Social and Legal Studios
ISSN 2617-4162
e-ISSN 2617-4170
Publisher: Lviv State University of Internal Affairs
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to critically assess the mechanisms that allow reaching an adequate correlation between the effectiveness of trials and their consistency with the standards of fairness set out in Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The study, using formal legal, hermeneutical, and comparative methods, analysed the differences in the implementation of fair trial principles in European countries and developed recommendations for harmonising national systems with international legal criteria. The findings of this study demonstrated the diversity of approaches to striking a balance between efficiency and fairness in court proceedings in countries such as Germany, France, Poland, Italy, and Albania. Specifically, it was found that the judicial systems of France and Poland, by giving preference to expedited consideration of cases, may negatively affect the assurance of rights of accused persons. At the same time, Germany, Italy, and Albania focus on comprehensive review of cases, which guarantees fairness but delays proceedings, which affects the overall efficiency of justice. A review of the practices of the European Court of Human Rights showed that it often focuses on remedying rights violations, but rarely includes suggestions for improving the mechanisms for ensuring balance. Based on the study of court decisions, recommendations were developed to clarify the criteria for achieving an adequate balance between efficiency and fairness in court proceedings. These recommendations included specifying the standards by which the speed of case processing is determined without compromising efficiency. The findings obtained suggest the need to improve legal mechanisms to achieve an effective balance between the speed of case consideration and fair trial, which will contribute to the improvement of justice in European jurisdictions
Keywords: procedural guarantees; impartiality; reasonable time; prosecution; adversarial proceedings; presumption of innocence
Suggested citation
[1] Act of Criminal Procedure Code. (1997, June). Retrieved from http://surl.li/ljpedu.
[2] Allena, M., & Goisis, F. (2020). Full jurisdiction under Article 6 ECHR: Hans Kelsen v. the principle of separation of powers. European Public Law, 26(2), 287-306. doi: 10.54648/EURO2020045.
[3] Andenas, M., & Bjorge, E. (2013). National implementation of ECHR rights. In A. Føllesdal, B. Peters & G. Ulfstein (Eds.), Constituting Europe: The European Court of Human Rights in a national, European and global context (pp. 181-262). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139169295.007.
[4] Bode, J., & Peppo, E. (2022). Issues of implementation of the fair trial in the Albanian system: Analysis in the framework of the Constitutional Court and ECHR’s jurisprudence on Albania’s cases. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 11(6), 59-70. doi: /10.36941/ajis-2022-0149.
[5] Bosinceanu, D. (2021). Brief considerations regarding the respect for the right of defence of the accused person during criminal prosecution, in the light of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. Case study. International Journal of Legal and Social Order, 1(1), 610-621. doi: 10.55516/ijlso.v1i1.43.
[6] Chanturia, L. (2023). Right to an effective remedy in the European Convention on Human Rights. Journal of Law, 1, 9-25. doi: 10.60131/jlaw.1.2023.7060.
[7] Clayton, R., & Tomlinson, H. (2021). Fair Trial Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780199246342.001.0001.
[8] Code of Criminal Procedure. (1958, January). Retrieved from http://surl.li/bkhpie.
[9] Constitution of the Republic of Poland. (1997, April). Retrieved from https://www.sejm.gov.pl/prawo/konst/polski/kon1.htm.
[10] Court Constitution Act. (1950, September). Retrieved from https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gvg/BJNR005130950.html.
[11] Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Albania. (1999, June). Retrieved from https://www.refworld.org/legal/legislation/natlegbod/1995/en/18216.
[12] Davis, H. (2021). Article 6: Right to a fair trial. In Human rights law directions (pp. 252-292). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/he/9780198871347.003.0012.
[13] di Paolo, G. (2024). Admissibility of e-evidence, transnational e-evidence and fair-trial rights in Italy. In L.B. Winter & F. Salimi (Eds.), Admissibility of evidence in EU cross-border criminal proceedings: Electronic evidence, efficiency and fair trial rights (pp. 75- 88). Oxford: Hart Publishing. doi: 10.5040/9781509972029.ch-005.
[14] European Convention on Human Rights. (1950, November). Retrieved from https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/ convention_eng.
[15] Hirvelä, P., & Heikkilä, S. (2021). Right to a fair trial: A practical guide to the Article 6 case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. Cambridge: Intersentia. doi: 10.1017/9781839701863.
[16] Jain, D., Chopra, M., Shalini, G., Venaik, A., Babu, K.S., & Raju, S. (2022). Publicity right and right to privacy. Journal of Hunan University Natural Sciences, 49(6), 849-857.
[17] Judgment of European Court of Human Rights in Case No. 15943/90 “Domenichini v. Italy”. (1996, November). Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/rus?i=002-9500.
[18] Judgment of European Court of Human Rights in Case No. 22431/20 “Ugulava v. Georgia (No. 2)”. (2024, February). Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-230633.
[19] Judgment of European Court of Human Rights in Case No. 25444/94 “Pélissier and Sassi v. France”. (1999, March). Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/tur?i=001-58226.
[20] Judgment of European Court of Human Rights in Case No. 34720/97 “Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland”. (2000, March). Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-59097.
[21] Judgment of European Court of Human Rights in Case No. 35115/97 “Riepan v. Austria”. (2000, November). Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/tur?i=001-58978.
[22] Judgment of European Court of Human Rights in Case No. 38184/03 “Matyjek v. Poland”. (2007, April). Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/rus?i=002-2759.
[23] Judgment of European Court of Human Rights in Case No. 4976/20 “Jann-Zwicker and Jann v. Switzerland”. (2024, February). Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-230856.
[24] Judgment of European Court of Human Rights in Case No. 56440/15 “Snijders v. The Netherlands”. (2024, February). Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-230706.
[25] Judgment of European Court of Human Rights in Case No. 7759/77 “Buchholz v. Germany”. (1981, May). Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/tur?i=001-57451.
[26] Judgment of European Court of Human Rights in Case No. 847/05 “Berhani v. Albania”. (2010, May). Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/rus?i=001-98833.
[27] Judgment of European Court of Human Rights in Case No. 9783/82 “Kamasinski v. Austria”. (1989, December). Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/tur?i=001-57614.
[28] Khablo, O., & Svoboda, I. (2024). International standards for the application of the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings. Scientific Journal of the National Academy of Internal Affairs, 29(1), 55-65. doi: 10.56215/naia-herald/1.2024.55.
[29] Komiti, P.N. (2023). The doctrines of margin of appreciation and evolutive interpretation: A review of the European Court of Human Rights. Journal of Policy & Governance, 3(2), 59-69. doi: 10.33002/jpg030203.
[30] Kovalchuk, O., Banakh, S., Chudyk, N., & Drakokhrust, T. (2024). Machine learning models for judicial information support. Law, Policy and Security, 2(1), 33-45. doi: 10.62566/lps/1.2024.33.
[31] Kubarieva, O. (2023). Judicial proceedings within a reasonable time: European experience and Ukrainian realities. Law Journal of the National Academy of Internal Affairs, 13(4), 31-39. doi: 10.56215/naia-chasopis/4.2023.31.
[32] Law of Italy No. 354 “Rules of the Criminal Executive System and the Procedure for Execution of Deprivation of Liberty and Restriction of Liberty”. (1975, July). Retrieved from https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:1975-07-26;354!vig=.
[33] Leloup, M., & Spieker, L. (2024). Rethinking primacy’s effects: On creating, avoiding and filling legal vacuums in the national legal system. Common Market Law Review, 61(4), 913-958. doi: 10.54648/COLA2024064.
[34] Lemmens, P. (2014). The right to a fair trial and its multiple manifestations: Article 6(1) ECHR. In E. Brems & J. Gerards (Eds.), Shaping rights in the ECHR: The role of the European Court of Human Rights in determining the scope of human rights (pp. 294-314). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107337923.018.
[35] Liu, K. (2023). Guaranteeing the right to a fair trial in IP-related arbitration – in Germany perhaps? And elsewhere? International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 54(8), 1244-1260. doi: 10.1007/s40319-023-01316-9.
[36] Lubis, A.F. (2023). The right to a fair trial: Comparative analysis of International Human Rights Standards. The Easta Journal Law and Human Rights, 1(3), 116-126. doi: 10.58812/eslhr.v1i03.88.
[37] Mikhnevych, L., Vasylchuk, L., Hryhorenko, A., & Rud, Y. (2023). Constitutional model of parliamentary immunity: Ukrainian and European experience. JUS Rivista di Scienze Giuridiche, 3, 210-229. doi: 10.26350/18277942_000133.
[38] Morão, H., & da Silva, R.T. (2023). Fairness in criminal appeal: A critical and interdisciplinary analysis of the ECtHR case-law. Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-13001-4
[39] Mumford, J., Atkinson, K., & Bench-Capon, T. (2024). Annotated insights into legal reasoning: A dataset of Article 6 ECHR cases. Argument & Computation, 15(2), 113-119. doi: 10.3233/AAC-240002.
[40] Omkar, S. (2017). Equality of arms. In Concept of equality of arms in criminal proceedings under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (pp. 75-116). Cambridge: Intersentia. doi: 10.1017/9781780687452.003.
[41] Paduch, A. (2021). The right to a fair trial under Article 6 ECHR during the Covid-19 pandemic: The case of the Polish administrative judiciary system. Central European Public Administration Review, 19(2), 7-25. doi: 10.17573/cepar.2021.2.01.
[42] Perlingeiro, R. (2024). International judicial cooperation in times of crisis. In E. Ghio & R. Perlingeiro (Eds.), Are legal systems converging or diverging? (pp. 277-295). Cham: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-38180-5_15.
[43] Podoprigora, R., Apakhayev, N., Zhatkanbayeva, A., Baimakhanova, D., Kim, E.P., & Sartayeva, K.R. (2019). Religious freedom and human rights in Kazakhstan. Statute Law Review, 40(2), 113-127. doi: 10.1093/slr/hmx024.
[44] Porret, A. (2024). Minority and unfairness: Protecting procedural fairness. Bacage, 2. doi: 10.35562/bacage.845.
[45] Šalčius, M., & Herke, C. (2023). Problems regarding compensation for the breach of the right to criminal proceedings within a reasonable time. International Comparative Jurisprudence, 9(1), 111-122. doi: 10.13165/j.icj.2023.06.008.
[46] Samartzis, A. (2021). Weighing overall fairness: A critique of balancing under the criminal limb of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review, 21(2), 409-432. doi: 10.1093/hrlr/ngaa062.
[47] Schmahl, S. (2021). Procedural rights and Article 6 ECHR. In S. Kadelbach & R. Hofmann (Eds.), 70 years of human rights and the rule of law in Europe (pp. 49-78). Nomos: Baden-Baden. doi: 10.5771/9783748926269-49.
[48] Spytska, L. (2023). Inheritance of power in the XXI century: Legal mechanisms for the transfer of presidential powers to controlled viceroys and family members in authoritarian regimes. Law of Justice Journal, 37(2), 178-206. doi: 10.5335/rjd.v37i2.14929.
[49] Szijártó, I. (2023). The right to translation in the criminal procedure and the meaning of essential documents – three recent cases of the European Court of Justice in the field of criminal cooperation between Member States. Pécs Journal of International and European Law, 1-2, 80-87. doi: 10.15170/PJIEL.2023.1.7.
[50] Szwed, M. (2023). Fixing the problem of unlawfully appointed judges in Poland in the light of the ECHR. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 15(2), 353-384. doi: 10.1007/s40803-023-00191-3.
[51] Trang, N.T.T., Linh, N.H., Hoang, N.T.C., Kiet, P.V.T., Loan, L.T.N., & Phuc, N.T.H. (2024). Right to a fair-trial when applying artificial intelligence in criminal justice – lessons and experiences for Vietnam. Journal of Law and Sustainable Development, 12(3), article number e601. doi: 10.55908/sdgs.v12i3.601.
[52] Violations by article and by state. (2022). Retrieved from http://surl.li/jhpbfn.
[53] Vogiatzis, N. (2021). Interpreting the right to interpretation under Article 6(3)(e) ECHR: A cautious evolution in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights? Human Rights Law Review, 22(1). doi: 10.1093/hrlr/ngab027.
[54] Vuille, J., Lupària, L., & Taroni, F. (2017). Scientific evidence and the right to a fair trial under Article 6 ECHR. Law, Probability and Risk, 16(1), 55-68. doi: 10.1093/lpr/mgx001.
[55] Whelan, P. (2023). The EU-level doctrine of parental liability and the presumption of innocence. In Parental liability in EU competition law: A legitimacy-focused approach (pp. 483-522). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/law-ocl/9780198844839.003.0019.