The right of access to a court in Ukraine in the light of the requirements of the Convention on Protection human rights and fundamental freedoms
with the New Administrative-Territorial Structure of the District Level. – 3. Lack of Clear and Understandable Criteria for Delimiting the Subject-Matter Jurisdiction of Cases in Terms of the Right to a Fair Trial. – 4. The Insignificance of the Case and the Court Fee as Procedural Restrictions on the Right of Access to Court. – 5. Staffing of the Judiciary and the Level of Public Confidence in the Judiciary as Elements of Ensuring the Right of Access to Justice. – 6. Introduction of a Lawyer’s Monopoly on the Representation of Another Person in Court in Terms of the Right to a Fair Trial. – 7. Motivation of Court Decisions in the Aspect of the Right to a Fair Trial. – 8. Conclusions.
Abstract
This note considers the national legal provisions that regulate the procedure and features of a person’s appeal to the court to protect their rights. Taking into account the provisions of Art. 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) regarding the right to a fair trial and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on its interpretation, key threats to the effective exercise of access to justice in Ukraine have been identified. The problem of the inconsistency of the system of local general courts with the new administrative-territorial structure at the district level is highlighted. It is demonstrated how the lack of clear and understandable criteria for distinguishing the subject matter jurisdiction of cases affects the ensuring of the human right to an effective court. Particular attention is paid to the staffing of the judiciary and the low level of public confidence in the judiciary. The authors have analysed the validity of the application of such procedural restrictions as the court fee for filing a lawsuit and the classification of ‘insignificant cases’, which are impossible to appeal. On this basis, it is concluded that the existence of such restrictions on access to court cannot be considered a violation of the right to a fair trial if such restrictions are justified and proportionate to the lawful purpose of their establishment and do not violate the essence of this right. The features of the introduction in Ukraine of a lawyer’s monopoly on the representation of another person in court, as well as the practice of the ECtHR regarding the possibility of recognising such restrictions as a violation of the right to a fair trial, are analysed. Legislative initiatives to improve the motivation of decisions by the courts are highlighted. It was concluded that the provisions aimed at forming a more responsible attitude of judges to the consideration of cases and making reasoned decisions, as well as solving the problem of excessive load on judges, are a prerequisite for ensuring the right to a fair trial.
About Authors
CONTRIBUTORS
All three authors contributed equally to the intellectual discussion underlying this paper, literature exploration, writing, data collection and analysis and interpretation, reviews, and editing, and accept responsibility for the content of the paper.
Dr. Stefanchuk Maryna is a professor at the Law School, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Ukraine. Areas of scholarly interests include prosecution, judicial systems, and proceedings.
ORCID ID: 0000-0002-6239-9091
ResearcherID: M-7224-2018
m.stefanchuk@gmail.com
Dr. Hladun Oleksandr is a Senior Research Fellow, OSCE Project Co-ordinator in Ukraine: conference speaker ‘Anticorruption Crisis in Ukraine: Origins, Outcomes and Lessons Learned. IV Kyiv Polilogue’ (2020). The European Programme for Human Rights Education for Legal Professionals (HELP): tutor of the course ‘Introduction to the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court
of Human Rights’ (2018). TOT training participant ‘Proofs and evidence in criminal proceedings in the light of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights’ (2018). European Union Anti-Corruption Initiative (EUACI): national expert in combatting corruption (2018). Areas of interest: proceedings, criminal law and criminology, and combatting corruption.
ORCID ID: 0000-0003-2220-2394
ResearcherID: AAY-1619-2020
hladunsan@gmail.com
Prof. Stefanchuk Ruslan is an Academic of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine. Areas of interest: lawmaking, judicial systems, civil law, and civil procedure. Currently, Prof. Stefanchuk serves as a First Deputy Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.
ORCID ID: 0000-0001-6385-0131
ResearcherID: M-2450-2018
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflict of interest of relevance to this topic.
DISCLAIMER
The authors declare that they were not involved in the analysed law drafts within their collaboration with the
legislative body.
References
Golder v the United Kingdom App no 4451/70 (ECtHR, 21 February 1975) para 35 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57496> accessed 19 February 2021.
Guérin v France App no 25201/94 (ECtHR, 29 July 1998) para 37 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58204> accessed 19 February 2021.
Stanev v Bulgaria App no 36760/06 (ECtHR, 17 January 2012) para 230 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-108690> accessed 19 February 2021.
The order of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No 1635-р on reorganization and formation of district state administrations of 16 December 2020 <https://www.kmu.gov.ua/npas/pro-reorganizaciyu-ta-utvorennya-rajonnih-derzhavnih-administracij-1635-161220> accessed 19 Fbruary 2021.
The Letter of the Head of the Council of Judges of Ukraine No 9рс-466/20-вих of 22 July 2020 <http://rsu.gov.ua/uploads/news/listrsuteritorialnapidsudnist-94cb75de58.pdf> accessed 19 February 2021.
Draft Law of Ukraine ‘On Amending some Legislative Acts of Ukraine Concerning Settling Separate Questions of Activity and Organization of State Bodies, Local Self-Government in Connection with Establishing (Liquidation) of Districts’ of 15 June 2020 No 3651 <http://w1.c1.rada.gov.ua/pls/zweb2/webproc4_1?pf3511=69133> accessed 19 February 2021.
Airey v Ireland App no 6289/73 (ECtHR, 9 October 1979) para 25 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57420> accessed 19 February 2021.
Shestopalova v Ukraine App no 55339/07 (ECtHR, 21 December 2017) para 18 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-179558> 19 February 2021.
The Law of Ukraine No 2147-VIII of 3 October 2017 ‘On Amendments to the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine, the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine and other legislative acts’ <https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/rada/show/2147-19> accessed 19 February 2021.
‘Jurisdiction of disputes, insignificant cases and application of the principle of the rule of law by judges of the Supreme Court’ (Verkhovnyi Sud, 26 January 2021) <https://supreme.court.gov.ua/supreme/pres-centr/news/1062315> accessed 19 February 2021.
Sokurenko and Strygun v Ukraine App nos 29458/04 and 29465/04 (ECtHR, 11 December 2006) para 28 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-76467> accessed 19 February 2021.
Levages Prestations Services v France App no 21920/93 (ECtHR, 23 October 1996) para 48 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58065> accessed 19 February 2021.
Brualla Gomez de la Torre v Spain App no 26737/95 (ECtHR, 19 December 1997) para 36 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58127> accessed 19 February 2021.
Azyukovska v Ukraine App no 26293/18 paras 24–25 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-187765> accessed 19 February 2021.
Recommendation No R (81) 7 Of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on measures to facilitate access to justice of 14 May 1981 <https://court.gov.ua/userfiles/08.pdf> accessed 19 February 2021.
Kreuz v Poland App no 28249/95 (ECtHR, 19 June 2001) para 60 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-59519> accessed 19 February 2021.
Kniat v Poland App no 71731/01 (ECtHR, 26 October 2005) paras 45–47 <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-69901> accessed 19 February 2021.
Reviews for article
Add a Review
прав людини і основоположних свобод
Марина Стефанчук
доктор юридичних наук, доцент,
ORCID ID: 0000-0002-6239-9091
ResearcherID: M-7224-2018
Олександр Гладун
кандидат юридичних наук,
старший науковий співробітник
ORCID ID: 0000-0003-2220-2394
ResearcherID: AAY-1619-2020
Руслан Стефанчук
доктор юридичних наук, професор,
академік Національної академії правових наук України,
заслужений діяч науки і техніки України
ORCID ID: 0000-0001-6385-0131
ResearcherID: M-2450-2018
Анотація. У статті розглянуто національні правові положення, які регламентують порядок та особливості звернення особи до суду за захистом своїх прав. З урахуванням приписів статті 6 Конвенції про захист прав людини і основоположних свобод щодо права на справедливий суд і практики Європейського суду з прав людини стосовно її тлумачення визначено ключові загрози ефективній реалізації права на доступ до суду в Україні. Висвітлено проблему невідповідності системи місцевих загальних судів новому адміністративно-територіальному устрою районного рівня. Продемонстровано, яким чином відсутність чітких і зрозумілих критеріїв розмежування предметної підсудності справ впливає на стан забезпечення права людини на ефективний суд. Окрема увага приділена питанням кадрового наповнення судової системи та низькому рівню довіри громадян до судової влади. Проведено аналіз обґрунтованості застосування таких процесуальних обмежень як судовий збір за подання позову та малозначність справи, що унеможливлює її касаційне оскарження. На цій підставі зроблено висновок про те, що наявність таких обмежень у доступі до суду не може вважатися порушенням права на справедливий суд у разі, якщо такі обмеження є виправданими та пропорційними законній меті їх встановлення, не порушують саму суть цього права. Проаналізовано особливості запровадження в Україні адвокатської монополії на представництво іншої особи в суді, а також практику Європейського суду з прав людини щодо можливості визнання таких обмежень у доступі до суду порушенням права на справедливий суд.
Ключові слова: права та обов’язки людини, справедливий суд, доступність правосуддя, практика Європейського суду з прав людини, процесуальні обмеження, судова юрисдикція, пропорційність, законна мета.
How to cite it?
-
M Stefanchuk, O Hladun, R Stefanchuk ‘The right of access to a court in Ukraine in the light of the requirements of the Convention on Protection human rights and fundamental freedoms’ 2021 1(9) Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 186–198. DOI: 10.33327/AJEE-18-4.1-n000052
