Independent tribunal,

impartial tribunal,

tribunal established by law,

reasonable time.

The second and third paragraphs apply mostly to criminal proceedings.

The second paragraph provides right to presumption of innocence.

The third paragraph involves rights to:

a) information on nature and cause of accusation,

prompt information,

information in language understood,

information in detail,

b) preparation of defence,

adequate time,

adequate facilities,

access to relevant files,

c) defence in person,

defence through legal assistance,

legal assistance of his own choosing,

free legal assistance if he has not sufficient means,

d) examination of witnesses,

obtain attendance of witnesses,

e) free assistance of interpreter.

In the case of Delcourt v. Belgium, the Court stated that “In a democratic society within the meaning of the Convention, the right to a fair administration of justice holds such a prominent place that a restrictive interpretation of Article 6 (1) would not correspond to the aim and the purpose of that provision”.

So the Court additionally incorporated in its practice right to access to court, the principle of equality of arms, rights to legal aid, to reasoned judgment, to execution of the judgment.

3. Access to court

There is no express guarantee of the right of access to a court in the text of Article 6, but the European Court has held that this provision secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his/her civil rights and obligations brought before a court or tribunal (Golder v. the United Kingdom). The right of access to a court draws its source from the principle of international law that forbids denial of justice.

Example

The case of Nataliya Mikhaylenko v. Ukraine, 30 May 2013

In 2007 the District Court deprived the applicant of her legal capacity. The decision was not appealed against and became final.

Gradually, the applicant’s mental health improved.

In 2010 the applicant applied on her own to the District Court, seeking restoration of her legal capacity. She specified that Article 241 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which did not provide for the right for an incapacitated person to submit such an application, was not compatible with international legal standards and was discriminatory.

The District Court returned the application to the applicant without considering it on the merits, noting that, by the Code of Civil Procedure, the applicant was not entitled to submit such an application.

The court of appeal and the court of cassation dismissed as unfounded the applicant’s appeal on points of law.

The applicant asserted that her right of access to a court had been restricted, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

The European Court noted that in the case the applicant’s inability to directly seek the restoration of her legal capacity resulted in that matter not being examined by the courts. The absence of judicial review of that issue, which seriously affected many aspects of the applicant’s life, could not be justified.