–128. (In Russian).
Mattei U. (2007) Access to Justice. A Renewed Global Issue. Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, vol.11. Available at: http://www.ejcl.org/113/article113-14.pdf (accessed: 22.10.2018).
Montesk'e Sh. (1955). O dukhe zakonov [On the spirit of laws], Moscow: Goslitizdat. (In Russian).
Prikhod'ko I.A. (2005) Dostupnost' pravosudiya v arbitrazhnom i grazhdanskom protsesse: osnovnye problemy [Access to justice in commercial and civil procedure: relevant issues], Saint-Petersburg: Izdatel'stvo yuridicheskogo fakul'teta Sankt-Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. (In Russian).
Puchta G.F. (1832–1834) Pandekten, in 2 vols., Leipzig: Barth.
Salogubova E.V. (2002) Rimskiy grazhdanskiy protsess [Roman civil procedure], Moscow: Gorodets. (In Russian).
Sherstyuk V.M. (2004) Pravo byt' vyslushannym i uslyshannym – printsip grazhdanskogo protsessual'nogo prava [The right to be heard is a principle of civil procedural law]. In: Treushnikov M.K. (ed.) Zametki o sovremennom grazhdanskom i arbitrazhnom protsessual'nom prave [Notes about modern civil and commercial procedural law], Moscow: Gorodets, pp.57–63. (In Russian).
The Lord Mackay of Clashfern (1992) Access to Justice. RSA Journal, vol.141, no.5435, pp.21–32.
Uvarov P.Yu. (2017) Pod svodami Dvortsa pravisudiya. Sem' yuridicheskikh kolliziy v Frantsii XVI veka[Under the arches of the Palace of Justice. Seven legal conflicts in France of the 16th century], Moscow: OOO “Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie”. (In Russian).
Windscheid B. (1856) Die Actio des Römischen Civilrechts vom Standpunkt des Heutigen Rechts, Düsseldorf: Verlag von Julius Bubbeus.
Zhuykov V.M. (2006) Sudebnaya reforma: problemy dostupa k pravosudiyu [Judicial reform: problems of access to justice], Moscow: Statut. (In Russian).
Yarkov V.V. (ed.) (2017) Arbitrazhnyy protsess [Arbitration process], Moscow: Statut. (In Russian).
Nikitin S.V. Arbitrazhnyy protsess: Uchebnik [Arbitration process: Textbook], Moscow: RGUP. (In Russian).