Knowledge (XXG)

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Source 📝

178:(2000) – Case involving two Irish citizens imprisoned for choosing to remain silent and to use their rights not to incriminate themselves when suspected of an IRA-related terrorist act. "The Court ... finds that the security and public order concerns relied on by the Government cannot justify a provision which extinguishes the very essence of the applicants' rights to silence and against self-incrimination guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention." 222:(2007) – the court considered "abundant evidence" contradicting the finding of the national court, with the result that "the unreasonableness of this conclusion is so striking and palpable on the face of it" that the decision was "grossly arbitrary". This once again showed the court's changing stance in considering the actual merits of a case. This therefore illustrates the court is developing an appellate function as opposed to a review function. 149:, the Court determines violations according to their tangible content and penal repercussions, as opposed to solely off of national statutory provisions. In states that either are negligent in guaranteeing rights relevant to a fair trial or deliberately penalize an actor against the rights that are guaranteed in Article 6, the ECtHR considers such matters to provide a relevant decisive outcome. 73:
public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
128:, it still necessitates an arguable basis under the contracting state’s national law. Thus, the breached relevant “right” must be determined, particularly whether an applicant’s argument is “sufficiently tenable.” The exception to the reliance on national law rights is when the national law provides for a right that is not recognized by the 72:
In the determination of his/her civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him/her, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and
113:
and not at the national level. Accordingly, the applicability of Article 6 is contingent on the existence of a breach of such “civil rights and obligations” regardless of the national classification, a relevant “right” that is breached, and a judgment that provides a decisive outcome from the
142:
Finally, when assessing the applicability of Article 6 to determine a fair trial right violation, the Court examines whether the “right” at hand is civil under the domestic setting to ascertain a decisive outcome. Like precedents established in other rights guaranteed in the ECtHR, such as
121:, the court dealt with the matter of time in which the applicant would be entitled to his grandfather’s possessions). Thus, relevant violations come from excessive delays, due to the "reasonable time" requirement in civil and criminal proceedings before national courts. 186:(1999) – The Court applied the fourth-instance doctrine, stating that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the convention. 57:
and other minimum rights for those charged in a criminal case (adequate time and facilities to prepare their defence, access to legal representation, right to examine witnesses against them or have them examined, right to the free assistance of an interpreter).
248:
The Convention applies to contracting parties only; however, in cases where a contracting party court has to confirm the ruling of a non-contracting state, they retain a duty to act within the confines of article 6. Such was the case in
750: 194:(2003) – the court took the approach of considering the merits of the case and in finding a breach based on the fact that the German courts had failed to follow the Strasbourg court's approach to medical necessity on 89:(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his/her own choosing or, if he/she has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; 743: 642: 508: 621: 881: 595: 886: 736: 206:(2000) in which the courts were more willing to consider the merits of the court's decision which compromised fairness, stating that the decision had been "arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable". 260:
set out three criteria to determine meaning of "criminal": a) the classification of the offense in the law of the respondent state, b) the nature of the offence, c) the possible punishment.
92:(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him/her and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his/her behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him/her; 214:(2004) – "the right to a fair trial holds so prominent a place in a democratic society that there can be no justification for interpreting Article 6 § 1 of the Convention restrictively". 855: 850: 845: 840: 835: 830: 825: 820: 815: 810: 805: 800: 790: 785: 780: 775: 770: 695:
Protecting the Right to a Fair Trial under the European Convention on Human Rights. A Handbook for Legal Practitioners. 2nd Edition, prepared by Dovydas Vitkauskas
599: 228:(2013) – A person may not claim a violation of the right to a fair trial when he has been acquitted or when proceedings have been discontinued. 83:(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he/she understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him/her; 860: 718: 571: 759: 303: 125: 34: 694: 132:. Due to the autonomy of the ECtHR, underscored by the "independent tribunal" requirement, the Court overruled a Turkish decision in 114:
dispute. Firstly, to determine the existence of a breach, the dispute must have a concrete matter with contentious details (e.g., in
264:
states that if the contracting state classifies the act as criminal, then it is automatically so for the purposes of article 6.
668: 282: 129: 702:
Protecting the Right to a Fair Trial under the European Convention on Human Rights. Council of Europe Human Rights Handbooks
232: 540: 269: 109:
The concept of “civil rights and obligations” at the beginning of Article 6 applies to ones granted at the level of the
195: 174: 95:(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he/she cannot understand or speak the language used in court. 709:
The right to a fair trial. A guide to the implementation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights
534:"'... It is not its task to act as a court of fourth instance': The case of the European Court of Human Rights" 199: 50: 115: 170:
without being aware of the proceedings, the defendant is entitled to a fresh trial when they are made aware.
436: 340: 484: 460: 412: 240: 182: 76:
Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law.
708: 596:"Courts' refusal to order reimbursement of top-up costs of transsexual's gender re-assignment treatment" 308: 277: 190: 38: 364: 218: 728: 253:(2001), a case concerning the application of a Vatican ecclesiastical court ruling on a divorce case. 289: 159: 133: 210: 564: 715: 164: 110: 54: 244:(2021) – irregular appointment of judges breached the right to tribunal established by law. 236:(2020) – irregular appointment of judges breached the right to tribunal established by law. 722: 313: 145: 875: 46: 86:(b) to have adequate time and the facilities for the preparation of his/her defence; 318: 139:
and rendered the Turkish military tribunal’s decision incompatible with Article 6.
42: 716:
Criminal Fair Trial Rights: Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights
533: 663: 388: 79:
Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
17: 49:
before an independent and impartial tribunal within reasonable time, the
124:
Secondly, although the CoE maintains autonomy under the rights of the
45:
cases and cases to determine civil rights it protects the right to a
202:. This was in line with and an expansion of the earlier ruling in 701: 732: 882:
Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights
664:"Final Judgement: Khlyustov v Russia, paragraph 103" 31:
Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights
887:
Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights
760:
Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights
68: 744: 8: 751: 737: 729: 413:"Assanidze v. Georgia [GC] (2004)" 256:In the determination of criminal charges, 293:, App. No. 71503/01 (ECtHR 8 April 2004) 329: 27:Provision on the right to a fair trial 335: 333: 233:Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland 7: 565:"Reports of judgments and decisions" 163:(1985) – Held that when a person is 711:Strasbourg, Council of Europe, 2006 704:Strasbourg, Council of Europe, 2012 697:Strasbourg, Council of Europe, 2017 304:European Convention on Human Rights 25: 511:Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland 175:Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland 577:from the original on 2015-10-06 546:from the original on 2019-09-30 669:European Court of Human Rights 389:"Boulois v. Luxembourg (2012)" 1: 461:"Case of X v. France (1992)" 270:John Murray v United Kingdom 66:Article 6 reads as follows. 725:Portland/Oxford: Hart, 2014 200:gender reassignment surgery 196:hormone replacement therapy 903: 766: 437:"Evers v. Germany (2020)" 365:"Omdahl v. Norway (2021)" 341:"Grzęda v. Poland (2022)" 700:D. Vitkauskas, G. Dikov 693:D. Vitkauskas, G. Dikov 485:"Aksoy v. Turkey (1996)" 51:presumption of innocence 102: 33:is a provision of the 309:Human Rights Act 1998 278:Benthem v Netherlands 39:right to a fair trial 290:Assanidze v. Georgia 135:Assanidze v. Georgia 643:"Khamidov v Russia" 258:Engel v Netherlands 241:Xero Flor v. Poland 226:Khlyustov v. Russia 183:García Ruiz v Spain 37:which protects the 35:European Convention 721:2016-03-06 at the 707:N. Mole, C. Harby 489:hudoc.echr.coe.int 465:hudoc.echr.coe.int 441:hudoc.echr.coe.int 417:hudoc.echr.coe.int 393:hudoc.echr.coe.int 369:hudoc.echr.coe.int 345:hudoc.echr.coe.int 251:Pellegrini v Italy 191:Van Kück v Germany 869: 868: 273:(1996) 22 EHRR 29 219:Khamidov v Russia 204:Camilleri v Malta 16:(Redirected from 894: 753: 746: 739: 730: 682: 681: 679: 677: 660: 654: 653: 651: 649: 639: 633: 632: 630: 628: 622:"Perez v France" 618: 612: 611: 609: 607: 602:on 7 August 2011 598:. Archived from 592: 586: 585: 583: 582: 576: 569: 561: 555: 554: 552: 551: 545: 538: 530: 524: 523: 521: 519: 505: 499: 498: 496: 495: 481: 475: 474: 472: 471: 457: 451: 450: 448: 447: 433: 427: 426: 424: 423: 409: 403: 402: 400: 399: 385: 379: 378: 376: 375: 361: 355: 354: 352: 351: 337: 285:23 October 1985) 117:Omdahl v. Norway 55:right to silence 21: 902: 901: 897: 896: 895: 893: 892: 891: 872: 871: 870: 865: 762: 757: 723:Wayback Machine 690: 685: 675: 673: 662: 661: 657: 647: 645: 641: 640: 636: 626: 624: 620: 619: 615: 605: 603: 594: 593: 589: 580: 578: 574: 567: 563: 562: 558: 549: 547: 543: 536: 532: 531: 527: 517: 515: 507: 506: 502: 493: 491: 483: 482: 478: 469: 467: 459: 458: 454: 445: 443: 435: 434: 430: 421: 419: 411: 410: 406: 397: 395: 387: 386: 382: 373: 371: 363: 362: 358: 349: 347: 339: 338: 331: 327: 314:Natural justice 300: 160:Colozza v Italy 155: 146:non bis in idem 107: 101: 98: 64: 28: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 900: 898: 890: 889: 884: 874: 873: 867: 866: 864: 863: 858: 853: 848: 843: 838: 833: 828: 823: 818: 813: 808: 803: 798: 793: 788: 783: 778: 773: 767: 764: 763: 758: 756: 755: 748: 741: 733: 727: 726: 712: 705: 698: 689: 686: 684: 683: 655: 634: 613: 587: 556: 525: 500: 476: 452: 428: 404: 380: 356: 328: 326: 323: 322: 321: 316: 311: 306: 299: 296: 295: 294: 286: 274: 262:Funke v France 246: 245: 237: 229: 223: 215: 211:Perez v France 207: 187: 179: 171: 154: 151: 106: 103: 100: 99: 97: 96: 93: 90: 87: 84: 80: 77: 74: 69: 63: 60: 47:public hearing 26: 24: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 899: 888: 885: 883: 880: 879: 877: 862: 859: 857: 854: 852: 849: 847: 844: 842: 839: 837: 834: 832: 829: 827: 824: 822: 819: 817: 814: 812: 809: 807: 804: 802: 799: 797: 794: 792: 789: 787: 784: 782: 779: 777: 774: 772: 769: 768: 765: 761: 754: 749: 747: 742: 740: 735: 734: 731: 724: 720: 717: 713: 710: 706: 703: 699: 696: 692: 691: 687: 671: 670: 665: 659: 656: 644: 638: 635: 623: 617: 614: 601: 597: 591: 588: 573: 566: 560: 557: 542: 535: 529: 526: 514: 512: 504: 501: 490: 486: 480: 477: 466: 462: 456: 453: 442: 438: 432: 429: 418: 414: 408: 405: 394: 390: 384: 381: 370: 366: 360: 357: 346: 342: 336: 334: 330: 324: 320: 317: 315: 312: 310: 307: 305: 302: 301: 297: 292: 291: 287: 284: 280: 279: 275: 272: 271: 267: 266: 265: 263: 259: 254: 252: 243: 242: 238: 235: 234: 230: 227: 224: 221: 220: 216: 213: 212: 208: 205: 201: 197: 193: 192: 188: 185: 184: 180: 177: 176: 172: 169: 168: 162: 161: 157: 156: 152: 150: 148: 147: 140: 138: 136: 131: 127: 122: 120: 118: 112: 104: 94: 91: 88: 85: 82: 81: 78: 75: 71: 70: 67: 61: 59: 56: 52: 48: 44: 40: 36: 32: 19: 795: 674:. Retrieved 672:. 2013-10-11 667: 658: 646:. Retrieved 637: 625:. Retrieved 616: 604:. Retrieved 600:the original 590: 579:. Retrieved 559: 548:. Retrieved 528: 516:. Retrieved 510: 503: 492:. Retrieved 488: 479: 468:. Retrieved 464: 455: 444:. Retrieved 440: 431: 420:. Retrieved 416: 407: 396:. Retrieved 392: 383: 372:. Retrieved 368: 359: 348:. Retrieved 344: 319:Speedy trial 288: 276: 268: 261: 257: 255: 250: 247: 239: 231: 225: 217: 209: 203: 189: 181: 173: 166: 158: 144: 141: 134: 123: 116: 108: 65: 43:criminal law 30: 29: 676:25 February 167:in absentia 105:Application 876:Categories 856:Article 18 851:Article 17 846:Article 16 841:Article 15 836:Article 14 831:Article 13 826:Article 12 821:Article 11 816:Article 10 688:Literature 581:2021-01-12 550:2020-10-09 494:2024-05-13 470:2024-05-13 446:2024-05-13 422:2024-05-13 398:2024-05-13 374:2024-05-13 350:2024-05-13 325:References 18:ECHR art 6 861:Protocols 811:Article 9 806:Article 8 801:Article 7 796:Article 6 791:Article 5 786:Article 4 781:Article 3 776:Article 2 771:Article 1 714:R. Goss 627:9 January 606:9 January 719:Archived 572:Archived 541:Archived 298:See also 648:17 June 518:17 June 165:tried 137:(2004) 119:(2021) 575:(PDF) 568:(PDF) 544:(PDF) 537:(PDF) 283:ECtHR 153:Cases 130:ECtHR 41:. In 678:2022 650:2011 629:2010 608:2010 520:2011 198:and 126:ECHR 62:Text 111:CoE 878:: 666:. 570:. 539:. 487:. 463:. 439:. 415:. 391:. 367:. 343:. 332:^ 53:, 752:e 745:t 738:v 680:. 652:. 631:. 610:. 584:. 553:. 522:. 513:" 509:" 497:. 473:. 449:. 425:. 401:. 377:. 353:. 281:( 20:)

Index

ECHR art 6
European Convention
right to a fair trial
criminal law
public hearing
presumption of innocence
right to silence
CoE
Omdahl v. Norway (2021)
ECHR
ECtHR
Assanidze v. Georgia (2004)
non bis in idem
Colozza v Italy
tried in absentia
Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland
GarcĂ­a Ruiz v Spain
Van KĂźck v Germany
hormone replacement therapy
gender reassignment surgery
Perez v France
Khamidov v Russia
Guðmundur Andri Ástråðsson v. Iceland
Xero Flor v. Poland
John Murray v United Kingdom
Benthem v Netherlands
ECtHR
Assanidze v. Georgia
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights Act 1998

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑