Independence and Impartiality of the Court Within the Meaning of Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
Abstract
The paper presents a brief review of key tests and criteria applied by the European Court of Human Rights when considering and evaluating applicant's complains regarding Member States of the European Convection for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms violations of the right to independent and impartial courts that also enshrines the concept of "fair trial”. First, the author examines the concept of "independent court” and then the concept of an "impartial court". Despite the fact that these two concepts are often dealt with by the European Court as closely interrelated, the Court practice has developed different tests to evaluate each of them.
References
1. ECtHR. Findlay v. the United Kingdom, Application No. 22107/93, § 73, Judgment of 25 February 1997
2. ECtHR. Bochan v. Ukraine, Application No. 7577/02, § 68, Judgment of 3 May 2007
3. ECtHR. Parlov-Tkalcic v. Croatia, Application No. 24810/06, § 86, Judgment of 22 December 2009
4. ECtHR. Sutyagin v. Russia, Application No. 30024/02, § 183, Judgment of 3 May 2011
5. ECtHR. Campbell and Fell v. United Kingdom. Application Nos. 7819/77, 7878/77, § 78, Judgment of 28 June 1984
6. Рекомендация Комитета министров Совета Европы (2010) 12Е государствам - членам о судьях: независимость, эффективность и ответственность // URL: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1707137
7. заключение № 1 Консультативного совета европейских судей «О стандартах независимости судебных органов и несменяемости судей» // URL: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1050737&Site=COE
8. заключение № 3 Консультативного совета европейских судей «О принципах и правилах, регулирующих профессиональное поведение судей» // URL: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1050737&Site=COE
9. JP Enhancing Judicial Reform in the Eastern Partnership Countries "Independent Judicial Systems" Project Report // URL: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/capacitybuilding/source/judic_reform/ENG%20 March%20Report%20Independant%20Judicial%20Systems.pdf
10. Великая хартия судей (Фундаментальные принципы) // URL: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1707925
11. ECtHR ibrahim Gürkan v. Turkey, Application No. 10987/10, § 19, Judgment of 13 October 2013.
12. ECtHR. Khrykin v. Russia, Application No. 33186/08, §§ 27-39, Judgment of 19 April 2011; Batyrlova v. Russia, Application No. 31188/08, §§ 27-40, Judgment of 19 апреля 2011.
13. ECtHR. Moiseyev v. Russia, Application No. 62936/00, §§ 167-185, Judgment of 9 October 2008.
14. ECtHR.Sutyagin v. Russia, Application No. 30024/02, §§ 178-193, Judgment of 3 May 2011.
15. ECtHR. Findlay v. the United Kingdom, Application No. 22107/93, § 73, Judgment of 25 February 1997
16. ECtHR. Parlov-Tkalcic v. Croatia, Application No. 24810/06, § 79, Judgment of 22 December 2009.
17. ECtHR. Lavents v. Latvia, Application No. 58442/00, § 118-120, Judgment of 28 November 2002.
18. ECtHR. Tierce and Others v. San Marino, Application Nos. 24954/94, 24971/94 и 24972/94, § 76, Judgment of 27 July 2000
19. Indra v. Slovakia, Application No. 46845/99, § 49, Judgment of 3 May 2005
20. Salov v. Ukraine, Application No. 65518/01, § 81, Judgment of 6 September 2005
21. ECtHR. Ozerov v. Russia, Application No. 64962/01, Judgment of 18 May 2010, Krivoshapkin v. Russia, Application No. 42224/02, Judgment of 27 January 2011
22. ECtHR. Daktaras v. Lithuania, Application No. 42095/98, § 35-36, Judgment of 10 October 2000
23. ECtHR. Igor Kabanov v. Russia, Application No. 8921/05, Judgment of 3 February 2011, § 42-43.
24. ECtHR. San Leonard Band Club v. Malta, Application No. 77562/01, § 63-66, Judgment of 29 июля 2004.
25. ECtHR. Ferrantelli and Santangelo v. Italy, № 19874/92, § 59-60, 7 августа 1996.
26. ECtHR. Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC], Application No. 73797/01, Judgment of 15 December 2005, § 124-128, 133
Review
For citations:
Shadarova A.N. Independence and Impartiality of the Court Within the Meaning of Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Actual Problems of Russian Law. 2016;(7):160-165. (In Russ.)
Views:
684
Email this article 