an overview of challenges and opportunities · access to justice in europe: an overview of challenges and opportunities Justice Ac c e s s t o jus tic e in Eur ope: an o v ervie w

access to justice in europe: an overview of challenges

and opportunities

Justice

Acce

ss to ju

stice in

Euro

pe

: an

ov

erv

iew

of ch

alle

ng

es a

nd

op

po

rtun

ities

Cover picture: iStockphoto

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).

FRA - European Union Agency for Fundamental RightsSchwarzenbergplatz 111040 WienAustriaTel.: +43 (0)1 580 30 - 0Fax: +43 (0)1 580 30 - 691Email: [email protected]

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2011

ISBN 978-92-9192-676-3doi: 10.2811/171

© European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2010Reproduction is authorised, except for commercial purposes, provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Luxembourg by Imprimerie Centrale

Printed on white chlorine‑free PaPer

This report addresses matters related to the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial (Article 47) falling under Chapter VI ‘Justice’ of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union

new freephone number (*):00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed. In certain cases, these calls may be chargeable from telephone boxes or hotels.

Access to justice in Europe: an overview of challenges

and opportunities

Thepossibilityofenforcingarightiscentraltomakingfundamentalrightsareality.Accesstojusticeisnotjustarightinitselfbutalsoanenablingandempoweringrightinsofarasitallowsindividualstoenforcetheirrightsandobtainredress.Inthissense,ittransformsfundamentalrightsfromtheoryintopractice.Researchandevidence-basedadviceonaccesstojustice,therefore,alsosupportmakingotherrightseffective.ThisreportisanintroductoryoverviewonaccesstojusticethataddstothefourreportsoftheEuropeanUnionAgencyforFundamentalRightsonthe‘fundamentalrightsarchitectureintheEuropeanUnion’,publishedin2010.ItdoessobyprovidingcorefindingsonthechallengestoandopportunitiesfortherealisationofaccesstojusticeinEurope.

BuildingontheAgency’sEuropeanUnionminoritiesanddiscriminationsurvey(EU-MIDIS)–whichconcluded,amongotherthings,thatlevelsofawarenessandconfidenceincomplaintsmechanismswerelowamongstethnicminoritiesandimmigrantgroupswhowerevictimsofdiscrimination–thisreportprovidesinsightintothenatureandfunctioningofjudicialmechanismsintheEuropeanUnion(EU).TheparticularfocusofthereportisonjudicialmechanismsatnationallevelinEUMemberStates.Thisisaddressedthroughdiscussionofnationalpracticesandproceduresapplicableintheareaofnon-discriminationlaw.ThisfocuswaschosensincetheMemberStatesareunderanobligationtoprovideeffectiveremediesaspartoftheirimplementationofEUlawinthisarea.

Apartfromthenationallevel,avenuesavailableattheEuropeanandinternationallevelsarealsodescribed,namelythroughtheCourtofJusticeoftheEU,theEuropeanCourtofHumanRightsandthemonitoringbodiesofUnitedNationshumanrightstreaties.Thereportexplainshowthesemechanismsworkanddealswiththeircomparableadvantages.ChangesintroducedbytheTreatyofLisbon,suchasaccessionoftheEUtotheEuropeanConventiononHumanRightsandalterationstorulesonlegalstandingarehighlighted.However,fundamentalrightsaremostcommonlyanissueatthenationallevel,andforthisreasonthereportfocusesondomesticjudicialmechanismsandtheirchallenges.

Atnationallevel,thereportpointsoutconcernsandconcreteobstaclestoaccessingjusticebutalsohighlightsactualpractices.Someofthekeyconcernsincludeunnecessarilystricttimelimitsonbringingclaims.Thisis,forinstance,thecasein22ofthe27EUMemberStates.Othernotabledifficultiesincluderestrictiverulesonwhocanmakeaclaim,excessivelegalcosts,andthecomplexityoflegalprocedures.ThisreportisthefirststudybytheEuropeanUnionAgencyforFundamentalRightsdealingprimarilywithaccesstojustice.Itwillbefollowedbyareportfocussingontheroleofequalitybodiesandsimilarentitiesinfacilitatingaccesstojusticeandtheexperiencesofequalitybodies,claimantsandthoseactorsprovidingsupporttoclaimants.Thesereportsarecomplementaryinnature,focussingrespectivelyonthecourtsystemandonequalitybodiesintheirfunctionofassistingclaimantsorprovidinganalternativeavenueofredress.Thisreflectsabroadconceptionofaccesstojustice.Byhighlightingwheretheprincipalchallengesexist,aswellasexamplesofgoodpractice,thisreportcancontributetoabetterunderstandingofhowimprovementscanbemadeinordertoallowindividualstoenforcetheirfundamentalrightsinpractice.

Morten KjaerumDirector

Foreword

3

4

ForEword .......................................................................................................................................................3

List oF AbbrEviAtions ....................................................................................................................................7

ExEcutivE suMMAry .......................................................................................................................................9

opinions ......................................................................................................................................................11

1 AccEss to JusticE – situAting thE concEpt in thE Eu ...........................................................................13

1.1. TheFRAresearchonaccesstojustice....................................................................................................................131.2. Reportbackground....................................................................................................................................................141.3. Theconcept................................................................................................................................................................141.4. RelatedresearchandinstrumentsbytheCouncilofEurope..............................................................................161.5. AccesstojusticeinEuropeanlaw............................................................................................................................171.6. AccesstojusticeinEUpolicy................................................................................................................................... 201.7. Summary.....................................................................................................................................................................22

2 AvAiLAbLE MEchAnisMs At EuropEAn And intErnAtionAL LEvEL ........................................................23

2.1. Commonfeaturesanddistinctions..........................................................................................................................232.2.TheUNtreatybodies.................................................................................................................................................252.3.TheCouncilofEuropemechanisms........................................................................................................................ 302.4.CourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnion...................................................................................................................332.5.Summary................................................................................................................................................................... 36

3 AccEssing JusticE At nAtionAL LEvEL .....................................................................................................37

3.1. Limits......................................................................................................................................................................... 373.2.Alternatives..............................................................................................................................................................443.3.Summary....................................................................................................................................................................46

4 LEgAL Aid At nAtionAL LEvEL ..................................................................................................................47

4.1. Natureandscopeoflegalaid..................................................................................................................................494.2.Eligibilityforlegalaid................................................................................................................................................514.3.Complementaryschemes.........................................................................................................................................534.4.Summary.................................................................................................................................................................... 54

5 rEdrEss At nAtionAL LEvEL ....................................................................................................................55

5.1. Natureofredress...................................................................................................................................................... 565.2.Leveloffinancialcompensation............................................................................................................................. 585.3.Paymentoflegalcosts............................................................................................................................................. 595.4.Evidence.....................................................................................................................................................................615.5.Executionofjudgments............................................................................................................................................ 625.6.Summary....................................................................................................................................................................64

concLusions .................................................................................................................................................65

contents

5

Figures and tables

Table1: EUMemberStatesaspartiestotheUNConventions................................................................................................ 26Table2: NumberofStatepartiesamongtheEU-27thathaveacceptedindividual

complaintsproceduresundertherespectiveTreatybodies................................................................................... 27Table3: Acceptedindividualcomplaintsprocedures,byEUMemberState..................................................................... 28Table4: EUMemberStatespartiestotheAdditionalProtocolundertheESC.................................................................32Table5: OverviewofprovisionsprovidingforaccesstojusticebeforetheCJEU.......................................................... 34

Figure1: Accesstojusticeandrelatedterminology..........................................................................................................................16Figure2: Overviewofselectedmechanisms..........................................................................................................................................23Figure3: ThetwomainroutestoaccesstheCJEU..............................................................................................................................33Figure4: RestrictionsonaccesstojusticeinEUMemberStates............................................................................................... 38Figure5: ViolationsconcerninglengthofproceedingsasapercentageofallECtHR’sjudgmentsfinding

violationsoftheECHR,byEUMemberState(%),duringtheperiod1959–2009.......................................41Figure6: PossibilityofwaivingtherightofaccesstoajudicialbodyinEUMemberStates....................................44Figure7: Possibilityofaccessingnon-judicialproceduresinEUMemberStates............................................................45Figure8: AvailabilityoflegalaidinMemberStates..........................................................................................................................49Figure9: EligibilitytestsforlegalaidinEUMemberStates..........................................................................................................51Figure10: NatureofredressinEUMemberStates............................................................................................................................... 57Figure11: AvailabilityofpunitivedamagesinEUMemberStates............................................................................................. 58Figure12: Levelofcompensation:thehighestrecordedamountsinEUMemberStates(€)................................... 59Figure13: Rulesregardingpaymentoflegalcosts,byEUMemberState..............................................................................60Figure14: ExecutionoffinalawardsinEUMemberStates............................................................................................................. 63

6

List of abbreviations

cAt ConventionagainstTortureandOtherCruel,InhumanorDegradingTreatmentorPunishment/CommitteeAgainstTorture

cEdAw ConventionontheEliminationofAllFormsofDiscriminationagainstWomen /CommitteeontheEliminationofDiscriminationAgainstWomen

cEpEJ EuropeanCommissionfortheEfficiencyofJustice(oftheCouncilofEurope)

cErd CommitteeonEliminationofRacialDiscrimination

cFr CharterofFundamentalRightsoftheEuropeanUnion

cJ CourtofJustice,whenneededtodistinguishfromtheGeneralCourt–boththesecourtsjointlyconstitutingtheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnion

cJEu CourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnion(formerlytheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanCommunities),hereinreferringbothtotheGeneralCourtandtheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnion,unlessspecified

crc ConventionontheRightsoftheChild

crpd ConventionontheRightsofPersonswithDisabilities

Echr ConventionfortheProtectionofHumanRightsandFundamentalFreedomsorEuropeanConventiononHumanRights

Ecsr EuropeanCommitteeofSocialRights

Ecthr EuropeanCourtofHumanRights

Esc EuropeanSocialCharter

Eu EuropeanUnion

Eu-Midis EuropeanUnionMinoritiesandDiscriminationSurvey

FrA EuropeanUnionAgencyforFundamentalRights

FrALEx FRAnetworkoflegalexperts

gc GeneralCourt(formerlyCourtofFirstInstance)

iAchr Inter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRights

iActhr Inter-AmericanCourtonHumanRights

iccpr InternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights

icErd InternationalConventionontheEliminationofAllFormsofRacialDiscrimination

icEscr InternationalCovenantonEconomic,SocialandCulturalRights

icpEd InternationalConventionfortheProtectionofAllPersonsfromEnforcedDisappearance

icrMwInternationalConventionontheProtectionoftheRightsofAllMigrantWorkersandMembersofTheirFamilies

tEc TreatyestablishingtheEuropeanCommunities

tEu TreatyonEuropeanUnion

tFEu TreatyontheFunctioningoftheEuropeanUnion

udhr UniversalDeclarationofHumanRights

un UnitedNations

un hrc UnitedNationsHumanRightsCommittee

7

8

Executive summary

operateas‘subsidiary’meansofobtainingredress.Thatis,beforehavingrecoursetotheseprocedures,individualsareunderanobligationtopursueremedies,sofarastheyareeffective,atthenationallevel.Inthisway,statesaregiventheopportunitytoremedybreachesoftheirobligationsinternally,beforeaninternationalbodymaytakejurisdiction.

TheUNmonitoringbodiesresponsibleforoverseeingtheimplementationofhumanrightstreatiesofferarelativelyaccessiblequasi-judicialmechanism.Someofthesebodiesaremandatedtodealwithindividualcomplaints,suchastheCommitteeonEliminationofRacialDiscrimination(CERD)undertheConventionontheEliminationofAllFormsofRacialDiscrimination(ICERD)ortheHumanRightsCommittee(UNHRC)undertheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights(ICCPR).TheICERDwasthefirstoftheUNhumanrightstreatiesthatprovidedforaspecificmonitoringbody–CERD–andservedastheprecursortothoseundertheotherconventions,includingtheUNHRC.SpecialfeaturesoftheICERDincludetheabilitytoreceivecomplaintsnotonlyfromindividualsbutalsogroupsofindividuals.However,theUNHRCisthemonitoringbodythathasbuiltupthegreatestvolumeofdecisionsonindividualcomplaints.Atthesametime,itshouldbenotedthatstateshavenotexpresslyrecognisedtheviewsofthetreatybodiesaslegallybinding.However,theydorepresentauthoritativeinterpretationsoftherelevanttreaties.

TheEuropeanCourtofHumanRights(ECtHR)hasresponsibilitytodecideoncomplaintssubmittedinrespectoftheEuropeanConventiononHumanRights(ECHR).Inrecentyears,theECtHRcaseload,relativetoitscapacitytodeliverjudgmentshasbecomeunsustainable,causingdelaysintheresolutionofcases.ProtocolNo.14totheECHRhasintroducedarangeofmeasuresdesignedtoaddressthis,includingthe‘pilot’procedurefordealingwithrepeatviolations–similarcasesduetosystemicproblemsatnationallevel.Consideringthesereforms,thesignificanceoftherolethattheECtHRwillplayappearstobeshiftingfromprovidingindividualswitharecourseoflastresorttowardsamoreconstitutionalroleindeliveringdecisionsonlegalissuesofbroaderimportanceandofrelevancetoanumberofcomplaints.Inthecontextofsocialrights,theECtHRiscomplementedbytheEuropeanCommitteeofSocialRights(ECSR),whichmonitorsimplementationoftheEuropeanSocialCharter(ESC).

ThisreportprovidesanEU-widecomparativeanalysisoftheeffectivenessofaccesstojusticeasameansofensuringindividuals’rightsintheareaofnon-discriminationlaw.Theareaofnon-discriminationlaw,asembodiedintheRacialEqualityDirective,GenderEqualityDirective(recast),GenderGoodsandServicesDirectiveandEmploymentEqualityDirective,providedafocusforthereport,intermsofthecasessampledandrulesandpracticesthatwereobserved,aswellasensuringthattheenquiryfellwithinthescopeofEUlaw.Becausetheapplicablerulesandpracticestendedtorelatenotonlytonon-discriminationlawbutciviland/oradministrativelawmoregenerally,however,thepresentfindingsintermsofchallengesandgoodpracticesarelikelytoapplybeyondthisareaofsubstantivelaw.Itshouldalsoberecalledthattheresearchwasconfinedprincipallytocivillaw,andmayalsoincludeadministrativeprocedures,whereapplicable,butdidnotcovercriminallaw.

Theresearchforthecountryreports,whichconstitutethebackgroundinformationforthisreport,wasconductedthroughanalysisoflawsandrulesofprocedureaswellasaselectionofcasesineachofthe27EUMemberStates,inthelightoftheconceptofaccesstojustice.Thisconceptisbrokendownthroughatypologyofthecomponentsofthisbroaderidea.AsfortheEUandinternationalelements,itisbasedonavailableliteratureandanalysisofcaselaw.

Thereportshowsthataccesstojusticeisaconceptwithmanynuanceswhichincludes,firstandforemost,effectiveaccesstoanindependentdisputeresolutionmechanismcoupledwithotherrelatedissues,suchastheavailabilityoflegalaidandadequateredress.TherearevariousavenuesavailableatbothnationalandEuropean/internationallevels.

European and international levelThereportanalysesjudicialandquasi-judicialmechanismsatEuropean(EUandCouncilofEurope)andinternational(UnitedNations)levels.Eachoftheselevelshasbothcommonanddivergentcharacteristicsinrelationtorulesonlegalstanding,thenatureofproceedings,theremediesavailable,andapplicablefollow-upmechanisms.SavefortheCourtofJusticeoftheEU(byreasonofthewaythatEUlawisintegratedintonationalsystems),allthemonitoringmechanisms

9

AccesstojusticeinEurope:anoverviewofchallengesandopportunities

10

TherearetwomainavenuesthroughwhichanindividualcanaccesstheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnion(CJEU)inpursuingaremedyagainsttheEUitself:direct(throughtheactionforannulment)andindirect(throughpreliminaryrulings).WhiletherulesrelatingtolegalstandingundertheactionforannulmenthavebeenloosenedbytheLisbonTreaty,accesstotheCJEUremainsrelativelynarrow.

TheTreatyofLisbonhasalsointroducedothersignificantchanges.Firstly,theCharterofFundamentalRightsoftheEuropeanUnionhasacquiredlegallybindingstatus.SecondlythejurisdictionoftheCJEUhasbeenbroadenedtoallowforreviewinareasofEUlawthatwereformerlybeyonditsremit.Thirdly,itmandatestheEUtoaccedetotheECHR,whichwillconferjurisdictionontheECtHRinrelationtobreachesoftheECHRbytheEUitself.

national levelSincetheprotectionoffundamentalrightsshouldfirstandforemostbeprovidedatthenationallevel,judicialmechanismsinindividualEUMemberStatesconstitutethefocusofthereport.Themainissuescoveredincludeconcretelimitsinthecontextofaccessingjusticeatnationallevel,existingregimesoflegalaidanddifferentmeansofcompensatingvictimsofdiscriminatorytreatment.SpecificpracticesthatcanbefoundindifferentEUMemberStatesinrelationtotheseissuesarelikewiseidentified.Inaddition,thesechaptersrefer,whererelevant,toexistingpracticesthatoftenintendtofacilitateaccesstojustice.

Fromtheresearchfindingspresentedinthereport,itcanbeconcludedthatexcessivelyshorttimelimitsforbringingaclaiminordertoinitiatejudicialproceedings,restrictiveconditionsoflegalstanding(includingabsenceorrigidapplicationofpublicinterestcomplaintruleswhichareusuallylimitedtoenvironmentalcases)aswellasunduedelaysinnon-discriminationproceedings,representmajorobstaclesforindividualswhenaccessingjusticeinthedomesticcourtsofindividualMemberStates.Inthecontextofunduedelaysinparticular,itshouldbenotedthatalthoughdomesticlawsofmostMemberStatescontainprovisionsforthespeedyresolutionofurgentorsensitivecases,itremainsunclearwhetherinpracticesuchexpeditedproceduresdoactuallyreducethelengthofthelegalprocess.

Inordertoreducerelianceoncourtproceedings,whichmaybelengthyandcostly,manyEUMemberStatesprovidevictimsofdiscriminationwithalternativenon-judicialroutesthroughwhichtheycanobtainredress.InadditionsomeEUMemberStatesallowvictimstowaivetherightofaccesstoajudicial

bodyandsettlethedisputeoutsidethecourt,subjecttocertainsafeguards.

Legalaidisgenerallyavailableforapartytoproceedingsintheareaofnon-discriminationlawinallEUMemberStatesthroughtheapplicationof‘means’or‘meansplusmerits’tests.Nevertheless,agreaterallocationofresourcesappearstobeneeded.Particularconcernhasbeenraisedregardingbudgetcutsduetotheeconomiccrises.ThesedifficultiesappeartobepartiallyoffsetinsomeMemberStatesthroughtheexistenceofinitiativescomplementarytolegalaid,suchasfreelegaladviceservicesorlegalinsurance.

Accordingtotherelevantresearchfindings,financialcompensationistheprimarymeansofcompensatingvictimsofdiscriminationinall27EUMemberStates.InthemajorityofEUMemberStates,furthermore,suchfinancialcompensationissupplementedbyothernon-financialformsofreparation(suchasreinstatementinthecaseofdismissalfromemploymentthatwasdiscriminatory).

Asfortheleveloffinancialcompensation,thereareconsiderablevariationsamongEUMemberStates.Therelevantresearchfindingsshowedthattheaverageamountoffinancialcompensationawardedbydomesticcourtsvariesgreatly,andthatthisdoesnotappeartobeowedentirelytofactorssuchasvariationsinlivingcosts.OnlytwoMemberStatesallowfortheawardofpunitivedamages.

MostEUMemberStatesoperatea‘loserpays’rulewherethelosingpartyisexpectedtocoverthelegalcostsoftheotherside.AtthesametimeinsomeMemberStatesthejudiciaryhasdiscretionnottoapplythisrule.Itappears,however,thatlegalcostsmaybeofsuchalevelastoconstituteabarriertoaccesstojusticeinsomeMemberStates.

Thereportidentifiednumerousgoodpracticesthathadthepotentialtofacilitateaccesstojusticeforcomplainants.Theseinclude:simplifiedandlessformalisticproceduralrulesmakingiteasiertoenforcerights;E-justiceinitiativesthataimtomakerelevantjurisprudencewidelyaccessibleatnocost;generousrulesonlegalstanding(suchaspublicinterestactions);theavailabilityofredressotherthancompensation;probonoinitiativesandlegaladvicecentres.

InlightofthefactthatthereisgreatdivergencebetweentheMemberStatesintermsofthechallengesthattheyfaceandpracticestheyadopt,theresultsoftheFRAresearchatnationalleveldonotalwaysallowfordirectcomparison.InordertoensureascompleteapictureaspossiblefurtherinformationisavailableviatheFRAwebsitecontainingdetailsonaccesstojusticebyMemberStateandcorecategories.

11

opinions

Legal aidHighcostsassociatedwithlegalproceedings,suchascourtandlawyers’fees,maydeterindividualsfrompursuingremediesthroughthecourts.AlthoughlegalaidisavailableinallMemberStates,ofitselfthismaynotbesufficienttoallowallvictimsofbreachesofnon-discriminationlawtobringclaims.Rulessurroundingthedeterminationofeligibilityforlegalaidshouldbeformulatedinsuchawayastoensurethatthosewithoutsufficientfinancialmeanshaveaccesstoadequateassistance.Accordingly,MemberStatesshouldconsiderre-examiningthethresholdssetfor‘means’testing,ortheformulationsappliedin‘meansandmerits’testinginsuchawayastoguaranteeaccesstojusticeforall.

Theintroductionofalternativedisputesettlementmechanisms,suchasquasi-judicialproceduresavailablebeforesomeoftheequalitybodies,mayhelptoensureaccesstojusticebyprovidingafasterandcheaperalternativetoclaimants.ThoseMemberStatesthathavenotendowedequalitybodieswiththesepowerscouldconsiderdoingso.Inthisregarditshouldbenotedthatequalitybodiesrequireadequateresourcestocarryoutthisfunction.

ConsiderationshouldbegiventoalternativeorcomplementarymeasuresavailableinsomeMemberStates,suchas:agreedlimitsonlegalfees,waivingcourtfeesforclaimantsinfinancialdifficulty,andlegalinsurance.Considerationshouldalsobegiventopromotingpracticessuchasthedeliveryofsupportthroughlegaladvicecentresorprobonowork,whileensuringthatthesearecomplimentarytoandnotasubstituteforanadequatelyresourcedlegalaidsystem.Theintroductionofsimplifiedprocedureswhereindividualsarenotrequiredtoberepresentedthroughalawyershouldalsobeconsidered,whileensuringthatadequatesafeguardsareinplacetoguaranteetheirrightsandtheirabilitytoparticipateeffectivelyinproceedings.

statutes of limitationsTimelimitationsforclaimsareneededforthe sake oflegalcertainty,however,thismustbebalancedagainsttherightoftheclaimanttoobtainaremedy.Unnecessarilyshorttimelimitsappeartoconstituteamajorobstacletoaccessing justice acrosstheEUMemberStates.

TheEuropeanUnionAgencyforFundamentalRightshasformulatedthefollowingopinionsbasedonthefindingsandcomparativeanalysisinthisreport.

Accesstojusticeisacrucialrightsinceallotherfundamentalrightsdependuponitfortheirenforcementintheeventofabreach.AnalysingthesituationintheEUMemberStates,thereisaneedforrevisitingprocedureswithaviewtoensuringthataccesstojusticeismademoreeffectiveacrosstheEuropeanUnion.

Legal standingNarrowrulesrelatingtolegalstandingpreventcivil societyorganisationsfromtakingamoredirectroleinlitigation.EUnon-discriminationlawrequiresMemberStatestoallowassociations,suchasnon-governmentalorganisations(NGOs)ortradeunions,toengageinjudicialoradministrativeproceedingsonbehalfoforinsupportofclaimants.Beyondthisareaoflawsuchentitiesareallowedtoinitiate legal proceedingsinonlysomeMember States.MostMemberStatesallowforpublicinterestactions(actio popularis)inrelationtoenvironmentalcasesaccordingtotheirobligationsundertheAarhusConvention.Thissuggeststhatbroaderrulesonlegalstandingareacceptableinprinciple,andMemberStatesshouldconsiderwideningtheirrulesonstandinginotherareasoflaw.

waiver of rightsInthelawofsevenMemberStates,itispossibletowaive,atleastpartially,therightofaccesstoajudicialbodyby,forinstance,concludingafriendlysettlementorthroughanarbitrationormediationclauseinacontract,solongastherearenoelementsofcoercioninvolved.Incontrast,13MemberStatesprohibitcontractualtermspurportingtolimitorexcludeanindividual’srightofaccesstoacourt.Whileofferingalternativemeansofobtainingaremedythatarelesscostlyorlengthythanjudicialproceedings,itisdesirabletheseshouldbeappliedinsuchawayastoavoidoverridinganindividual’srightofaccesstojustice.Inaddition,anyremediesagreeduponthroughmeanssuchasarbitration,mediation,orconciliationshouldfullyreflecttheentitlementoftheclaimanttoaneffectiveproportionateanddissuasiveremedy.


12

MemberStatesshouldensurethattimelimitsareextendedtoareasonablelengthsoastocomplywiththestandardslaiddownbytheECtHRinitscaselaw.

Length of proceedingsIfanindividualisobligedtowaitforanunreasonablylongperiodoftimeforaremedyitrisksrenderingtheirrightsineffective.Inthelong-runitalsohastheconsequenceofdeterringfutureclaimants.AnalysisofjudgmentsdeliveredbytheECtHR,aswellassamplecasescollectedforthisreport,suggestthatsystematicdifficultiesexistinsomeMemberStatespreventingthedeliveryofjudgmentswithinareasonabletime.ThecaselawoftheCJEUrequiresthatremediesinnationalcourtsforrightsderivedfromEUlawareeffective.MemberStatesshouldconsiderexaminingtheorganisationoftheirjudicialsystemsandallocationofresourcesinordertoensurethis.

international commitmentsWhilealltheMemberStatesarepartytoacore ofUN humanrightstreaties,notallofthemhaveconsentedtothejurisdictionofthemonitoringbodiestohearindividualcomplaints.Thegenerousrulesonlegalstandingandaccessibilityoftheproceduresmaketheseavaluablealternativetootherfora,suchastheECtHR.Inaddition,someofthesebodiesoverseetheimplementationofrightsthatarenotcurrentlycontainedintheECHRortheCharterofFundamentalRightsoftheEuropeanUnion,suchascertainsocialrights.FurthermoreonlyoneMemberStatecurrentlyallowsnationalNGOstobringcasesbeforetheEuropeanCommitteeofSocialRights.InlightofthebenefitofallowingaccesstodisputesettlementproceduresattheEuropeanandinternationallevels,thoseMemberStatesthathavenotdonesoshouldconsiderconsentingtothejurisdictionofthesebodies.

13

1.1.TheFRAresearchonaccesstojustice

This report is about ‘access to justice’ in the European Union – that is, how rights can be enforced in the EU. This is done by analysing mechanisms in Member States, as well as mechanisms offered by the EU, the Council of Europe, and the United Nations (UN). However, focus is placed on judicial mechanisms at the national level, and the challenges and good practices that pertain to them. A further delimitation is a focus on access to justice in the area of non-discrimination law as laid down by the Gender Equality Directives, Racial Equality Directive and Employment Equality Directive.1 This examination is focused principally on civil law remedies and may also include administrative law remedies, but excludes the area of criminal law. This comparative report is the first study of the FRA to explicitly focus on access to justice.2

The report should be seen in the context of a series of FRA research projects. The FRA 2009 European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey (EU-MIDIS) showed that awareness of redress mechanisms (for discrimination) is very low, in particular among

1 Directive 2000/43 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ. L 180, 19 July 2000, p. 22); Directive 2000/78 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ. L 303, 02 December 2000, p. 16); Directive 2004/113 implementing the principle of equal treatment between men and women in the access to and supply of goods and services (OJ. L 373, 21 December 2004, p. 37); Directive 2006/54 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (OJ. L 204, 26 July 2006, p. 23).

2 See also the recently published FRA report on Access to effective remedies: The asylum-seeker perspective (Vienna, 2010) available at: http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/asylum-access-remedies-report-092010_en.pdf (all hyperlinks listed in the report have been accessed in November 2010).

1

vulnerable groups, such as minorities and immigrants. This report on access to justice will be followed by a study focussing on the role of equality bodies and similar entities in facilitating access to justice and the experiences of equality bodies, claimants and those actors providing support to claimants. These studies are complementary in nature, focussing respectively on the court system and on equality bodies in their function of assisting claimants or providing an alternative avenue of redress. In May 2010, the FRA published a set of reports on how the architecture for the promotion and protection of human rights, in particular National Human Rights Institutions, Data Protection Authorities, and Equality Bodies, could be improved in the EU.3 Other related projects that address various components of access to justice include:

• the asylum-seeker perspective: access to effective remedies and the duty to inform applicants;

• access to remedies for irregular migrants;

• the impact of the Racial Equality Directive – Views of trade unions and employers in the European Union;

• the right to political participation of persons with mental health problems and persons with intellectual disabilities;

• joined-up governance: connecting fundamental rights (including improved access to complaint mechanisms at the local level and their links to national and international levels);

3 Produced in a series as Strengthening the fundamental rights architecture in the EU I–III: National Human Rights Institutions in the EU Member States; Data Protection in the European Union: the role of National Data Protection Authorities; EU-MIDIS Data in Focus Report 3: Rights awareness. All available at: http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/research/publications/publications_en.htm.

Accesstojustice–SituatingtheconceptintheEU


14

• developingindicatorsfortheprotection,respectandpromotionoftherightsofthechildintheEuropeanUnion(child-friendlyjustice);

• HandbookonEuropeanonnon-discriminationcase-law.4

ThisfirstchapterelaboratesontheconceptofaccesstojusticeandsituatesitwithintheframeworkofEuropeanlawandpolicy.Fourchaptersfollow, dealingwith:(2)accessingmechanismsatEuropeanand internationallevel,(3-5)accessingjusticeatthenationallevel,includinglegalandavailableremedies.ImportantcasesfromnationalcourtsaswellasfromtheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnion(CJEU)andtheEuropeanCourtofHumanRights(ECtHR)arepresentedasillustrativeexamples.

1.2. report backgroundThisreportdrawsmainlyon27nationalstudiesproducedbytheFRAnetworkoflegalexperts(FRALEX)5onthebasisofatypologydesignedtoallowforacomparativeoverviewonselectedkeyelementsofaccesstojustice.Forthenationallevel,theanalysisandinformationonwhichthisreportisbasedpresentsthesituationasitstoodattheendof2008.Caseassessmentandstatistics,aswellashigh-leveladministrativeorpoliticalresponsestoaccesstojusticeissues,covertheperiodfrom2000 to 2009.TheEUandinternationalelementsrepresentthesituationasitstoodon15October2010.

Sincethereisnostandardisedconceptof‘accesstojustice’,theresearchatnationallevelwasstructuredaroundafive-parttypologysettingoutitsconstituentelements.ThiswasdevelopedusingtherighttoafairtrialaswellasthebroaderrighttoaremedycontainedinArticles6and13ECHR;Articles2(3)and14oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights(ICCPR);andArticle47oftheCharterofFundamentalRightsoftheEuropeanUnion(CFR).Onthebasisoftheseprovisions‘accesstojustice’wasbrokendownintothefollowingelements:

1. therighttoeffectiveaccesstoadisputeresolu-tionbody;

2. therighttofairproceedings;

4 AllFRAprojectsavailableat:http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/research/projects/proj_accesstojustice_en.htm;andallFRApublicationsat:http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/research/publications/publications_en.htm.

5 FRALEXwassetupin2007andiscomposedofhighlyqualifiedlegalexpertsinthefieldoffundamentalrightsineachoftheMemberStatesoftheEuropeanUnion.FRALEXdeliversavarietyofreports,analysesandstudiesatthenationalandcomparativelevel,whichareusedasbackgroundmaterialforFRApublications.AseparatereportonaccesstojusticeattheEUandinternationallevelwasalsocommissioned.Basedonthese27nationalreportsandtheEUandinternationalreport,alongwithadditionalresearch,theFRAproducedthiscomparativereport.

3. therighttotimelyresolutionofdisputes;4. therighttoadequateredress;5. theprinciplesofefficiencyandeffectiveness.

Thesewereinturnsub-dividedintomoredetailedpoints,referredtoasindicators.Forthreeoftheseindicators,theFRALEXteamswereaskedtoanalyseaselectionof50-80nationalcases.6Thecaseshadtoberelatedto‘civil’rightsasprotectedbyArticle6(1)oftheEuropeanConventiononHumanRights(ECHR)andArticle14ICCPR.7

Non-discriminationwasselectedasafocusareatoreducethescopeofenquirytoafeasiblelevel,butalsobecausepreviousFRAresearchshowedtheparticularneedforimprovingandfacilitatingaccesstojusticeinthisarea.However,thepurposeofthestudyistocaptureaccesstojusticemorebroadlyandthisreportisonlyafirststepinthisregard.

Elementsofthe27nationalstudies,whichprovideadditionalcountry-specificinformationonaccesstojusticeinthecontextoftheaforementionedtypology,areavailableonlineviatheFRAwebsite.8Thereports,structuredinaccordancewiththetypology,analysethejudicialsystemsintherespectiveEUMemberStates.Detailsthatwerenotpossibletocaptureinornotrelevanttothiscomparativereportareprovidedinthesenationaloverviews,whichofferinsightintothemechanismsforaccessingjusticeincasesofdiscrimination.9

1.3. the conceptTheterm‘accesstojustice’isnotcommonlyusedaslegalterminologyandisnotexpresslyusedin,forexample,theECHR.10Instead,theECHRcontainsprovisionsonfairtrialandtherighttoaremedy(Articles6and13ECHR).Similarly,theUniversalDeclarationonHumanRights(UDHR)statesthat“everyonehastherighttoaneffectiveremedybythecompetentnationaltribunalsforactsviolatingthefundamentalrightsgrantedhim

6 InsomeMemberStatesthisproveddifficultgiventheimpossibilityofaccessingcaselawfromlowercourts.

7 Seefurther,UNHumanRightsCommittee(UNHRC)General Comment No. 32, Article 14, Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial,23August2007,CCPR/C/GC/32,paragraph16;ECtHR,Sporrong and Lonnroth v. Sweden,No. 7151/75,23September1982,paragraphs 79-83.Article47CFRdoesseeminglynothavethesamelimitationbutisapplicabletoalltypesofcases.

8 Seehttp://fra.europa.eu/.9 ReferencestotheUKprimarilyrefertothesituationinEngland

andWales.However,mostoftherulesandpracticesdiscussedarealsoapplicableinsubstance(ifnotinform)inScotlandandtoalesserextent,NorthernIreland.

10 TheconceptreceivedexplicitattentioninthelegaldoctrinebyMauroCappellettiinthe1970’s-1980’s,seeCappelletti,M. (ed.) (1978)Access to Justice,Milan:SijthoffandNoordhoff.MorerecentlyseeFrancioni,F.(ed.)(2007)Access to Justice as a Human Right,OxfordUniversity:OxfordUniversityPress(OUP).


15

bytheconstitutionorbylaw.”11TheICCPRequallyreferstoan“effective remedy”(Article2(3a))foralltherightsintheconventionandfurtherguaranteestherightto“takeproceedingsbeforeacourt”(Article9(4)),therighttoa“fairandpublichearing”(Article14(1)),andtherighttobetriedwithoutunduedelay(Article14(3c)).12

However,withtheTreatyofLisbon,aspecificreferencetoaccesstojusticewasintroduced:theTreatyontheFunctioningoftheEuropeanUnion (TFEU),Article67(4)stipulatesthat“the Union shallfacilitateaccesstojustice,inparticularthroughtheprincipleofmutualrecognitionofjudicialandextrajudicialdecisionsincivilmatters.”13TheCFRwhich,accordingtothereformsintroducedbytheLisbonTreaty,hasthesamelegallybindingstatusastheTreaties,providesforthe“righttoaneffectiveremedyandtoafairtrial”(Article47CFR).14ThethirdparagraphofthatArticlespecificallyreferstoaccesstojusticeinthecontextoflegalaid,butthetermaccesstojusticealsoconcludestheArticleasawhole.15InthiswaytheArticlesummarisesalltheparticularrightsenshrinedintheconceptof‘accesstojustice’:16

11 UNGeneralAssembly,Universaldeclarationofhumanrights,Resolution217A(III),UNDocumentA/810at71(1948),Article 8.

12 TheUNHRChasupheldtheviewthatdenialofaccesstojusticeisasufficientlyegregiousbreachofhumanrightsthatitmaygiverisetotherighttohaveacriminalconvictionreconsiderediftherighttosubmitanappealhasbeenviolated.UNHRC,Earl Pratt and Ivan Morgan v. Jamaica,CommunicationsNo.210/1986andNo.225/1987.Viewsadoptedon6April1989,UNDocumentA/44/40,Vol.II,222.TheInternationalCourtofJustice(ICJ)has takena similarstance.InAvena (case concerning Avena and other Mexican nationals (Mexico v. United States)31March2004),where anumberofMexicannationalshadbeensentencedtodeathintheUnitedStateswithouthavingbenefitedfromtheconsularassistancerequiredunderArticle36oftheViennaConventionof1963.

13 Article81(2)(e)referstoaccesstojusticeandArticle81(2)(f)tothe“eliminationofobstaclestotheproperfunctioningofcivilproceedings”.

14 ThestatusofCFRisprovidedinArticle6(1)TEU.SeetheExplanationsrelatingtotheCharterofFundamentalRightsoftheEuropeanUnion,OJC303/17of14December2007,availableat:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:303:0017:0035:EN:PDF.

15 CFR,ChapterVI,Justice,Article47,Righttoaneffectiveremedyandafairtrial:“EveryonewhoserightsandfreedomsguaranteedbythelawoftheUnionareviolatedhastherighttoaneffectiveremedybeforeatribunalincompliancewiththeconditionslaiddowninthisArticle.Everyoneisentitledtoafairandpublichearingwithinareasonabletimebyanindependentandimpartialtribunalpreviouslyestablishedbylaw.Everyoneshallhavethepossibilityofbeingadvised,defendedandrepresented.Legalaidshallbemadeavailabletothosewholacksufficientresourcesinsofarassuchaidisnecessarytoensureeffectiveaccesstojustice.”

16 Indeed,theterms“effectiveremedy”and“accesstojustice”appeartobeusedinterchangeably:theExplanationsrelatingtotheCharterofFundamentalRights(n.14),p.30:wherethe relevantcaselaw(ECtHR,Airey v. Ireland,No.6289/73,09 October1979)oftheECtHRisreferredtoandthetermeffectiveremedyisusedtoexplainingaccesstojustice.

• righttoaneffectiveremedybeforeatribunal;

• righttoafairandpublichearingwithinareasonabletimebyanindependentandimpartialtribunalpreviouslyestablishedbylaw;

• righttobeadvised,defendedandrepresented;and

• righttolegalaidforthosewholacksufficientresourcesinsofarassuchaidisnecessarytoensureeffectiveaccesstojustice.

AttheinternationalleveltheUNHRC,sinceitsestablishmentundertheICCPR,hasleadthewayamongtheUNtreatybodiesoninterpretingconceptsrelatedtoaccesstojustice.17

Alsothe1998AarhusConventiononAccesstoInformation,PublicParticipationinDecision-MakingandAccesstoJusticeinEnvironmentalMatters18isanexampleofanexplicituseof‘accesstojustice’.TheConventiondefinesaccesstojusticeas“accesstoareviewprocedurebeforeacourtoflaworanotherindependentandimpartialbodyestablishedbylaw”(Article9(1)).Moreover,withthe2006ConventionontheRightsofPersonswithDisabilities,‘accesstojustice’wasenshrinedinaUnitedNationsconvention.19

Accordingtocurrentusage,then,accesstojusticeisrelatedtoanumberoftermsthatattimesareusedinterchangeablyortocoverparticularelements,suchasaccesstocourt,effectiveremediesorfairtrial.Figure1offersaschematicoverviewofthemostcommonterms.

17 SeeforexampleUNHRC,GeneralCommentNo.32(n.7),paragraphs 8-13.

18 ConventionoftheUNEconomicCommissionforEurope(UNECE)concernedwithtransparencyandaccountabilitythatlinkshumanandenvironmentalrights.Thephraseaccesstojusticeisreferredtointhetitle,thepreambleandinArticles1,3,9and10.ItplacespositiveobligationsupontheStatespartiesandimportantlyestablishesrelativelyfirmparameters,whichmustbesatisfiedinordertofulfiltheStates’dutiesandgrantadequateenjoymentoftheright.

19 Article13placesanobligationuponstatestoensureequalaccesstojusticetothosepersonswithdisabilities,furtherobligingthestatestoprovidetheiragentswithappropriatetrainingtoaccomplishthis.UsefulanalysesofarangeofEuropeanandinternationalstandardsonaccesstojusticecanbefoundin:McBride,J.(2009)Access to Justice for Migrants and Asylum Seekers in Europe,Strasbourg:CouncilofEuropePublishing.


16

Figure 1: Access to justice and related terminology

Source: FRA, 2010

1.4. related research and instruments by the council of Europe

TheCouncilofEurope’sEuropeanCommissionfortheEfficiencyofJustice(CEPEJ)hasdevelopedaseriesofstudiesonaccesstojusticeintheMemberStatesoftheCouncilofEurope.20CEPEJcollectsjudicialdatafromthe47MemberStates,analysesshortcomingsandnewtrends,andpromotesamorehomogenousdatacollectionatnationallevel.Acomprehensivereport,European Judicial Systems(2008-2010),covers,forinstance,publicexpendituresoncourtsandlegalaid,typesoflegalaidincriminalcases,numberofcasesinvolvinglegalaid,conditionsforgrantingaid,systemsofcourtfees,lengthofprocedures,availabilityoflegalrepresentationincourt,andexecutionofcourtdecisions.21CEPEJhasalsoissuedareportontheuseofe-justiceinEurope.22

On18November2010,theConsultativeCouncilofEuropeanJudges(CCJE,anadvisorybodyoftheCouncilofEuropeonissuesrelatedtotheindependence,impartialityandcompetenceofjudges,composedexclusivelyofjudges,adoptedtheMagnaCartaofJudges(Fundamentalprinciples).ThisMagnaCartaofjudgeshighlightsthefundamentalprinciplesrelatingtojudgesandjudicialsystems.Itreiterates,

20 SeeinparticularEuropeanCommissionfortheefficiencyofjustice(CEPEJ)European Judicial Systems – Edition 2008 (2006 data): Efficiency and quality of justice;aswellasAccess to Justice in Europe,CEPEJStudiesNo.9.TheEuropeanParliament,initsresolutionof 19May2010(2009/2241(INI))ontheaccessionof theUniontotheECHR,calledontheUniontobecomememberoftheCEPEJ.Moreinformationavailableat:www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/cepej/series/default_en.asp.

21 CEPEJ(2010)European Judicial Systems(2008-2010),Strasbourg:CouncilofEurope,availableat:www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/cepej/evaluation/default_en.asp.

22 CEPEJ(2008)Use of information and communication technologies (ICT) in European judicial systems, Strasbourg:CouncilofEurope,availableat:www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/cepej/series/Etudes7TIC_en.pdf.

amongotherissues,thefundamentalcriteriaoftheruleoflaw,theindependenceofthejudiciary,accesstojustice,andtheprinciplesofethicsandresponsibilityinanationalandinternationalcontext.23

TheCommitteeofMinistersoftheCouncilofEuropeadopted,on24February2010,RecommendationCM/Rec(2010)3oneffectiveremediesforexcessivelengthofproceedings.TheRecommendationmakesreferencetothecaselawoftheECtHRaswellasitspilotjudgmentsintheareaandcallsonMemberStatesto,amongotherthings,ensuremechanismsthatidentifyexcessivelengthofproceedings;effectiveremediesforatrialwithinareasonabletime;compensation,includingnon-pecuniarydamages;andtoconsidernon-monetaryredresswheretrialshaverunforanexcessivelengthoftime,suchasreductionofsanctions.24

ThisFRAreportcomplementsexistingresearchinthisareabyofferingabroadoverviewandanalysisoftheprincipalchallengesandexistinggoodpracticesatnationallevelinlightoftherequirementsofEuropeanandinternationalhumanrightslaw.InthissenseitisabletocommentonparticularpracticeswhicheitherlimitorhelptocontributetotherealisationofMemberStates’obligations.ItwillinthiswayalsofeedintotheFRAresearchonaccesstojusticewithrespecttocomplainant’saccesstojusticethroughequalitybodies.

23 Forthetext,seehttps://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CCJE-MC%282010%293&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=original&BackColorInternet=DBDCF2&BackColorIntranet=FDC864&BackColorLogged=FDC864.Inabroadercontext,seealsotheCCJE’sOpinionNo. 13ontheroleofjudgesintheenforcementofjudicialdecisions,whichisanessentialelementofthefunctioningofastate,basedontheruleoflawadoptedon09December2010,availableat:https://wcd.coe.int/wcd/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CCJE(2010)2&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=original&BackColorInternet=DBDCF2&BackColorIntranet=FDC864&BackColorLogged=FDC864.

24 SeealsotheRecommendationoftheCommitteeofMinistersoftheCouncilofEuropetoMemberStatesonjudges:independence,efficiencyandresponsibilities,adoptedon17November2010.Itplacesemphasisontheindependenceofeveryindividualjudgeandofthejudiciaryasawhole,preciselytoguaranteetheindependenceofindividualjudges.Forthefirsttimeever,judicial“efficiency”isdefinedinaclearandsimplemanneras“thedeliveryofqualitydecisionswithinareasonabletimefollowingfairconsiderationoftheissues”.Furthermeasuresproposedconcerningtheselectionandtrainingofjudges,theirresponsibility,aswellasjudicialethics,arefurtherstepstowardsstrengtheningtheroleofindividualjudgesandthejudiciaryingeneral.CEPEJalsohostsacentreforjudicialtimemanagement,SATURN,thatprovidesstatisticsontimemanagementandsupportsselectedcourtsinimprovingtimemanagement.See furtherwww.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/cepej/Delais/default_en.asp.

Access to justice

rule of law

Effective remedies redress

Access to court Judicial protection

Fair trial due process


17

1.5. Access to justice in European law

InEurope,therighttoaccesstojustice–specificallytoacourtoratribunal–wasdevelopedbytheECtHRinthecontextofArticle6ECHRandhassincebeenextensivelydealtwithinscholarlydoctrine.25Article6ECHRappliesonlyto“civilrightsandcriminalcharges”.AlthoughECtHRjurisprudencehas,overtheyears,continuouslyenlargedthescopeofthenotionof‘civilrights’,sothatnowadaysalsoconsiderablepartsofadministrativelawarenowcoveredbythesafeguardsofthisprovision,26itisnonethelessanotablestepforwardthatArticle47CFRhasabandonedthisrestriction,deliberatelygrantingaccesstojusticetoallsortsofrightsandfreedomsguaranteedbythelawoftheUnion.27

AccordingtolongestablishedcaselawoftheCJEU,accesstojusticeisoneoftheconstitutiveelementsofaUnionbasedontheruleoflaw.28ThisisguaranteedinthetreatiesthroughestablishingacompletesystemoflegalremediesandproceduresdesignedtopermittheCJEUtoreviewthelegalityofmeasuresadoptedbytheinstitutions.29TherighttoeffectivejudicialprotectionhasbeenacceptedbytheCJEUasageneralprincipleofUnionlaw,as

25 StartingwiththeGoldercase(ECtHR,Golder v. the United Kingdom, No.4451/70,21February1975).Seeaswell:Harris, D.J.,O’Boyle,M.,Bates,E.P.andBuckley,C.M.(2009)Harris, O’Boyle and Warbrick, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights,2ndedition,Oxford:OUP,Chapter6;vanDijk,P.,van Hoof,G.J.H.,vanRijn,A.andZwaak,L.(eds.)(2006)Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human rights,Antwerpen:Intersentia,Chapter10;Frowein,A.J.andPeukert,W.(2009)Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, EMRK-Kommentar,Kehl:N.P.EngelVerlag;andGrabenwarter,C.(2009)Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention,4thedition,Basel:HelbingLichtenhahnVerlag.

26 TheECtHRhasbeenreluctanttoofferaconcretedefinitionof‘civil’rights,inpracticeitsinterpretationseemsconsistentwiththatoftheUNHRC(seeGeneralCommentNo.32(n.7),paragraph 16).Seeibid.

27 “InUnionlaw,therighttoafairhearingisnotconfinedtodisputesrelatingtocivillawrightsandobligations.”ThatisoneoftheconsequencesofthefactthattheUnionisacommunitybasedontheruleoflawasstatedbytheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanCommunities(CJEU),Les Verts v. European Parliament,Case294/83,23April1986,ECR1339.ExplanationsrelatingtotheEUCharterofFundamentalRights,OJC303/17of14December2007,p. 30,availableat:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:303:0017:0035:En:PDF.

28 Thiscanbeseeninitsreasoningforestablishingtheprinciplesofdirecteffect(CJEU,Van Gend en Loos,Case26/62,05 February 1963)andsupremacy(CJEU,Costa v. ENELCase6/64,15July1964),aswellastheconceptofstateliability(Francovich and Bonifaci v. Italy,CaseC-6andC-9/90,19November1991)andtherequirementthatnationalremediesforbreachesofrightsderivedfromCommunitylawcomplywiththeprinciplesofequivalenceandeffectiveness(CJEU,Preston v. Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust, C-78/98,16May2000).

29 Case294/83,Les Verts v. Parliament,No.25,paragraph 23.

influencedbythecaselawoftheECtHR.30TheCJEUhastraditionallyusedtheconstitutionaltraditionscommontotheMemberStatesandArticles6and13ECHRasabasisfortherighttoobtainaneffectiveremedybeforeacompetentcourt.

AdvocateGeneralRuiz-JaraboColomerhasstatedinhisOpinioninRoda Golf & Beach Resort SL:“Accesstojusticeisafundamentalpillarofwesternlegalculture[...].ThereforetherighttoeffectivelegalprotectionisoneofthegeneralprinciplesofCommunitylaw,inaccordancewithwhichaccesstojusticeisorganised[...].Accesstojusticeentailsnotonlythecommencementoflegalproceedingsbutalsotherequirementthatthecompetentcourtmustbeseizedofthoseproceedings.”31Inotherwords,accesstojusticemustbemuchmorethanamereformalpossibility,itmustalsobefeasibleinpracticalterms.

WithintheEUlegalorder,therighttoeffectivelegalprotectionequallycoversaccesstotheEUcourts(here,theCourtofJusticeandtheGeneralCourt),aswellasaccesstonationalcourtsandtribunalsfortheenforcementofrightsderivedfromEUlaw.

1.5.1. rights derived from Eu law in national courts: equivalence and effectiveness

TheideathatEUlawmay,incertaincircumstances,giverisetoindividualrightsthatarecapableofdirectenforcementbydomesticcourtshasbeenrecognisedsincetheclassiccaseofVan Gend en Loos.Inthiscase,theCJEUconcludedthat:“Communitylaw[…]notonlyimposesobligationsonindividualsbutisalsointendedtoconferuponthemrightswhichbecomepartoftheirlegalheritage.TheserightsarisenotonlywheretheyareexpresslygrantedbytheTreatybutalsobyreasonofobligationswhichtheTreatyimposesinaclearlydefinedwayuponindividualsaswellasupontheMemberStatesanduponthe

30 TheapproachoftheCJEUhasgenerallybeentofollowthereasoningoftheECtHRwithregardtothemeaningoftherighttoafairtrialasageneralprincipleofUnionlaw.SeeforexampleCJEU,Baustahlgewebe Gmbh,C-185/95,17December1998.However,ithasnotbeencommonfortheCJEUtofocusindetailuponparticularaspectsofthisright;whereithasdoneso,thecontextofapplicationhasoftendifferedtothatofthepresentreport.Forinstance,thecaselawoftheCJEUrelatingtothecriteriaof‘reasonabletime’hastendedtofocusuponactionsbroughtagainsttheUnioninstitutions,whichmayreducetheirrelevanceforthepresentreport.SeeforexampleCJEU,Hoechst v. Commission,T-410/03,18June2008,paragraphs 227-228;CJEU,Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij (LVM) v. Commission and Others,C-238/99P,15October2002,paragraph 169;CJEU,Chronopost and La Poste v. UFEX and Others,C-341/06P,1July2008,paragraph 45.

31 OpinionofAdvocateGeneralRuiz-JaraboColomer,CJEU,Roda Golf & Beach Resort SL,C-14/08,paragraph29,deliveredon5 March 2009.TheCJdelivereditsjudgmentinthiscaseon25June2009(notethatthejudgmentdoesnotincludeany discussionontheissueofaccesstojusticeraisedbythe AdvocateGeneral).


18

InstitutionsoftheCommunity.”32Inthiscontext,theCJEUalsoplacedgreatemphasisontherolethatnationalcourtsplayinthesafeguardingofindividuals’CommunitylawrightsbyrulingthattheTreatyprovisionatissue“producesdirecteffectsandcreatesindividualrightswhichnationalcourtsmustprotect”.

InitsseminaljudgmentinCosta v. ENELtheCJEUfurtherheldthattheTEC,nowtheTFEU,hascreated“itsownlegalsystemwhich[...]becameanintegralpartofthelegalsystemsoftheMemberStatesandwhichtheircourtsareboundtoapply.”33Itisalsoimportanttorecognisethecloseconnectionbetweeneffectiveprotectionoftherightsoftheindividuals,andtheeffectiveenforcementofUnionlaw,giventhattheconcernofindividualsoftheirrightsconstitutesanadditionalformofenforcingEUlaw.Infact,inCosta v. ENELtheCJEUunderlinedthatthe“vigilanceofindividualsconcernedtoprotecttheirrightsamountstoaneffectivesupervisioninadditiontothesupervisionentrusted”totheEuropeanCommission.InthissenseEUcitizensactlikedecentralisedagentscontributingtoanefficientimplementationofEUlawatnationallevel.

IndeednationalcourtsareobligedtoimplementUnionlawandprotecttherightsoftheindividualsunderUnionlaw.Theycandosoaccordingtotheirdomesticlegalprocedures,remediesandsanctions,undertheprincipleofnationalproceduralautonomy.34InthewordsoftheCJEU:“Itmustalsobeborneinmindthat,accordingtosettledcase-law,intheabsenceofrelevantCommunityrules,thedetailedproceduralrulesdesignedtoensuretheprotectionoftherightswhichindividualsacquireunderCommunitylawareamatterforthedomesticlegalorderofeachMemberState,undertheprincipleoftheproceduralautonomyoftheMemberStates.”35

32 CJEU,Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen,Case26/62,5Feburary1963,p. 3.

33 CJEU,Flaminio Costa v. ENEL,Case6/64,15July1964,p. 593.34 AstheCourtofJusticehaspointedout:“althoughtheTreaty has

madeitpossibleunderanumberofcircumstancesforprivatepersonstobringadirectaction,whereappropriate,beforetheCourtofJustice,itwasnotintendedtocreatenewremediesinthenationalcourtstoensuretheobservanceofCommunitylawotherthanthosealreadylaiddownbynationallaw”.SeeButterboatscase:CJEU,Rewe-Handelsgesellschaft Nord mbH and Rewe-Markt Steffen v. Hauptzollamt Kiel,Case158/80,7 July1981,paragraph 44.SeealsoCJEU,Unectef v. Heylens and Others, Case 222/86,15 October1987,paragraph14;andCJEU,Vlassopoulou v. Ministerium für Justiz,CaseC-340/89,7May1991.

35 CJEU,Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken GmbH v. Ministero delle Finanze,C-35/05,15March2007,paragraph40.Seealso,interalia,CJEU,Preston and Others,C-78/98,16May2000,paragraph 31,andi-21 Germany and Arcor, JoinedCasesC-392/04andC-422/04,19 September2006,paragraph57.SeealsoCJEU,Rewe-Zentralfinanz eG,Case33/76,16December1976.ThisisalsosupportedbytheECtHR,Zubayrayev v. Russia, No. 67796/01,10January2008,paragraph105;ECtHR,Khatsiyeva v. Russia,No. 5108/02,17January2008,paragraph 161;ECtHR,Stoica v. Romania, No.42722/02,4March2008,paragraph 101.

Insuchasituation,thenationallegalordermust,however,complywithtwoprinciples.Thefirstistheprinciple of equivalence:thedomesticproceduralrulesenforcingUnionlawcannotbelessfavourablethanthoseappliedtosimilardomesticlawactions.Thesecondisthe principle of effectiveness:theapplicationofnationalproceduralrulescannotrendertheexerciseofrightsconferredbyUnionlawvirtuallyimpossibleorexcessivelydifficult.36

Judgingnationallegalnormsonremediesandproceduralandjurisdictionalissuesinthelightofthesetwoprinciplesisessentiallyamatterofcontextualcase-by-casedeterminationbydomesticcourts.Theseprinciplesarecapableofaffectingarangeofnationalremediesandproceduralandjurisdictionalconditions,suchasdomestictimelimitsandotherlimitationperiods,rulesofevidenceandtheburdenofproof,locus standirules,thenationalconditionsforreparationoflossanddamageandarangeofotherremediesandsanctions.

OneimportantdimensionoftheprincipleofnationalproceduralautonomyhastraditionallybeenthatthedomesticeffectofUnionlawis“notintendedtocreatenewremediesinthenationalcourtstoensuretheobservanceofCommunitylawotherthanthosealreadylaiddownbynationallaw”.37AsamatterofUnionlaw,therefore,domesticcourtsarenotobligedtotakeadvantageoflegalremediesbeyondthosethatalreadyexistunderdomesticlaw.Inpractice,however,domesticcourtsmayhavegreatdifficultiesadaptingexistingrulesandineffect,newproceduresmighthavetobeestablished.38

1.5.2. Liability for breach of union law

TheCJEUhasalsodevelopedtheprincipleofstateliabilityforbreachofUnionlaw.AccordingtotheCJEU,thefulleffectivenessofUnionruleswouldbeimpairedandtheprotectionoftherightswhichtheygrantwouldbeweakenedifindividualswereunabletoobtainreparationwhentheirrightsareinfringedbyabreachofUnionlawforwhicha

36 CJEU,Peterbroeck Van Campenhout SCS & Cie v. Belgian State,C-312/93,14December1995,paragraph 12;CJEU,Comet v. Produktschap voor Siergewassen,Case45/76,16December1976,paragraphs 12-6;CJEU,Commission v. Spain, C-96/91,9June1992,paragraph 12.SeealsoCJEU,Preston and Others, CaseC-78/98,No.26,paragraphs 31and57.Inthiscase,theCJEUfoundthatarequirementforamembershipclaimofanoccupationalpensionschemeshouldbemadewithinatimelimitofsixmonthsrunningfromtheendofemploymentdidnotrendertheexerciseofCommunityrightsexcessivelydifficult.Atthesametimeitdidfindthatarulerestrictingthecalculationofpensionableservicetotwoyearsprecedingtheclaim,wheretheindividualhadbeenmakingpaymentsoveralongerperiod,wouldrendertheindividual’srightsineffective(paragraphs 35–44).

37 CJEU,Rewe-Handelsgesellschaft Nord mbH and Rewe-Markt Steffen v. Hauptzollamt Kiel, Case158/80,7July1981,paragraph 44.

38 CJEU,R. v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame and Others (Factortame I),C-213/89,19June1990.

Access to justice – Situating the concept in the EU

19

Member State can be held responsible.39 In the absence of any Union legislation on the issue, the state must make reparation in accordance with the rules of national law on liability. The principles of equivalence and effectiveness apply here as well.

The principle of effective judicial protection of an individual’s rights under Union law may also require national courts to review all legislative measures and to grant interim relief where appropriate even when there are no relevant national provisions on which such relief may be based.40

1.5.3. Unionlegislation

Within the Union legal order, there are a number of legislative instruments that are intended to give effect to the right to access to justice that therefore shape the content of national law.41 For instance, Article 31 of Directive 2004/38/EC on the right to move and reside freely42 (the Citizens’ Directive or Free Movement Directive) contains certain procedural safeguards in order to ensure a high level of protection of the rights of Union citizens and their family members in the event of their being denied to leave, enter or reside in another Member State. According to this provision, judicial redress procedures should be available to Union citizens and their family members who have been refused leave to enter or reside in another Member State. Furthermore, the directive confirms the right of Union citizens and their family members who have been excluded from the territory of a Member State to submit a fresh application after a reasonable period, in line with the relevant case-law of the CJEU.

Another example of an EU legislative instrument providing for the right to access to justice is Article 7 of the Racial Equality Directive: “Member States shall ensure that judicial and/or administrative procedures, including where they deem it appropriate conciliation procedures, for the enforcement of obligations under this directive are available to all persons who consider themselves wronged by failure to apply the principle of equal treatment to

39 CJEU, Frankovich and Bonifaci v. Italian Republic, Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90, 19 November 1991; CJEU, Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame, Joined cases C-46/93 and C-48/93, 5 March 1996.

40 CJEU, R. v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame and Others (Factortame I), C-213/89, 19 June 1990.

41 See also European Commission (2010) Promoting equality: activities on fighting discrimination in 2009, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union (Publications Office), p. 26ff.ttp://ec.europa.eu/social/publications

42 Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC), No. 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, OJ L158, 30 April 2004, p. 77.

them.”43 According to the directive, persons who have been subject to discrimination based on racial and ethnic origin should have adequate means of legal protection. The directive also makes a specific reference to associations or legal entities that should be empowered to engage, either on behalf or in support of any victim in proceedings in order to provide a more effective level of protection before the national courts.44 Finally, the Racial Equality Directive establishes certain rules concerning the burden of proof, according to which the latter must shift to the respondent when evidence of a prima facie case of discrimination is brought.45 Similarly worded provisions appear in the Gender Equality Directives and the Employment Equality Directive.

Two specialised Union legal instruments deal with particular aspects of access to justice: the Legal Aid Directive46 and the Mediation Directive.47 The Legal Aid Directive promotes judicial cooperation in civil matters having cross-border implications within an area of freedom, security and justice. The main purpose of the directive is to guarantee an adequate level of legal aid in cross-border disputes by laying down certain minimum common standards. The directive applies only in cross-border disputes, to civil and commercial matters. It ensures that all persons involved in a civil or commercial dispute within the scope of the directive must be able to assert their rights in the courts even if their personal financial situation makes it impossible for them to bear the costs of the proceedings. According to the directive, legal aid is appropriate when it allows the recipient effective access to justice. Legal aid covers pre-litigation advice with a view to reaching a settlement prior to bringing legal proceedings, legal assistance in bringing a case before a court and representation in court and assistance with or exemption from the cost of proceedings.

According to the Mediation Directive, the objective of securing better access to justice should encompass access to judicial as well as extrajudicial dispute resolution methods. Extrajudicial procedures for the settlement of disputes in civil and commercial matters can simplify and improve access to justice. Mediation can provide a cost-effective and quick extrajudicial

43 Directive 2000/43, 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, OJ L 180, 19 July 2000, p. 22.

44 See FRA (2011) The Racial Equality Directive: application and challenges, Luxembourg: Publications Office.

45 See FRA and ECtHR (2011) Handbook on European non-discrimination law, Luxembourg: Publications Office.

46 Directive 2002/8/EC of 27 January 2003 to improve access to justice in cross-border disputes by establishing minimum common rules relating to legal aid for such disputes, OJ L26, 31 January 2003, p. 41.

47 Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 136, 24 May 2008, p. 3.

Access to justice in Europe: an overview of challenges and opportunities

20

resolution of disputes in civil and commercial matters through processes tailored to the needs of the parties. Agreements resulting from mediation are more likely to be complied with voluntarily and are more likely to preserve an amicable and sustainable relationship between the parties. The directive applies to processes whereby two or more parties to a cross-border dispute attempt by themselves, on a voluntary basis, to reach an amicable agreement on the settlement of their dispute with the assistance of a mediator. However, it does not apply to rights and obligations on which the parties are not free to decide under the relevant applicable law. Such rights and obligations are particularly frequent in family law and employment law. The mediation provided for in the directive should be a voluntary process in the sense that the parties are themselves in charge of the process and may organise it as they wish and terminate it at any time. However, it should be possible under national law for the courts to set time limits for a mediation process.

1.6.AccesstojusticeinEUpolicy

At a policy level, the European Council has in its three justice and home affairs programmes outlined priorities for five years at the time, most recently in the Stockholm Programme, adopted in 2009.

1.6.1. Tampere

The Tampere European Council (1999) stressed the need for better access to justice, in particular through mutual recognition of judicial decisions and increased convergence of procedural laws. The Council stressed the need to launch information campaigns, user guides, and easily accessible information systems. Legal aid, extra-judicial procedures, and minimum standards were given as further examples of areas where progress was desirable, not least in cross-border situations.

The Council also underscored that “minimum standards should be drawn up on the protection of the victims of crime, in particular on crime victims access to justice and on their rights to compensation for damages, including legal costs. In addition, national programmes should be set up to finance measures, public and non-governmental, for assistance to and protection of victims.”48 It should be noted that, while this initiative refers principally to the area of criminal law, it reflects concerns that are

48 Presidency Conclusions, section V, entitled “Better access to justice in Europe”, paragraphs 29 et seq., available at: http://consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/00200-r1.en9.htm.

applicable to access to justice as a whole, including through civil and administrative procedures.

1.6.2. TheHague

The Hague European Council (2004) similarly concluded on guaranteeing a “European area of justice by ensuring an effective access to justice for all and the enforcement of judgments.”49 The programme stressed that such access to justice “is more than an area where judgments obtained in one Member State are recognised and enforced in other Member States, but rather an area where effective access to justice is guaranteed in order to obtain and enforce judicial decisions”.

1.6.3. Stockholm

The Stockholm European Council (2009) underscored a “Europe of law and justice: The achievement of a European area of justice must be consolidated so as to move beyond the current fragmentation. Priority should be given to mechanisms that facilitate access to justice, so that people can enforce their rights throughout the Union. Cooperation between public professionals and their training should also be improved, and resources should be mobilised to eliminate barriers to the recognition of legal acts in other Member States”.50 The programme also states that the “European judicial area must also allow citizens to assert their rights anywhere in the Union by significantly raising overall awareness of rights and by facilitating their access to justice”.51 In this context, the importance of e-justice is mentioned (see below).52

The European Commission was tasked by the European Council to produce an Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme.53 The Action Plan contains a number of relevant measures, including a Green paper on minimum standards for civil procedures and necessary follow up (intended for publication in 2013); Legislative proposal aimed at improving the consistency of existing Union legislation in the field of civil procedural law (2014);

49 European Commission (2005) Hague Programme: Ten priorities for the next five years. The Partnership for European renewal in the field of Freedom, Security and Justice, COM (2005) 0184 final, 10 May 2005, section 2.3.

50 Council of the European Union, The Stockholm Programme – An open and secure Europe serving the citizen, 2010/C 115/01, 4 May 2010, section 1.1, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:115:0001:0038:EN:PDF.

51 Ibid., section 3 and 3.4.52 The Council adopted The European Council’s Multi-Annual

European e-Justice Action Plan 2009-2013, 2009/C 75/01, 31 March 2009, OJ C 75, section 1, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2009:075:0001:0012:EN:PDF.

53 European Commission (2010) Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe’s citizens – Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme, COM (2010) 171 final, 20 April 2010, pp. 23–24, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/malmstrom/archive/COM%202010%20171%20EN.pdf.


21

Report on the application of Directive 2003/8/EC on legal aid(2011);Communication/Green Paper on the promotion of Alternative Dispute Resolution in the EU(2010);andCommunication on the implementation of the mediation directive(2013).TheActionPlanalsoincludesaEuropeane-justicePortal.54

the European e-justice portal55

Theuseofinformationandcommunicationtechnologiesenhancesaccess,timeliness,transparency,andaccountability,helpingjudiciariestoprovidemoreefficientservices.Suchinnovationscanbringimprovementsinalltheseareas,andofparticularrelevancehere,intheareaofaccesstojustice.TheEuropeane-justicePortalisaimedatimprovingthewayjudicialsystemsoperatebyfacilitatinglegalpractitioners’dailyworkandfosteringcooperationamonglegalauthorities.

On16July2010,theEUlaunchedtheportal,aone-stop-shopforaccesstojusticethroughouttheUnion.Withthisnewwebsite,theEUaimsataddressingthemainquestionsrelatedtolegalissuesandhelpingcitizens–andpeoplelivingintheUnion,companiesaswellaslegalpractitioners,bycontributingtothecreationofasingleareaofjustice.Moreinformation,tools,andfunctionswillbeaddedtotheportalovertime.

FutureversionswillalsomakeexistingEUjusticetoolsmoreeffective,forinstance,allowingacitizentopursuetheircross-bordersmallclaimsonline(Regulation(EC)No861/2007,11July2007),providingcitizensandbusinessesalloverEuropewithaspeedyandaffordablecivilprocedurewhichappliesincivilandcommercialmatterswherethevalueofaclaimdoesnotexceed€2,000.Thistypicallywrittenprocedureappliestopecuniaryaswellnon-pecuniaryclaims.ThejudicialdecisionobtainedasaresultofthisprocedurehastoberecognisedandenforcedinanotherMemberStateautomaticallyandwithoutanypossibilityofopposingitsrecognition,unlessthedefendantwasnotservedwiththepapers.

AnotherexampleisthepossibilitytoapplyforaEuropeanorderforpaymentinordertorecoveruncontesteddebtsonline(Regulation(EC)No. 1896/2006,12December2006).ThisallowscreditorstorecovertheiruncontestedcivilandcommercialclaimsbeforethecourtsoftheMemberStatesaccordingtoauniformprocedurethatoperatesonthebasisofstandardformsprocedure.Itdoesnotrequireanindividualtoappearbeforethe courtandcanbeinitiatedandhandledina purely electronicway.Theclaimantonlyhastosubmitanapplication,afterwhichtheprocedure

54 Ibid.,pp. 20and23.55 Seehttp://e-justice.europa.eu/.

willbeautomatic.The judicialdecisionobtainedasaresultofthisprocedurecirculatesfreelyinotherMemberStates;thecreditordoesnothavetoundertakeintermediatestepstoenforcethedecisionabroad.

Courtswillalsobeabletodealwithcross-borderrequestsonlineandcommunicatewiththeclaimantsanddefendantsinaparticularcaseaswellaswithcourtsinotherMemberStates.GoodprogressisalsoexpectedtobemadetotackleEU-wideinteroperabilityissuesfore-Signature,e-Identityande-Payment.TheEuropeane-Justiceinternetportalisexpectedtobecomefullyoperationalby2013.56

e-justiceexclusivelyisnotthesolution

Itis,however,importanttonotethattheCJEUrecentlyunderlinedthat“electronicmeans”maynotbeofferedexclusively,duetothedangerthatthus“theexerciseofrights[…]mightberenderedinpracticeimpossible[…]forcertainindividuals”.

(CJEU,Rosalba Alassini and Filomena Califano v. Wind SpA, Lucia Anna Giorgia Iacono v. Telecom Italia SpA, Multiservice Srl v. Telecom Italia SpA,JoinedCasesC-317/08toC-320/08,8March2010,paragraph58)

56 Seealsosection4oftheSpecialEUROBAROMETER351concerningtheEuropeanproceduresinwhichtheawarenessanduseofEU’s threecross-borderproceduresandthesourcesofawarenessforeachprocedurearecovered,availableat:http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_351_en.pdf.


22

Otherexamplesofe-justiceatnationallevel

followindividualproceduralstepstakenintheircase.Giventhelackoffinancialmeansnecessaryforproperimplementationoftheproject,theimpactoftheinitiativeseemstohavebeen,thusfaratleast,low.57

Theavailabilityofwebservices,includingthepossibilityofconsultingon-linelegislationandcase-lawisanotherexampleofgoodpractice.Inthiscontext,inparticularisworthmentioningtheAustrian“Rechtsinformationssystem”[LawInformationSystem]whichprovides–onacost-freebasis–notonlycase-lawofallbranches(constitutional,administrative,civilandcriminal)andlevels(notonlycase-lawofthesupremecourts,butalsoofcourtsandtribunalsofappealandevenoffirstinstance)ofthejudiciary,butalsoarangeoflegalinstrumentsbothoffederalandregionallevel.Itispossibletoaccessnotonlythecurrentconsolidatedversion,butalsotheinitialversionandallamendments,aswellastheformaltextofofficialpublication;inaddition,alsoofficialdraftsandgovernmentalproposalsoffederallegislationmaybefound.58

Therearealsoofficiallegaldatabases,thoughseeminglyofasomewhatnarrowerscope,inotherMemberStates,suchasBulgaria,Cyprus,Denmark,France,Greece,Latvia,Lithuania,Malta,PolandandtheUnitedKingdom.59

57 Seewww.obcanskyzakonik.justice.cz/ejustice/.58 Seewww.ris.bka.gv.at/.59 Seewww.coe.int/T/E/Legal_Affairs/Legal_co-operation/

Operation_of_ justice/Information_technology/Links/.SeealsotheEUN-Lex,withnationallawin23EUMemberStates,availableat:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/n-lex/index_en.htm,aswellasinformationoncaselawinvariousMemberStates,availableat:https://e-justice.europa.eu/contentPresentation.do?lang=en&idTaxonomy=11&idCountry=eu&vmac=JYNot004GvR-tuU3d_GXjWMF4u6q6BWlWh7snlEPojYnekllwVFJT1ZRanfMZ30zh7U47TWeDq--g-xE7XIAvgAAEIsAAAON.

1.7. summaryPreviousFRAstudieshaveidentifiedaccesstojusticeasamajorconcernandhaveaddressedparticularaspectsofaccesstojustice.ThisisthefirstFRAreportdevotedtothetopic.TheresearchatthenationallevelintheMemberStateswasconstructedonthebasisofatypologyonaccesstojustice,inanefforttomakethefindingsascomparableaspossible.

Accesstojusticeisaconceptwithmanynuances.EventhoughthetermitselfisnotusedinlegislationintheMemberStates,othertermsorconceptscapturethe

sameidea.AttheEuropeanandinternationallevels,thetermisnotfrequentlyused,butitdoesappearintheCFR(Article47(3)).TheareaofaccesstojusticehasbeendevelopedbyboththeECtHRandtheCJEU,andlegislation,aswellaspolicymeasuresatEUlevelthatgiveprominencetofacilitatingaccesstojustice.

Initaly,theprojectknownasProcesso Civile Telematico(on-lineCivilTrial)hasbeenintroducedincivilcourts.Thissystemaimstoincreasetheavailabilityofon-lineservices,buildingatwo-waydataanddocumentinterchangeandapplicationinteroperabilitybetweenallexternalusers(suchaslawyersandexpertwitnesses),allthecourts’internalusers(suchasclerksandjudges)andallthepublicadministrationsinvolvedincivilcases.Thesystemisintendedtoenablelawyers,expertwitnessesorotherindividualsconcernedtocreate,digitallysignandtransmittheirownlegalactstotherelevantcourt,receivenotificationsfromthecourtattheircertifiede-mailaddresses,getfullaccesstotheinformationandtheelectronicacts,regardingtheirowncivilcases,withawiderangeofsearchcriteria,informationretrievalfunctionsandconceptualsearches.Giventhesystem’scomplexity,however,theProcesso Civile TelematicohassofarbeenusedonlybyafewdistrictcourtsinNorthernItaly(e.g.Milano,Monza,andBrescia).

Intheczech republic,thegovernmentalprojecteJustice(asapartoftheoverallprojecteGovernment)isaimedatintroducingelectronicandinternettoolsrelatedtothejudiciaryinordertoreducethetimeofjudicialandadministrativeproceedings.Itincludes,forinstance,onlinedatabasesthatenablepartiestoadisputeto

23

OneofthemainpurposesofthisreportistopresentanoverviewofthemechanismsavailableforaccessingjusticeinEurope.60Whilesubsequentchapterswilldealexclusivelywithcourtsatthenationallevel,thischapterisdevotedtojudicialandquasi-judicialmechanismsattheEuropeanandinternationallevels.Simplyviewed,therearedisputesettlementproceduresopentoindividualsavailableatthreelevelsbeyondthenationalrealm:theEU(beforetheCJEU),theCouncilofEurope(beforetheECtHRandtheECSR),andtheUN(beforethetreatymonitoringbodies).Thisfirstsectionwillexplaincertaingeneralfeaturesthatdistinguishthethreesystemsfromeachother,aswellasfeaturesthattheyholdincommon.

SincetheESCRdoesnotdealwithindividual(butonlycollective)complaintsitisnotincludedinthisfigure.

Figure 2: overview of selected mechanisms

Source: FRA, 2010

60 ForacomparativeoverviewoftheECtHRandtheUNhumanrightsdisputesettlementproceduresseeButler,I.(2007)Unravelling sovereignty: human rights actors and the structure of international law,Antwerpen:Intersentia,Chapter4.

2.1. common features and distinctions

2.1.1. the relationship between the national and international mechanisms

TherelationshipbetweentheCJEUandthenationaljurisdictionsoftheMemberStatesisdistinctfromtherelationshipbetweentheECtHR,ECSRandUNtreatybodiesandnationaljurisdictions.ThisisbecauseEUlawdiffersfundamentallyfromothertypesofinternationallaw,suchastheECHRorUNtreatiesintwoways.FirstlytheEUMemberStatesareobligedtogiveEUlaw‘directeffect’atthenationallevel.Thatis,anindividualmustbeabletorelydirectlyonEUlawbeforethenationalcourts(thedoctrineof‘directeffect’).61Secondly,theEUMemberStatesmustensurethatEUlawalwaystakesprecedenceoverconflictingprovisionsofnationallaw(thedoctrineof‘supremacy’).62InthissenseEUlawis,inaway,automaticallyintegratedintothenationallawoftheEUMemberStates.TheproceduresavailableforanindividualbeforetheEUreflectthisposition.The‘preliminaryreference’procedureistheprincipalchannelthroughwhichanindividualcanaskforthecorrectinterpretation,includingthevalidity,ofEUlaw.Hence,underthisprocedureanationalcourtmayreferquestionsofinterpretationofEUlawtotheCJEU,inordertohelpitdecideontheoutcomeofacase.TheautonomousjudgmentofthenationalcourtwillthenbebasedontherespectiveinterpretationoftheCJEUandexecutedthroughproceduressetoutinnational

61 Certaincriteriamustfirstbesatisfied.See:CJEU,Van Gend en Loos,Case26/62,5February1963, ECR3;moreoverthedirecteffectis(generallyspeaking)nothorizontalinnatureandthereforeappliesintherelationshipbetweenindividualsandthestateandnotamongstindividuals(seeCJEU,Paola Faccini Dori v. Recreb Srl,Case91/92,14 July 1994,ECRI-3325).

62 CJEU,Costa v. ENEL,Case6/64,16July1964,ECR1194.

2

Available mechanisms at European and international level

CJEU

ECtHR

UNTreatyBodies

ClaimantNationalcourts


24

law.InthissenseEUlawisbothprocedurallyandsubstantivelytightlyinterlinkedwithnationallawandthenationalcourts.

Incontrast,undertheECHR,ESCandUNtreatiesStatespartiescommittoguaranteetherightstheycontainintheirnationallegalframework.Althoughastateremainsresponsibleininternationallawforfailuretocomplywiththeseinstruments,unlikeEUlawthereisnotanautomaticcorrespondingobligationwithinnationallawtomakethemdirectlyapplicableorsupremetonationallaw.Wherethestatecommitsaviolationtheindividualcomplainantmustengageintwoseparateprocesses.Firstlytoattempttoresolvethecomplaintthroughthenationalcourts,whicharenotobligedtoapplytherelevanttreatydirectly,oraccorditpriorityovernationallaw.Secondly,iftheyareunsuccessfulatthenationallevel,theymaybeginproceedingsbeforetheECtHR,ECSR,oraUNtreatybody.

2.1.2. the relationship between international mechanisms

Althoughindependentofoneanother,theabovedescribedthreesystemsinterrelated.Firstly,allMemberStatesoftheEUarealsopartiestotheECHR,aswellasanumberofthe‘core’UNhumanrightstreatieswiththeirownquasi-judicialmechanisms.Assuchanindividualmaybeabletoexerciseachoiceoverwhichofthethreesystemstouse.

Thereareobviouscomparativeadvantagesanddisadvantagesbetweenthethreemechanisms.Tomentiononeaspect:theEUoffersaclearanddirectimpactatthenationallevelwithitslegislationandjudgments.Atthesametime,theCJEUisnotthemainavenuetoaccessjusticethatindividualswouldtakeinordertohavetheirclaimregardingaviolationoftheirfundamentalrightsheardbeforecourt.In2009,fortheCJEU,thetotalnumberoffiledcaseswascloseto1,00063withonlyaminorityoftheseraisingfundamentalrightsissueswhiletheECtHRstruggledwithalmost60,000newapplicationsconcerningallegedviolationsoffundamentalrightslodgedinthesameyear.64TheUNHRC,totakethemostactiveofthefivetreatybodiespresentlyreceivingindividualcomplaints,hasreceivedlessthan2,000applicationsintotalsinceitstartedtoreceivecasesin1977.65Thequantityofcasesis

63 Thesearemadeupof561fortheCourtofJusticeand568fortheGeneralCourt.See:CJEU,Annual Report 2009,pp. 81and165,availableat:http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo2_7000/.

64 ECtHR,Annual Report 2009,Strasbourg:RegistryoftheEuropeanCourtofHumanRights,p. 139,availableat:www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/C25277F5-BCAE-4401-BC9B-F58D015E4D54/0/Annual_Report_2009_Final.pdf.

65 TogiveanotherexampleofthecaseloadoftheUNtreatybodies,theCommitteeonEliminationofRacialDiscriminationhasinallreceived45cases.

obviouslynottheonlyfactordeterminativeoftheimpactofthesebodies.Howeveritmayindicatetheextenttowhichthesemechanismsareknown,theperceptionofclaimantsastowhichbodyismosteffective,howaccessiblesuchbodiesareintermsofcostoradmissibilitycriteria,andtheresourcesavailabletothesebodies(forinstancetheUNmonitoringbodiesonlyoperateonapart-timebasis).

Thesecondwayinwhichthethreelevelsinterrelateisthatthejudicialandquasi-judicialbodiesthemselvesfrequentlydrawoneachothers’caselawwheninterpretingsimilarlywordedprovisions.Thisisparticularlycommoninrelationtotheinterpretationofhumanrightsprovisions.InthissensetheCJEUdevelopedhumanrightsstandardsinEUlawbydrawingonhumanrightstreatiestowhichtheMemberStatesareparty,particularlytheECHR,butalsoUNtreaties.66

Finally,theLisbonTreatymandatestheEUtoaccedetotheECHR,whichwillallowanindividualinfuturetosuetheEUdirectlybeforetheECtHR.67

2.1.3. procedural issues

Judicial versus quasi-judicial

ThenatureoftheproceduresbeforetheCJEU,ECtHRontheonehand,andtheECSRandtheUNtreatybodiesontheotherareslightlydifferentinnature.Theformerareclosertotraditionaljudicialdisputesettlementmechanisms,whilethelatteraremoreaccuratelydescribedas‘quasi’judicial.‘Judicial’disputesettlementattheinternationallevelreferstodisputesettlementbyabodyofformallyelectedjudgesonthebasisofevidencesubmittedbytheparties,accordingtotheapplicablelaw,wherealegallybindingjudgmentisdelivered.Quasi-judicialdisputesettlementisunderstoodtobedisputesettlementbyabodyofindependentexpertswhoconsidertheevidenceandargumentsofthepartiesbyreferencetolawanddeliversfindingswhichthepartieshavenotexpresslyacceptedaslegallybinding.68

66 SeeforexampleOpinion 2/94 Accession of the European Community to the European Convention for the Safeguard of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms(1996)ECRI-1759;CaseC-540/03,EuropeanParliament v. Council,ECRI-5769,27 June2006.ForanexampleoftheECtHRdrawingontheUNtreatiessee:ECtHR,Opuz v. Turkey,No.33401/02,9June2009.SeealsoRosas,A.(2009)‘FundamentalRightsintheEU,withspecialemphasisontheCase-lawoftheEuropeanCourtofJustice(Luxembourg)’in:Alfredsson,G.etal.(eds.) International Human Rights Monitoring Mechanisms,Leiden:MartinusNijhoff.

67 Article6(2)TreatyonEuropeanUnion.68 Steinberger,H.(1981)‘JudicialSettlementofInternational

Disputes’ in:Berhardt,R.(ed.)Encyclopaedia of Public International Law,Holland:MaxPlanck,p. 120;Steiner,H.(2000)‘IndividualClaimsinaWorldofMassViolations:WhatRolefortheHumanRightsCommittee?’in:Alston,P.andCrawford,J.(eds.)The Future of UN Human Rights Treaty Monitoring,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp. 29-30.

AvailablemechanismsatEuropeanandinternationallevel

25

Legal standing69

OptionalProtocolOnetotheICCPRstipulatesthatonlyindividualvictimsortheirappointedrepresentativemaybringacomplaint.70ThismeansthatwhileNGOsmayrepresentvictimswiththeirexpressconsent,thereisthereforenopublicinterestcomplaint(actio popularis).Inrelationtoviolationsoftherightsofpersonsbelongingtominorities(Article27)theUNHRChasfoundthatacommunityleadermaysubmitacomplaintrelatingtothegroupasawholewithouttheseparatewrittenauthorisationfromallconcerned.71Althoughtherighttoself-determinationcontainedintheICCPRisalsoa‘group’right,theUNHRChasheldthatitisnotjusticiableundertheOptionalProtocol.72Similarly,undertheECHRtheapplicantmustbeavictimoftheallegedviolation,ortheirappointedrepresentative.73

Admissibility criteria

BeforetheCJEU,theECtHR,ortheUNtreatybodieswilltakejurisdictionoverthemeritsofaclaimtheclaimantmustsatisfyarangeofadmissibilitycriteria.ThenatureofthesecriteriadiffersbetweentheCJEUontheonehandandtheECtHRandUNtreatybodiesontheother.Thisisprimarilybecauseoftheinterrelationshipbetweennationaljurisdictionsandthesebodies,discussedabove.BecausetheadmissibilitycriteriafortheECtHRandUNtreatybodiesarealmostidenticaltheywillbediscussedhere,whilethoseconcerningtheCJEUwillbedealtwithbelow.

Firstly,theECtHRorUNtreatybodymustbesatisfiedthattheclaimanthasexhaustedallremediesatthenationallevel.However,theremediesareunderstoodasthosethatarereasonablyavailable.InthissenseboththeUNtreatybodiesandtheECtHRhavetakenavictim-friendlyapproachtothiscriterionbynotrequiringtheclaimantstoexhaustthoseremedieswhichareineffectiveorexcessivelyprolonged.74Theruleitselfisbasedontheconsiderationthatastateshouldhavetheopportunitytorectifyviolations

69 ForadiscussiononlegalstandingofanindividualbeforetheCJEU,see,inparticular,section2.4.1ontheactionofannulment.

70 OptionalProtocoltotheICCPR,Article1andUNHRCRulesofProcedureRule96(b),UNDoc.CCPR/C/3/Rev.8,22September2005.

71 UNHumanRightsCommittee(UNHRC)Chief Bernard Ominayak and the Lubicon Lake Band v. Canada,CCPR/C/38/D/167/1984,26March1990,availableat:www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4721c5b42.html.

72 Ibid.73 Itshouldbenoted,however,thatincertaincases,inorderto

giveeffectiveprotectiontohumanrights,theECtHRhadtointerpretthenotionofvictimwidelytoincludepotentialorindirectvictimsaswell.See,forinstance:ECtHR,Klass v. Germany,No.5029/71,6September1978orECtHR,Norris v. Ireland,No. 10581/83,26October1988.ThekeyECtHRcaselawontheconceptofvictimingeneralisavailableat:www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/0F2B45AE-4F54-41AB-AA8B-1E12D285110C/0/COURT_n1976742_v4_Key_caselaw_issues__Article_34__The_concept_of__the_victim___trad_eng.pdf.

74 UNHRC,Hugo Rodriguez v. Uruguay,CommunicationNo. 322/1988,9August1994,paragraph 6.2;ECtHR,Akdivar et al. v. Turkey, No. 21893/93,16September1996,paragraph 65.

internallybeforeacaseisbroughtattheinternationallevel.75Secondly,thecomplaintinquestionmustrelatetoarightprotectedbytherelevanttreaty76andconcernaviolationbyapartytothattreaty.77

2.2. the un treaty bodiesThereis,asofyet,noglobaljudicialforumtowhichindividualsmaysubmithumanrightscomplaints:thereisnoglobalequivalentoftheECtHR.Instead,theUnitedNationsoffersmechanismsthatcontributetomakingjusticeaccessibleworld-widethroughquasi-judicialtreatymonitoringbodiesthatalsoaremandatedtodealwithindividualcomplaints.78

AlltheMemberStatesoftheEUarepartytosixofthe‘core’humanrightstreatieselaboratedundertheaegisoftheUN:theConventionontheEliminationofAllFormsofRacialDiscrimination1965(ICERD),theInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights(ICCPR)1966,theInternationalCovenantonEconomicSocialandCulturalRights1966,(ICESCR),theConventionontheEliminationofDiscriminationAgainstWomen1979,theConventionAgainstTorture1984,andtheConventionontheRightsoftheChild1989.AllEUMemberStatesareexpectedtobecomepartytotheUNConventionontheRightsofPersonswithDisabilities(CRPD),17havealreadydoneso,asofJanuary2011.79TheEUalsoformallyratifiedtheConventionon23December2010.80

75 IncasetheindividualraisesthesameissuebeforebothECtHRandUNtreatybody,theECtHRwillrefusetodealwithitinaccordancewithArticle35(2)(b)ECHR(seewww.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/53FEB066-3AB2-4382-A3D6-06AFB88B2491/0/COURT_n1978459_v2_Key_caselaw_issues__Matter_already_examined__Article_35__2b__trad__eng2p.pdf).TheECtHRwillnot,furthermore,examinetheapplicationlodgedoutsideaperiodofsixmonthsfromthedateonwhichthefinaldecisionwastakeninaccordancewiththeso-calledsix-month-rule(seewww.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/41EFF42A-FBE7-4E41-987C-0A141AAE294A/0/COURT_n1356862_v3_Key_caselaw_issues___Sixmonth_rule_art__3513.pdf).

76 Seeforexample,UNHRC,Chadzjian v. The Netherlands,CommunicationNo.1494/2006,22July2008;ECtHR,Skorobogatykh v Russia,No.37966/02,9June2006.

77 UNHRC,H.v.d.P. v. The Netherlands,CommunicationNo.217/1986,8April1987;ECtHR,Loizidou v. Turkey (Preliminary Objections),No. 15318/89,23March1995.

78 Seegenerallywww.ohchr.org.Ontreatybodiessee,forexample,Kjaerum,M.(2009)‘StateReports’in:Alfredsson,G.etal.(eds.) International Human Rights Monitoring Mechanisms,Leiden/Boston:MartinusNijhoff.Individualsmayalsosubmitindividualcomplaintsunderthe‘specialprocedures’operatingundertheUNHumanRightsCouncil.However,theseproceduresaregenerallymoreakintodisputesettlementthroughdiplomaticchannels.On the‘specialprocedures’seewww2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/special/index.htm.Onthetreatybodiesseewww2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/petitions/index.htm.

79 Inaddition,someMemberStatesarealsopartytotheInternationalConventionfortheProtectionofAllPersonsfromEnforcedDisappearance2006,thoughnoneareyetpartytotheInternationalConventionontheProtectionoftheRightsofAllMigrantWorkersandMembersoftheirFamilies1990(ICRMW).

80 SeeCouncilDecision2010/48concerningtheconclusion,bytheEuropeanCommunity,oftheUnitedNationsConventionontheRightsofPersonswithDisabilities,OJL23,27January2010,p. 35.


26

table 1: Eu Member states as parties to the un conventions

ICER

D

ICCP

R

ICES

CR

CEDA

W

CAT

CRC

ICRM

W

ICPE

D

CRPD

Numberof‘core’UNhumanrightsconventions(9intotal)acceptedbyEU MemberState

Austria a a a a a a x s a 7

Belgium a a a a a a x s a 7

Bulgaria a a a a a a x s s 6

Cyprus a a a a a a x s s 6

CzechRepublic a a a a a a x x a 7

Denmark a a a a a a x s a 7

Estonia a a a a a a x x s 6

Finland a a a a a a x s s 6

France a a a a a a x a a 8

Germany a a a a a a x a a 8

Greece a a a a a a x s s 6

Hungary a a a a a a x x a 7

Ireland a a a a a a x s s 6

Italy a a a a a a x s a 7

Latvia a a a a a a x x a 7

Lithuania a a a a a a x s a 7

Luxembourg a a a a a a x s s 6

Malta a a a a a a x s s 6

Netherlands a a a a a a x s s 6

Poland a a a a a a x x s 6

Portugal a a a a a a x s a 7

Romania a a a a a a x s a 7

Slovakia a a a a a a x s a 7

Slovenia a a a a a a x s a 7

Spain a a a a a a x a a 8

Sweden a a a a a a x s a 7

UnitedKingdom a a a a a a x x a 7

a=Statepartys=signedx=notsigned

Source: FRA, 2010


27

Fiveofthe‘core’UNhumanrightstreatiescurrentlymakeprovisionfortherelevanttreatymonitoringbodytoreceiveandissueadecisiononthemeritsofindividualcomplaints(alsoreferredtoas‘petitions’or‘communications’),uponconsentofthestate.81AllEUMemberStates,apartfromtheUnitedKingdom,haveacceptedthejurisdictionoftheUNHRCtoactuponindividualcomplaintsbyratifyingthefirstOptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights(ICCPR).82Oftheremainingfourtreatybodiesmandatedtoreceiveindividualcomplaints,theacceptanceamongtheEUMemberStatesrangesbetween14and27,wherethelowestnumberrelatestothemostrecentlyadopted,theOptionalProtocoltotheCRPD(2008).83

81 WhentheOptionalProtocoltotheICESCR2008entersintoforce,theCommitteeonEconomicSocialandCulturalRightswillalsobeabletodealwithindividualcomplaints.Atpresent,onlyoneEUMemberState(Spain)ispartyandanadditionaleighthavetodatesignedthisinstrument.Provisionforthisprocedureiseithermadewithinthemainbodyofthetreaty(suchasICERD),orunderaseparateinstrument(suchastheOptionalProtocoltotheICCPR).

82 SeeforexampleUNHRC,Czerninet alv. the Czech Republic,CommunicationNo.823/1998,26June2003,onexecutionofjudgment;UNHRC,Äärelä v. Finland,CommunicationNo. 779/1997,24October2001,onawardingofcostsfornon-discriminationhearings;UNHRC,Morael v. France,CommunicationNo.207/1986,28July1989,onlengthofproceedings(noviolation),andUNHRC,Pezoldova v. the Czech Republic,CommunicationNo.757/1997,5 October 2002,onaccesstoaneffectiveremedy.13oftheEUMemberStateshavemadeareservation(toArticle5(2))thatseekstoregulateconflictingcomplaintsbetweentheECtHRandtheUNHRC–avoidingpotentiallyconflictingdecisionsfromthetwoinstances.

83 Informationonhowtofileacomplaint,submitanapplication,isavailableat:www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/question.htmandsomeofthetreatybodiesoffermodelformsforwhatanapplicationshouldcontainandhowitshouldbestructured,seeforexample:www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/protocol/modelform-E.PDF.

table 2: number of state parties among the Eu-27 that have accepted individual complaints procedures under

the respective treaty bodies

TreatyBodies NumberofEUMemberStates

CommitteeonEliminationofRacialDiscrimination(CERD)

23

HumanRightsCommittee(UNHRC)(undertheICCPR) 26

CommitteeontheEliminationofDiscriminationAgainstWomen(CEDAW)

24

CommitteeAgainstTorture(CAT) 27

CommitteeontheRightsofPersonswithDisabilities 14

Source: FRA, 2010

Tables2and3showthefivetreatybodiesmandatedtoprocessindividualcomplaintsandtheEUMemberStatesthathaveconsentedtotheindividualcomplaintsprocedure.84

SincetheUNHRCisthetreatybodytohavereceivedthemostcomplaintsitwillconstitutethefocusofdiscussionontheUNtreatybodies.Itshouldalsobenotedthatforthemostpartthetreatybodiesadoptsimilarapproachesinrelationtoindividualcomplaints,andinthissensetheUNHRCservesasanexampleofthewaythetreatybodiesoperate.85However,giventhefocusofthereportonnon-discriminationlaw,discussionoftheUNHRCiscomplementedbyabriefoverviewofCERD.

2.2.1. human rights committee

Whenhandlingindividualcomplainantsitoperatesasaquasi-judicialbody.86Inparticularthismeansthatthestatepartyhasnotexpresslyacceptedthe‘views’deliveredbytheUNHRConcasesbroughtbeforeitaslegallybinding(incontrasttothejudgmentsdeliveredbytheECtHR).NeverthelessviewsoftheUNHRCrepresentauthoritativeinterpretationsregardingthesubstanceoflegallybindingtreatyobligations.ThereasoningoftheUNHRCinthisregardisthatunderArticle2oftheICCPR‘thestatepartyhasundertakentoensuretoallindividualswithinitsterritoryand

84 Estonia,Greece,Latvia,Lithuania,andtheUnitedKingdomhavenotacceptedindividualcomplaintsunderICERD;Estonia,Latvia,andMaltahavenotacceptedindividualcomplaintsunderCEDAW;andDenmark,Estonia,Greece,Ireland,Latvia,theNetherlands,andPolandhavetodatenotevensignedtheOptionalProtocolundertheCRPD.

85 Butler,I.(2007)Unravelling sovereignty: human rights actors and the structure of international law,Antwerpen:Intersentia,pp. 123-131.

86 SeealsoDeZayas,A.(2009)‘TheHumanRightsCommittee’sOptionalProtocolProcedure’in:Alfredsson,G.etal.(eds.) International Human Rights Monitoring Mechanisms,Leiden/Boston:MartinusNijhoff.


28

table 3: Accepted individual complaints procedures, by Eu Member state

ICERD ICCPR CEDAW CAT CRPD

Austria a a a a a

Belgium a a a a a

Bulgaria a a a a s

Cyprus a a a a s

CzechRepublic a a a a s

Denmark a a a a x

Estonia x a x a x

Finland a a a a s

France a a a a s

Germany a a a a a

Greece x a a a s

Hungary a a a a a

Ireland a a a a x

Italy a a a a a

Latvia x a x a a

Lithuania x a a a a

Luxembourg a a a a s

Malta a a x a s

Netherlands a a a a x

Poland a a a a x

Portugal a a a a a

Romania a a a a s

Slovakia a a a a a

Slovenia a a a a a

Spain a a a a a

Sweden a a a a a

UnitedKingdom x x a a a

a =Stateparty/applicables=signedx=notsigned

Source: FRA, 2010


29

subjecttoitsjurisdictiontherightsrecognisedintheCovenant,andtoprovideaneffectiveandenforceableremedyincaseaviolationhasbeenestablished’.Inthissensethestateistotakedueregardofthe‘views’oftheUNHRC,asthebodyappointedundertheOptionalProtocoltointerprettheICCPR,intakingactiontoremedyabreachwhichithasfound.87

procedure before the un human rights committee and legal aid

Proceedingsbeforethetreatybodiesaregenerallywritten,andeachpartyhastheabilitytorespondtotheothers’argumentsduringtheprocess.OneapparentshortcomingofthecomplaintsprocedurebeforetheUNtreatybodiesisthatthereisnoprovisionforlegalaidforapplicants.Ofcourse,thismaybeoffsetwhereNGOsareabletoprovideassistance,whichsofarhasoccurredonlyonanadhocbasis.Atthesametimeitshouldbekeptinmindthatthecostofproceedingsmaybekeptlowsincetheyarenormallywrittenandthereisnorequirementforthecomplainanttobeassistedbylegalcounsel.88Itisalsoopenforthetreatybodytodirectthestatetopaylegalcostsuponconclusionofthecase.89

remedies

TheUNtreatybodiesmayrequeststatestotakeinterimmeasurestoprevent‘irreparabledamagetothevictim.90Thisisparticularlyimportantincasesinvolvingathreattolife,ortorture.Theobjectofaninterimmeasureistomaintainthestatus quopendingafinaldecisiononthemerits.Wherethetreatybodyfindsinfavouroftheclaimantitmaysimplydeclaretheexistenceofaviolationofthetreatywithoutfurtherrecommendationforaspecificremedy.However,itwillusuallyinvitethestatetotakesomeformofaction,suchastheopeningofproceduresatthenationallevel(aninvestigationorprosecution),91reformoflegislation,92releaseorreinstatementinpostofavictim93andoccasionallycompensation94orthepaymentoflegalcosts.95

87 SeeforexampleUNHRC,Sooklal v. Trinidad and Tobago, CommunicationNo.928/2000,8November2001,paragraph 7.

88 DeZayas,A.(2001)‘PetitioningtheUnitedNations’in:American Society of International Law (ASIL), Proceedingsofthe95thAnnualmeeting,WashingtonD.C.,April2001.

89 SeeforexampleUNHRC,Laptsevich v. Belarus, CommunicationNo. 780/1997,20March2000.

90 SeeforexampleUNHRCRulesofProcedureRule92,UN DocumentCCPR/C/3/Rev.8,22September2005.

91 SeeforexampleUNHRC,Blazek et al. v. Czech Republic,CommunicationNo.857/1999,12 July 2001.

92 Ibid.93 SeeforexampleUNHRC,Mansaraj et al. v. Sierra Leone,

CommunicationNo.839/1998,16 July2001;UNHCR,Chongwe v. Zambia, CommunicationNo.821/1998,20October2000.

94 SeeforexampleUNHRC,Laptsevich v. Belarus, CommunicationNo. 780/1997,2 March 2000.

95 Ibid.

Length of proceedings

TheUNHRCliketheothertreatybodies,isnotapermanentbodyandusuallymeetsthreetimeseachyearforaperiodofthreeweeks,whichnecessarilylimitstheamountoftimeavailableforconsiderationofindividualcomplaints,alongsideitsothertasks.Itisunclearwhattheaveragelengthoftimeisforafinaldecisiontobeadoptedonceaclaimhasbeenregistered.However,itisclearthatabacklogofcasesexistsandisincreasing.Thenumberofnewcasesregisteredappearstobeover200peryear,whilethenumberofcasesconcludedonanannualbasisseemstovarybetween50and100.96

Enforcement of decisions

TheUNtreatybodieshaveprovisionwithintheirrulesofproceduretofollow-upontheexecutionof‘views’adoptedonindividualcomplaints.97However,theincentiveforstatescreatedbythisislimitedtothepressurethatthetreatybody’sdesignatedrapporteurcanexert,whichincludesthepublicationofthedegreeofcomplianceinthebody’sannualreport.WhiletheannualreportsofthetreatybodiesarepresentedtotheGeneralAssemblyoftheUN,compliancewithindividualdecisionsisnotaddressedbytheGeneralAssemblyonastatebystatebasis.98

2.2.2. committee on the Elimination of racial discrimination

TheICERDwasthefirstoftheUNhumanrightstreatiesthatprovidedforaspecificmonitoringbody–CERD–andservedastheprecursortothoseundertheotherconventions,includingtheUNHRC.99SpecialfeaturesoftheICERDincludethefactthatinadditiontoindividualcomplaints,theCERDisexpresslyauthorisedtoreceivecomplaintsfromgroupsof individuals.

AsnotedinTable2,23oftheEUMemberStateshaveconsentedtotheindividualcomplaintsprocedureunderICERD.Inordertoconsenttothisprocedurestatesneednotbecomepartytoaseparateinstrument,butmerelymakeadeclarationtothis

96 UNHRC,ReportoftheUNHRC,2008,UN.DocumentA/63/40,VolumeI,ChapterV.

97 UNHRCRulesofProcedure,Rule101,UNDocumentCCPR/C/3Rev.8,22September2005;CEDAWRulesofProcedure,Rule73,UNDocumentA/56/38(Supplement)andA/62/38(Supplement)ChapterV;CATRulesofProcedure,Rule114UNDocumentCAT/C/3/Rev.4,9 August 2002;CERDRulesofProcedure,Rule95;ReportoftheCommitteeontheEliminationofRacialDiscrimination,UNDocumentA/60/18,SupplementNo.18,19 August 2005,p. 170.

98 SeeforexampleUNGAResolution64/152,InternationalCovenantsonHumanRights,26March2010.

99 VanBoven,T.(2009)‘ThePetitionSystemunderICERD:AnUnfulfilledPromise’in:Alfredsson,G. et al. (eds.) International Human Rights Monitoring Mechanisms,Leiden/Boston:MartinusNijhoff.


30

effect.Greece,Latvia,Lithuania,andtheUnitedKingdomhavenotdoneso.

Further,Article14(2)oftheConventionallowsforthedesignationofanationalbodytoreceivecomplaintsrelatingtoanyoftherightsguaranteedbytheICERD.OnlyfiveEUMemberStateshavemadeuseofthisoption:Austria,Belgium,100Luxembourg,101Portugal,102andRomania.103Austriahas,however,onlyreservedtherighttodosobutnotexplicitlynamedanyinstitution.104

Inall,some40caseshavebeenprocessedbytheCERDinits25yearsofoperation,withaquarterendingintheadoptionof‘views’–findingaviolation.105Ofthe27EUMemberStates,individualcommunicationsfromDenmarkhavebeennumerous,providingforalmosthalfofthetotalnumberofcases.Onlyfourofthesehave,however,endedinviewsbeingadopted.InrelationtofiveotherEUMemberStates,individualcomplaintshavebeensubmittedbutthenumbersrangefrombetweenonetothreecomplaintsforeachofthesestates.

2.3. the council of Europe mechanisms

2.3.1. European court of human rights

TheECtHRisthejudicialmechanismforaccessingjusticeattheCouncilofEuropelevel.Eventhoughitcoversmainlycivilandpoliticalrights,itconstitutesanimportantmechanismforobtainingaccesstojusticeinindividualcasesaswellasmorebroadlybydevelopingstandardsforthestatespartytotheECHRthroughitscaselaw.106

WiththeaccessionoftheEUtotheECHRprovidedforbytheTreatyofLisbon,theECtHRwillhavethejurisdictioninrelationtoanact,orafailuretoact,byanEUinstitutionoraMemberStateimplementingEUlawandfallingwithintheremitoftheECHR.

100Centrepourl’EgalitédesChancesetlaLuttecontreleRacisme(CentreforEqualOpportunityandtheStruggleagainstRacism,nowofficiallyreferredtoasCentreforEqualOpportunityandOppositiontoRacism,seewww.diversiteit.be).

101 Commissionspécialepermanentecontreladiscrimination.102HighCommissionerforImmigrationandEthnicMinorities.103CouncilforCombatingDiscrimination.104AustrianDeclarationof20February2002.105StatusofcommunicationsdealtwithbyCERDunderArticle14

procedure(22July2010),www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/docs/CERDSURVEYArt14.xls.

106AsfortheprotectionagainstdiscriminationundertheECHR,Article14ECHRprohibitsdiscriminationintheenjoymentofoneortheotherrightsguaranteedbytheECHR.Inaddition,ProtocolNo.12totheECHRprovidesforageneralprohibitionofdiscriminationbyguaranteeingthatno-oneshallbediscriminatedagainstonanygroundbyanypublicauthority.Sofar,however,ProtocolNo.12,havebeenonlyratifiedbyfiveEUMemberStates.

Asnotedabove,certainadmissibilitycriteria,includingtheexhaustionoflocalremedies,mustfirstbesatisfiedbyanindividualapplicant.UnlikecaseslodgedwiththeUNHRC,applicationsmustbelodgedwithinsixmonthsfollowingthelastjudicialdecisioninthecase,whichwillusuallybeajudgmentbythehighestcourtinthecountryconcerned.Timestartsrunningfromthedayaftertheapplicantbecameawareoftheactordecisionofwhichheorshecomplains–i.e.thedateonwhichtheindividualcanbeconsideredtohaveexhausteddomesticremedies.107

procedure before the Ecthr and legal aid

TheECtHRhighcaseloadmeansthatinpracticecasesaredealtwiththroughawrittenprocedure.However,itdoesoccasionallyholdpublichearingsinspecificcases.TherearenofeesforproceedingsbeforetheECtHR.Inaddition,inthefirststagesoftheproceedingsbeforetheECtHR,theapplicantsdonotneedtoberepresentedbyalawyer.Nevertheless,alawyerisneededonceastatehasbeennotifiedofanapplication.Atthisstage,thePresidentoftheChambermay,eitherattherequestofanapplicantorofitsownmotion,grantlegalaidtotheapplicantinconnectionwiththepresentationofthecasebeforetheECtHR.Suchlegalaidmaybegrantedtocovernotonlyrepresentatives’feesbutalsotravellingandsubsistenceexpensesandothernecessaryexpensesincurredbytheapplicantorappointedrepresentative.Havingsaidthat,theamountsofferedbytheECtHRareseenasacontributiontolegalcostsanditisopentotheapplicanttorecouptheactuallegalcostsincurredunderArticle41ECHRifhe/shewinsthecase.108

Legalaidisnotgrantedautomatically:thePresidentoftheChambermustbesatisfiedthatitisnecessaryfortheproperconductofthecasebeforetheECtHRandthattheapplicanthasinsufficientmeanstomeetallorpartofthecostsentailed.ThePresidentoftheChambermay,ifsatisfiedthattheseconditionsarenolongerfulfilled,revokeorvaryagrantoflegalaidatanytime.109

107Wherethecomplaintconcernsacontinuingsituation,timerunsfromtheendofthesituationbutaslongasthesituationcontinues,thesixmonthrulecannotbite.See,forexample:ECtHR,Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece,No.14556/89,24June1993orECtHR,Ülke v. Turkey,No. 39437/98,1 June 2004.

108Harris,D.J.,O’Boyle,M.,Bates,E.P.andBuckley,C.M.(2009)Harris, O’Boyle and Warbrick: Law of the European Convention on Human Rights,Oxford:OUP,p. 841.

109RulesofCourt,1June2010,ChapterXI,LegalAid,Rule 100-105.


31

remedies

AstheUNHRC,aftertheapplicationhasbeenlodged,theECtHRmay,attherequestofanapplicantunderRule39ofitsRulesofCourt,indicateinterimmeasurestothedefendingstate.Interimmeasuresareappliedonlyinlimitedsituationswherethereisanimminentriskofirreparabledamage.110Inpractice,mostofthecaseswhereaninterimmeasureisrequestedconcernexpulsionorextraditionfromastate.Inthesecases,theCourtcanrequestthestateconcernedtosuspendadeportationorderagainsttheapplicant.

TheECtHRroutinelyawardslegalcoststoasuccessfulapplicant(includingcostsincurredatthenationallevel),111andsometimesalsoawardsthepaymentofcompensation.112TheECtHRwillnotusuallydirectthestatetotakespecificmeasurestoremedytheviolation,oftenconsideringthatpaymentoflegalcostsandthedeclarationofafindingofviolationtobesufficientofthemselves.113Ratheritislefttothestateitself,inconjunctionwiththeenforcementroleoftheCouncilofMinisters(notedbelow)todeterminewhetheranyotherspecificcourseofaction,suchasreformoflegislation,isappropriate.

Length of proceedings

Attheendof2009,theECtHRhad120,000pendingapplications.114Inviewofthisbacklog,anapplicantmayhavetowaitayearbeforetheECtHRproceedswithitsinitialexaminationofanapplication.ItisimpossibletoindicatethelengthofproceedingsbeforetheECtHRinaprecisemanner.TheECtHRendeavourstodealwithcaseswithinthreeyearsbuttheexaminationofsomecasestakeslongerandsomecanbeprocessedmorerapidly.

ThelengthoftheproceedingsbeforetheECtHRobviouslyvariesdependingonthecase,theformationtowhichitisassigned,thediligenceofthepartiesinprovidingtheECtHRwithinformationandmanyotherfactors,suchastheholdingofahearingorreferraltotheGrandChamber.Someapplicationsmaybeclassifiedasurgentandhandledonaprioritybasis,

110 SeeECtHR,Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey,No.46827/99andNo.46951/99,4February2005orECtHR,Paladi v. Moldova,No. 39806/05,10March2009.

111 SeeforexampleECtHR,Zimmermann and Steiner v. Switzerland (Merits and Just Satisfaction),No.8737/79,13July1983.

112 ECtHR,Kingsley v. the United Kingdom(GC), No.35605/97,28 May 2002.

113 ECtHR,Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium (Just Satisfaction),Nos.6878/75and7238/75,18October1982.Exceptionally,see:ECtHR,Assanidze v. Georgia,(GC),No. 71503/01,08April2004.

114 ECHR(2010)Annual Report 2009,Strasbourg:RegistryoftheEuropeanCourtofHumanRights,p. 139,availableat:www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/C25277F5-BCAE-4401-BC9B-F58D015E4D54/0/Annual_Report_2009_Final.pdf.

especiallyincaseswheretheapplicantisallegedtobefacinganimminentthreatofphysicalharm.115

Inanycase,theexplosivegrowthoflitigationinthelasttenyearsposesathreattotheeffectivefunctioningoftheECtHR.Asaresult,on1June2010ProtocolNo.14totheECHRenteredintoforce.116Itsaimistoguaranteethelong-termefficiencyoftheECtHR(thatisreduceitsworkloadandthelengthofproceedings),byoptimisingthefilteringandprocessingofapplications.Inparticular,itprovidesfornewjudicialformationstodealwithrepetitive(showingasystemicproblem)andclearlyinadmissiblecasesandforanewadmissibilitycriterion(thatof“significantdisadvantage”).117

ReformoftheEuropean CourtofHumanRights

On18and19February2010,SwitzerlandorganisedaministerialconferenceinInterlakeninordertodecisivelyspurthereformoftheoverburdenedECtHR.Accordingtothedeclarationadoptedbytherepresentativesofthe47MemberStatesoftheCouncilofEuropeattheendoftheConference,itisnecessaryinparticulartoreachabalancebetweenincomingcasesandtherateatwhichcasescanbesettledandtoreducethevolumeofapproximately120,000outstandingcasesaswellastoguaranteethatnewappealsaredealtwithinreasonabletime.Moreover,thenationalimplementationoftheECtHRjudgmentsshouldbeimprovedandtheCommitteeofMinistersshouldguaranteeeffectivesupervisionoftheimplementationprocess.Inordertoachievetheseobjectivesthepoliticaldeclarationcontainsanactionplanwithalistofshortandmedium-termmeasuresaswellasanagendafortheirimplementation.118

pilot judgments

TheECtHRintroducedthemeasureofissuinga‘pilot’judgment119inordertoredressoneofthemainproblemsofitshighcaseload:thatofrepetitive(clone)cases,i.e.largenumbersofcasesraisingessentially

115 Mostofsuchcasesconcernexpulsionorextraditionfromastate.116 CouncilofEurope,ProtocolNo.14totheConventionforthe

ProtectionofHumanRightsandFundamentalFreedoms,amendingthecontrolsystemoftheConvention,CETSNo.194,availableat:www.conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Reports/Html/194.htm.

117 SeeforexampleECtHR,Rinck v. France,No.18774/09,17 November2010.

118 Seewww.eda.admin.ch/etc/medialib/downloads/edazen/topics/europa/euroc.Par.0133.File.tmp/final_en.pdf.

119 ThepilotjudgmentprocedurewasappliedforthefirsttimeinthecaseofECtHR,Broniowski v. Poland,No.31443/96,22June2004.Foranelaboration,seeBjörgvinsson,D.T.(2009)‘The“pilot-judgment”procedureoftheEuropeanCourtofHumanRights’in:Alfredsson,G.etal.(eds.) International Human Rights Monitoring Mechanisms,Leiden:MartinusNijhoff.


32

thesameissue.ThewayinwhichtheprocedureoperatesisthatwhentheECtHRreceivesasignificantnumberofapplicationsderivingfromthesamerootcause,itmaydecidetoselectoneormoreofthemforprioritytreatment.Indealingwiththeselectedcaseorcases,itwillseektoachieveasolutionthatextendstocoverallsimilarcasesraisingthesameissue.Theresultingjudgmentisdesignatedasa‘pilot’judgment.

Animportantfeatureofthepilotjudgmentprocedureisthepossibilityofadjourningor‘freezing’theexaminationofallotherrelatedcasesforacertainperiodoftime.Thisisanadditionalmeansofencouragingnationalauthoritiestotakethenecessarysteps.Suchadjournment,whichwillusuallybeforasetperiodoftime,maybesubjecttotheconditionthattherespondentstateactpromptlyandeffectivelyontheconclusionsdrawninthepilotjudgment.120

TheintroductionofthepilotjudgmentprocedurecannotresolveallthedifficultiescausedbytheECtHRexcessiveworkload.Butithasthepotentialtomakesignificantinroadsintotheexistingbacklogandeliminatesomeoftherootproblemswhichliebehindrepetitiveapplicationsaswellasestablishingaremedyforthoseadverselyaffected.121

Execution of judgments

OncetheECtHRjudgmentbecomesfinal,itistransmittedtotheCommitteeofMinisters(comprisedoftheForeignAffairsMinistersofalltheCouncilofEurope’sMemberStatesortheirpermanentdiplomaticrepresentativesinStrasbourg).ThelattertheninvitestherespondentstatetoinformitofthestepstakentopayanycostsorcompensationawardedbytheECtHR.Oftenthiswillrequiretheadoptionofgeneralmeasures,especiallyamendmentstolegislation.122InordertopersuadethestateconcernedtocomplywiththeECtHRjudgments,theCommitteeofMinistersexercisesitsinfluenceanddiplomaticpressurenotleastbynotingitsfailuretocomplywiththeECHRandtakingappropriateaction.Untilthestateinquestionhasadoptedsatisfactorymeasures,theCommitteeofMinistersdoesnotadoptafinalresolutionstrikingthejudgmentoffitslistofcases,andthestatecontinuestoberequiredtoprovideexplanationsortotakethenecessaryaction.

120Inapilotjudgmentinthecase:ECtHR,Maria Atanasiu and Others v. Romania,Nos.30767/05and33800/06,12October2010,theECtHRadjournedthecasesconcerningpropertiesnationalisedduringthecommunisterainRomaniapendinggeneralmeasuresatnationallevel.

121 Forfurtherinformation,seewww.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/DF4E8456-77B3-4E67-8944-B908143A7E2C/0/Information_Note_on_the_PJP_for_Website.pdf.

122 SeeArticles41and46ECHR.SeetheCouncilofEuropeCommitteeofMinisters’AnnualReport(2009)onsupervisionoftheexecutionofECtHRjudgmentsavailableat:www.coe.int/t/DGHL/MONITORING/EXECUTION/Source/Publications/CM_annreport2009_en.pdf.

2.3.2. European committee of social rights

TheEuropeanCommitteeofSocialRights(ECSR),monitorsimplementationoftheEuropeanSocialCharter(ESC),andsupplementstheECtHRbyprovidingsupervisionofeconomicandsocialrights.DirectaccesstotheECSRisavailablethroughacollectivecomplaintsmechanismthatisopentoorganisationsmeetingcertaincriteria.123BybecomingpartytotheAdditionalProtocoltotheESCstatesauthoriseinternationalandnationalorganisationsofemployersandtradeunionsandinternationalNGOstosubmitcomplaintsagainstthemforfailuretocomplywiththeESC.124StatesmayalsoopttoauthorisenationalNGOstosubmitcomplaints.Duetothecollectivenatureofthemechanismthebreachescomplainedoftendtobeofasystematicratherthananindividualnature.SincetheentryintoforceoftheAdditionalProtocolin1999over60complaintshavebeenregistered.

Todate12EUMemberStates,havebecomepartytotheAdditionalProtocol.125Table4liststhesestatesaswellasthosethathavesignedbutnotyetratifiedtheProtocol(signallinganintentiontobecomefullpartiesatsomelaterdate).

123 ForanoverviewofwhichEUMemberStatesareStatePartiestotheEuropeanSocialCharterandwhichcountrieshaveacceptedtheprotocolallowingforcollectivecomplaintsaswellasfordetailsonacceptedrightsundertheEuropeanSocialCharter,see FRA(2010)Annual Report 2010,Vienna:FRA,pp. 167-170,availableat:http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/AR_2010-conf-edition_en.pdf.Foralistoforganisationseligibletolodgecomplaintssee:www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/socialcharter/OrganisationsEntitled/OrganisationsIndex_en.asp.

124AdditionalprotocoltotheEuropeanSocialCharter ProvidingforaSystemofCollectiveComplaints,1995,CETS No. 158.InternationalNGOsmaybegrantedthisrightby applyingtotheGovernmentalCommittee(composedof representativesoftheStateParties)foreligibility.

125 Forratificationsandsignaturesasof3March2010,seewww.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/socialcharter/Presentation/Overview_en.asp;thereisalsoapossibilityundertheRevisedEuropeanSocialCharter(1996)tobeboundbytheCollectiveComplaintsProtocolthroughnotificationuponratificationoftheCharter(PartIV,ArticleDofESC(revised)(resortedtobyBulgariaandSlovenia).

table 4: Eu Member states parties and signatories

to the Additional protocol under the Esc

Stateparties(12)

Belgium,Bulgaria,Cyprus,Finland,France,Greece,Ireland,Italy,Netherlands,Portugal,Slovenia,Sweden

Signatories(5)

Austria,CzechRepublic,Hungary,Denmark,Slovakia

Source: FRA, 2010


33

OnlyFinlandhasgivenfurtherconsenttoallownationalNGOstomakecomplaints.

TheECSRismandatedtoadoptdecisionsonthesecollectivecomplaints.AswiththeECtHR,onceadecisionfindingaviolationhasbeenadopteditfallstotheCommitteeofMinistersoftheCouncilofEuropetorecommendasolutiontotheStatePartyinquestion.TheCommitteeofMinistersadoptsaresolutionirrespectiveoftheoutcomeinthecase,whichmaycontainRecommendationsiftherehasbeenaviolation.126ThestatemustthenexplaininitsnextperiodicreporttotheECSR(dueeveryfouryears)whatithasdonetoimplementthedecision.127

2.4. court of Justice of the European union

CompliancewithEUlawisguaranteedbytheCJEUwhichmayhearcasesrelatingtotheinstitutionsoftheEUaswellastheMemberStatesinareasfallinginthescopeofEUlaw.TheCJEUisdividedintotwobodies:theGeneralCourt(GC),andtheCourtofJustice(CJ).128ForthepurposesofthecurrentreporttwoprincipalmechanismsexistthroughwhichindividualsmaychallengethevalidityofEUmeasuresormeasuresbyMemberStatesrelevanttotheimplementationofEU

126SeeArticle9oftheProtocol.TodateRecommendationshaveonlybeenissuedinonecase,rather,theresolutioncontainsanumberofdetailedmeasuresthattherespondentgovernmentwillremedy.

127SeeArticle10oftheProtocol.Article21actuallystipulatesreportingeverytwoyearsbutbyCommitteeofMinistersdecisionin2006theperiodicitywaschangedtofouryears.SeeBrillat,R.(2009)‘TheEuropeanSocialCharter’in:Alfredsson,G.etal.(eds.) International Human Rights Monitoring Mechanisms,Leiden:MartinusNijhoff,p. 508.

128ThisreportisreferringtoCJEUasthegeneralentityunlessadistinctionbetweentheCJandtheGCisrequired.

law:theactionforannulment(whichisdealtwithbytheGCandcanbeappealedtotheCJ)andthepreliminaryreferenceprocedure(dealtwithdirectlybytheCJ).TheEUalsooffersnon-judicialmechanisms,suchastheEuropeanOmbudsman,towhichonecanfilecomplaintsaboutmaladministrationwithintheEUinstitutionsandbodies.129Focushereis,however,placedonjudicialproceduresavailablethroughtheCJEU.

2.4.1. the action for annulment

TheactionforannulmentunderArticle263TreatyontheFunctioningoftheEuropeanUnion(TFEU),formerlyArticle230TreatyestablishingtheEuropeanCommunities(TEC),130allowsalegalorphysicalpersontorequesttheannulmentofanylegallybindingmeasuretakenbytheEUinstitutionsoragencies.131Suchmeasuresarenotrestricted to thoselegallybindingmeasureslistedinArticle 288 TFEU(regulations,directivesanddecisions).132The conditionsforlegalstandingare,however,restrictive.Anindividualmaylodgeacomplaintagainstanactthatisspecificallyaddressedtothem,suchasadecisionagainstacommercialenterpriseissuedbytheEuropeanCommissioninthecontextofcompetitionlaw.Anapplicationmustbelodgedwithintwomonthsofpublicationofthemeasurebeingcontested.Iftheactcomplainedofisnotaddressedtothecomplainant,thenhe/shemustshowthattheyhave‘individual’concern–thatisthattheyareaffectedbythemeasureinquestionjustasiftheyhad

129Foranoverviewofthework,seehttp://ombudsman.europa.eu.130Thereisasimilarprocedureallowingtheinstitutionstobesued

forfailingtoactwheretheywereunderadutytodoso.SeeArticle265TFEU.

131 TheLisbonTreatyamendedformerArticle230TECtoallowtheCJEUtoreviewnotjustthelegalityofactsoftheinstitutionsbutalsoof‘bodies,officesoragenciesoftheUnion’.

132 See,forexample,Case216/83Les Verts,[1984]ECR3325.

Nationalcourts

CJEU

Requestpreliminaryrulingsthroughnationalcourts

Directaccesstochallengethelegalityofacts

(non-legislative),263TFEUorasback-up277TFEU

Preliminaryrulings267TFEUClaimant

Figure 3: the two main routes to access to the cJEu

Source: FRA, 2010


34

beentheexpressaddressee.Theinterpretationgiventothisprovisionhasmeantthatinpractice,133apartfromafewexceptionalcases,acomplainantcannotcontestthevalidityofagenerallegislativemeasure,suchasaregulationordirective.134Thisisbecausebytheirnaturesuchinstrumentsaredesignedtocreategeneralrulesratherthanbeingtargetedatspecificindividuals.

2.4.2. the preliminary reference procedure

UnderthepreliminaryreferenceprocedureanationalcourtmayrequesttheCJEUtoprovideaninterpretationofaprovisionofEUlawthatisneededtoresolveadisputependingconsiderationatthenationallevel(Article267TFEU).TheCJEUmayatthesametimeundertakejudicialreviewoftheEUmeasureinquestionitself(underArticle277TFEU).InthissensethepreliminaryreferenceprocedureunderArticle263TFEUiscapableofmitigatingtherestrictiverulesonstandingundertheactionforannulment(Table5below).Assuchthetwomechanismstakentogetherhavebeenreferredtoasa‘completesystemoflegalremediesandproceduresdesignedtopermit

133 SeeCase25/62Plaumann v. Commission,[1963]ECR95.134Theexceptionalcaseswherestandinghasbeenallowedto

contestagenerallegislativemeasurehavegenerallyrelatedtoasituationwheretherewasonlyonepossibleindividualwhocouldbeparticularlynegativelyaffectedbythatmeasure.See for exampleCaseC-309/89Cordoniu v. Council,[1994]ECR I-1853;Case C-359/89Extramet v. Council,[1991]ECRI-2501.

theCourtofJusticetoreviewthelegalityofmeasuresadoptedbytheinstitutions’.135

In2009atotalof302newreferencesforapreliminaryrulingweremadefromdomesticcourtsoftheEUMemberStates.136Thenumberrangedfrom59(Germany)tozero(IrelandandLuxembourg).MemberStatesfromwhichmorethan20referencesweremadeincludeGermany,Belgium,France,Italy,theNetherlands,andtheUnitedKingdom.Inpractice,however,issuesofEUlawarecommonlydecidedbydomesticcourtswithoutmakingareferenceforapreliminaryrulingbytheCJEUunder267TFEU.

2.4.3. the ‘complete system of legal remedies’

However,theabilityofthepreliminaryreferenceproceduretoadequatelycomplementtheactionforannulmentinallowingindividualstheopportunitytochallengethevalidityofmeasuresadoptedbytheinstitutionsneedstobeseeninthelightofthefollowingconsiderations.Firstly,thedecisiontomakethereferraltotheCJEUandtheparametersoftheenquiryrestnotwiththeindividualpartiestothe

135 Case294/83Les Verts,[1986]ECR1339,paragraph 23.IndividualsmayalsoaccesstheUnioncourtsunder268TFEU(235TEC)bybringinganactionfordamagescausedbynon-contractualliabilityoftheUnionaccordingtoparagraph2of340TFEU.However,thelatterdoesnotallowtheECJtoannulanyoffendinglegislationandtheindividualwillonlysucceedwherethebreachoflawismanifest.SeeforexampleCase175/84Krohn v. Commission,[1986]ECR753.

136StatisticsconcerningthejudicialactivityoftheCourtofJusticeatp. 82,availableat:http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2010-05/ra09_stat_cour_final_en.pdf.Asforurgentpreliminaryrulings,in2009,therewerethreesuchrequested.

table 5: overview of provisions providing for access to justice before the cJEu

TreatyontheFunctioningoftheEU

Article263TFEU Article267TFEU Article277TFEU

Type Actionforannulment Preliminaryrulingprocedure ‘Indirect’(incidental)review

Purpose ToreviewthelegalityofactsoftheEUinstitutions,bodiesandagencies

ToclarifyanissueofEUlaw ToreviewthelegalityofactsoftheEUinstitutions,bodiesandagencies

CJEU GeneralCourt(appealabletoCourtofJustice)

CourtofJustice CourtofJustice

Typeofaccess Direct Indirectthroughnationalcourts

Indirectthroughnationalcourts

Source: FRA, 2010


35

casebutwiththenationalcourtitself.137Secondly,thefunctionofconductingareviewunderArticle277viathepreliminaryreferenceprocedurereliesontheexistenceofanactuallegaldisputeinthenationalcourts.Thismayrepresentachallengewhenthemeasurebeingcomplainedofdoesnotactuallyrequireimplementationatthenationallevel,forinstancearegulation(whichbydefinitionisdirectlyapplicable)abolishinganagriculturalsubsidy.138Theabsenceofanationalimplementingmeasuremeansthattherewouldbenonationalmeasurethatthepartiescouldactuallyinvokeinordertobeginnationalcourtproceedingsthatcouldeventuallytriggerarequestforapreliminaryreferencebythenationalcourt.

ThelatterissuehasbeenpartiallyaddressedbytheTreatyofLisbon,amendingformerArticle230TEC(nowArticle263TFEU)andnowallowsindividualsstanding‘againstaregulatoryactwhichisofdirectconcerntothemanddoesnotentailimplementingmeasures’.Thismeansthatinasituationwherenonationalimplementingmeasureexists(andthusnonationalmeasurethatcouldbecontestedbeforethenationalcourts)anindividualmayneverthelesshavestandingbeforetheCJEU.However,itdoesnotaddresstheformerproblem,namelythatitisforthenationalcourtitselfratherthanthepartiestoinitiatetherequestforapreliminaryreferenceandtodeterminetheparametersofthequestionputtotheCJEU.

TwofurtherchangesintroducedbytheTreatyofLisbonshouldbenoted.Firstly,itconferslegallybindingstatusontheCFR,Article47ofwhichrecognisestheright“toaneffectiveremedyandtoafairtrial”withspecificreferencetoaccesstojustice.Secondly,theEUismandatedtobecomepartytotheECHRwhich,underArticles6and13,requirearangeofguaranteestobeimplementedrelatingtoaccesstojustice.Theextenttowhichthepreliminaryreferenceprocedureandactionforannulmentguaranteeaccesstojusticemayneedtobereconsideredinlightoftheseprovisions.

137SeeCase283/81CILFIT,[1982]ECR3415,paragraph 7:“Article177(laterArticle234andnowArticle267TFEU)doesnotconstituteameansofredressavailabletothepartiestoacasependingbeforeanationalcourtortribunal.ThereforethemerefactthatapartycontendsthatthedisputegivesrisetoaquestionconcerningtheinterpretationofcommunitylawdoesnotmeanthatthecourtortribunalconcernediscompelledtoconsiderthataquestionhasbeenraisedwithinthemeaningofArticle177.”Fortherelevantnationalcaselawonthisquestion,see,forinstance,judgmentoftheFederalConstitutionalCourt,2BvR2661/06,6 July2010(availableat:www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/pressemitteilungen/bvg10-069.html),inwhichitwasheldthatnon-referraltotheCourtofJustice(CJ)didnotconstituteviolationofrighttoeffectivelegalremedyincasesofestablishedjurisprudence.TheFederalLabourCourthadnotbeenobligedtoreferthecaseathandtotheCJaslongasitsdecisionnottodosodidnotappeararbitrarybutisbasedongoodreasons.

138AswasthesituationinCaseC-50/00P Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v. Council,[2002]ECRI-6677.

2.4.4. the range of the cJEu’s jurisdiction

TheCJEUonlyhasjurisdictiontoconsiderissuesrelatingtotheinterpretationorapplicationofEUlaw.Assuch,ifameasureinquestionfallspurelywithinthecompetenceoftheMemberStatestheCJEUwillnotbeabletodeliverajudgmentonthemerits.ThiscanbeillustratedbyreferencetothecaseofSPUC v Groganwhereapro-lifeorganisationobtainedaninjunctionagainstagroupofuniversitystudentsinIrelandwhoweredistributingliteraturethatgavethecontactdetailsofabortionclinicsintheUnitedKingdom.BeforetheCJEUitwasarguedthatIrelandhadbreachedEUlawbyinterferingwiththefreemovementofservices(i.e.abortionsbeingofferedinanotherMemberState)andthattheinjunctionamountedtoabreachoftherighttofreedomofexpression.TheCJEUfoundthatitwasabletoaddressthequestionrelatingtofreemovementofservices,sincethisrightissecuredunderEUlaw.However,thelawrelatingtofreedomofexpressionwasfoundtolieoutsidethejurisdictionoftheCJEUsinceitwasnotregulatedbyEUlaw.139Assuch,amoreappropriateforumwouldhavebeentheECtHRsincefreedomofexpressionisprotectedundertheECHR.

PriortotheTreatyofLisbontheCJEUhadjurisdictiononlytohearmattersrelatingtotheimplementationofCommunityLawandassuchwasnotcompetenttodecideonclaimsrelatingtosomeissuesfallingwithintheso-calledsecondandthirdpillars.140Articles263and267nowallowtheCJEUtoreviewthebroaderrangeofmeasuresadoptedbytheEU,excepttheCommonForeignandSecurityPolicy (CFSP).ReviewinthecontextoftheCFSPisonlypermittedinrelationto“restrictivemeasuresagainstanaturalorlegalperson”(Article275(2)TFEU).

2.4.5. Expedited procedures

TheexpeditedprocedureenablestheCJEUtogiverulingsquicklyinveryurgentcasesbyreducingthetimelimitsandomittingcertainproceduralsteps.Onapplicationbyoneoftheparties,thePresidentoftheCJEUmaydecide,whethertheparticularurgencyofthecaserequiresitsuse.SuchaprocedurecanalsobeusedinthepreliminaryrulingproceedingsbeforetheCJEU.Inthatcase,theapplicationismadebythenationalcourtseekingthepreliminaryruling.Theprocedurecanbefurtheracceleratedandtruncatedincaseofsensitiveissuesrelatingtotheareaoffreedom,securityandjustice.141Article267(4)

139CaseC-159/90SPUC v. Grogan,[1991]ECRI-4685.140ForanoverviewofthechangesoftheCJEUproceedings,see

CJEU,Annual Report 2009,availableat:http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo2_7000/.

141 RulesofProcedureoftheCourtofJustice,13April2010,Chapter 3s,ExpeditedProcedures,Article62a;RulesofProcedureoftheGeneralCourt,13April2010,Chapter3a,ExpeditedProcedures,Article76a.


36

specificallyprovidesforapreliminaryreferencetobegiven ‘withtheminimumofdelay’wherethenationalcaserelatesto‘apersonincustody’.

2.4.6. Legal aid

RegardinglitigationbeforetheCJEU,apartywhoiswhollyorinpartunabletomeetthecostsoftheproceedingsmayatanytimeapplyforlegalaid.Theapplicationhastobeaccompaniedbyevidenceoftheapplicant’sneedofassistance,andinparticularbyadocumentfromthecompetentauthoritycertifyingthislackofmeans.Theapplicationneednotbemadethroughalawyer.TheapplicationisreferredtoaformationoftheCJEUwhichdecideswhetherlegalaidshouldbegranted.ThisformationoftheCJEUmayatanytime,eitherofitsownmotionoronapplication,withdrawthelegalaidifthecircumstanceswhichledtothegrantalterduringtheproceedings.142

2.5. summary ThischapterprovidesabriefoverviewofexistingavenuestoaccessjusticeavailabletoindividualswithinthejurisdictionoftheMemberStatesoftheEU.Thesearebothjudicialandquasi-judicialinnature.Keycomparativeadvantagesanddisadvantagesarehighlighted.UptofiveEUMemberStateshavenotyetacceptedindividualcomplaintstobesubmittedtoUNtreatybodies,eventhoughtheyhavebeeninoperationformanyyears.Similarly,EUMemberStateshavebeenslowtoacceptfutureindividualcomplaintmechanisms,undertheICESCR.

TheECtHRrepresents,intermsofcaseloadaswellasinfluence,themainmechanismforaccessingjusticeabovethenationallevelinEurope.Thenumberofapplicationsshowstheneedtoimprovestructuresatthenationallevelinordertopre-emptrepeatapplicationsresultingfromsystematicproblems.ItalsounderscorestheneedtosupportreformmeasuresintroducedbytheECtHRtodealwiththepressure,suchasacceptingpilot-judgmentstodealwithsimilarcases.TheECSR,supplementingtheworkoftheECtHRwithmonitoringofeconomicandsocialrights,providesforacollectivecomplaintsmechanism,throughwhichinternationalorganisationsofemployersandtradeunionsandinternationalNGOscansubmitcomplaints.ItisnoteworthythatonlyFinlandhasacceptedthepossibilityfor national(in additiontointernational)NGOstosubmitcomplaints.InthiswaytheESCRisanunderusedresourcewherecivilsocietycouldcontributetoimprovingthesystembyhighlightingsystematicshortcomingsatthenationallevel.

142RulesofProcedureoftheCourtofJustice,13April2010,Chapter 6,LegalAid,Article 76;RulesofProcedureoftheGeneralCourt,13 April2010,Chapter7,LegalAid,Articles 94-97.

OverallthebalancebetweenthecaseloadandcapacitytoissuedecisionsisasignificantproblemforboththeECtHRandtheUNtreatybodies.As such,thisunderscorestheimportanceofadequateimplementationofhumanrightsguaranteesatthenationallevelinordertopre-emptanunsustainablecaseload.

TheCJEUiscrucialinprovidingaccesstojusticewithintheEU.However,thesystemoflegalremediesmaynotalwaysbeseenaseffective,giventhatitisrelativelydifficulttoobtainstandingbeforetheCJEUinthefirstplace.TheTreatyofLisbonhasgonesomewaytomitigatethisproblem.WiththeEU’sfutureaccessiontotheECHR,theinteractionbetweentheECtHRandtheCJEUisboundtointensify,providingfurtherdevelopmentsforarangeofissues,includingaccesstojustice,aswellasallowingindividualstobringcomplaintsagainsttheEUdirectlybeforetheECtHR.

37

Itisdifficulttoprovideanoverviewofaccesstojusticeatthenationallevelinall27EUMemberStates.Eventhoughalloftheserecognisethegeneralrightofrecoursetoajudicialbodyinordertoresolvelegaldisputesrelatingtobreachesofaright,thewaythisisachieveddifferswidely.ThejudicialsystemsoftheMemberStates,forinstance,maybroadlybedistinguishedbytwokeyfactors:theexistenceofaseparateconstitutionalcourtornot,andaunifiedcourtsystemasopposedtoonewithseparatejudiciariesfordifferentbranchesoflaw,suchasadministrativelaw.143AgrowingnumberofStateshaveaseparateconstitutionalcourt,dealingwith,amongotherissues,complaintsbasedonallegedviolationsoffundamentalrights.Currently,athirdoftheMemberStatesdonothavesuchaninstitution.144Also,itispossibletomakeadistinctionbetweenstateswithaseparatejudiciaryfor(atleastsomemattersof)administrativelaw(theFrenchModel)145fromthoseoptingforonesinglejudiciary(theEnglishModel)146.However,alargemajorityofMemberStatesapplyaseparation.147

143Ifgoingintodetailsthepicturemightchangesomewhat:forexampleontheonehandtheAustrianConstitutionalCourt(datingbackto(atleast)1920andthusbeingthemostancientinEurope)isstillnotcompetenttodecideonappealsagainstrulingsoftheordinaryjudiciaryandoftheAdministrativeCourt,whereas,ontheotherhand,inFinlandthereisnoconstitutionalcourtbuttheconstitutionalitycansince2000explicitlybechecked.SeealsoCJEU(2009)Les juridictions des États Membres de l’Union Européenne,Luxembourg:CJEU,availableat:http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2008-11/qd7707226frc.pdf.

144NamelyCyprus,Denmark,Estonia,Finland,Greece,Ireland,the Netherlands,Sweden,andtheUnitedKingdom.

145SeeAguila,Y.,Kreins,Y.andWarren,A.(2007)La justice administrative en Europe. Observatoire des Mutations Institutionelles et Juridiques (OMIJ) de l’Université de Limoges,Paris:PressesuniversitairesdeFrance,p. 16.

146Ibid,p. 16.147TothepureEnglishmodelbelong,apartfromtheUnitedKingdom

itself,onlyHungary,Ireland,Rumania,andSlovakia.InSpainadministrativejusticeisdeliveredbyseparatechambersintegratedincourtsofgeneralcompetence,amodelwhichisfollowedalsoEstonia(whereseparateadministrativetribunalsdoonlyexistontheloweststage),LatviaandSlovenia(wherethesupremecourtshavegeneralcompetence).InItalytheAdministrativeCourtisnowalmostindependentfromthegeneralcassationcourt.

Ratherthanprovidingallthenuancesofthevariouslegalandjudicialsystems,thisreportproceedsonthebasisofthecomparativefindingsbasedontheabove-mentionedtypology.148Aselectionofthemostindicativeareasisofferedbelow,stressingthelimitsonaccesstojustice.

Thischapteranalysestheidentifiedlimitstoaccesstojusticeunderthefollowingheadings:(i)timelimits;(ii)legalstanding;(iii)lengthofproceedings;(iv)legalcosts;(v)proceduralformalitiesandrequirements;and(vi)complexityoflegislation.Itthenproceedsbrieflytoexaminealternativestoajudicialroute,namelynon-judicialproceduresandthepossibilityofwaivingtherighttosettlingdisputesbeforeacourt.

3.1. Limits Itisnowwellestablishedthatthe“fundamentalrighttoeffectivejudicialprotectionconstitute[sa]generalprinciple[…]ofCommunitylaw.”149Accordingly,EUlawrecognisesageneralrightofaccesstoajudicialbodyfortheresolutionofdisputesrelatingtorightsderivingfromEUlaw.TheECtHRhaslikewiseinterpretedtherighttoinstituteproceedingsbeforecourtsincivilmattersasconstitutingoneaspectoftherighttoafairtrialenshrinedinArticle6ECHR.150

148Seesection1.2:Reportbackground.149CJEU,Alliance for Natural Health and Others,C-154/04andC-155/04,

12July2005,paragraph 126;CJEU,Unibet,C-432/05,13March2007,paragraph 37;CJEU,Angelidaki et al.,CaseC-378/07,23April2009;CJEU,Sahlstedt et al. v. Commission,C-362/06P23April2009;CJEU,Angelidaki et al.,C-378/07,23 April 2009.‘Community’ismaintainedinquotes,otherwiseUnionisconsistentlyused.

150ECtHR,Golder v. the United Kingdom,No.4451/70,21February1975(n.25).

3

Accessing justice at national level


38

Ithasneverthelessbeenacknowledgedthatthisrightisnotabsoluteandmaybesubjecttolimitations.151AccordingtotheECtHRjurisprudence,restrictionsonaccesstojusticewillbepermissibletotheextentthattheyareproportionatetoachievingalegitimateaimandsolongastheydonotrestrictorreducetheaccesslefttotheindividualinsuchawayortosuchanextentthattheveryessenceoftherightisimpaired.Thus,theproportionalityofparticularobstaclesverymuchdependsonthespecificcircumstancesofthecase.

Thefollowingsectionsanalysetheidentifiedrestrictionsandexaminethealternativeroutesforresolvingadisputeoutsideofacourt.

Figure4providesthesixmainrestrictionstoaccessingjusticemostcommonlyfoundintheEUMemberStates,asidentifiedbytheresearch.

3.1.1. time limits

Researchfindingsinasmanyas22EUMemberStatesshowedthatthespecificrulesonlimitations(prescriptiveperiods,specifyingthetimewithinwhichaclaimhastobemade)tobeoneofthemajorobstaclestoaccessingjusticeindiscriminationcases(Figure4).Suchlimitationsareintheorydesignedtoensurelegalcertaintyandfinality.152Inorderforsuchlimitationstobeacceptablefromthepointofviewofeffectiveaccesstojustice,however,

151 ECtHR,Osman v. the United Kingdom,No.23452/94,28October1998.

152ECtHR,Stubbings v. the United Kingdom,No.22083/93and22095/93,paragraph 51.TheECJhasalsostatedthattime-barsservelegalcertainty.SeeCJEU,Slagterier v. Germany,C-445/06,24 March2009,paragraph 32;CJEU,Aprile v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato,C-228/96,17November1998,paragraph 19;CJEU,Marks & Spencer v. Commissioners of Customs & Excise,C-62/00,11July2002,paragraph 35.

theirlengthshouldbesetinsuchawayasnottorendertherighttoproceedbeforeacourtimpossible.153

AmongtheEUMemberStateswithlegislationlimitingtherighttoinitiateproceedingsbeforeacourt,amajorityprovidefortwotypesoflimitationperiodsapplicableinthisareaoflaw–onethatisapplicabletocivillawclaimsingeneralandoneusedinrespectofspecificareasofthelawsuchasisthecasewithemploymentdiscrimination.Limitationperiodsforgeneralcivillawclaimsrangeonaveragebetweenthreeandfiveyears,withtheexceptionofPoland,BelgiumandtheNetherlands,wherethisperiodcanextendto10,20and30yearsrespectively.Unlikelimitationperiodsingeneralcivillawmatters,thespecificperiodsofprescriptionapplicableincasesofemploymentdiscriminationareusuallymuchshorter–insomecasesasshortaseightdays.154Suchshorttimelimits,whichareundoubtedlymuchmorerestrictivethanthoseappliedintheordinarycivilclaims,arebalancedtoanextentbythelessformalisticproceduresthatareusedinemploymentcasesinsomeMemberStates.155

153 TheEstonianSupremeCourtheld,forexample,thateventhoughthelegislatorhasawidediscretionindecidingoverthelengthoftimelimitationstocomplaints,theselimitationscouldnotbedisproportionatelyshort.

154ForexampleinSlovenia.155 ForexampleintheUnitedKingdom.

22

10 17

17

19

21

22

10

8

6

5

5Statutorylimitations(timelimits)forbringingaclaim

Legalstanding(locus standi)

Lengthofproceedings

Legalcosts

Proceduralformalitiesandrequirements

Complexityoflegislation

Figure 4: restrictions on access to justice in Eu Member states

NumberofMemberStateswithrestrictionsinthegivenareaNumberofMemberStateswithnorestrictionsinthegivenarea

Source: FRA, 2010

Accessingjusticeatnationallevel

39

TimelimitsinannulmentproceedingsbeforetheCJEU

BeforetheCJEUannulmentproceedingsunderArticle263(6)TFEU(Article 230 (5)TEC)mustbeinstituted“withintwomonthsofthepublicationofthemeasure,orofitsnotificationtotheplaintiff,or,intheabsencethereof,ofthedayonwhichitcametotheknowledgeofthelatter,asthecasemaybe.”Thefactthatthetime-limitstartswhentheplaintiffbecameawareofthemeasureallowsforabalancetobestruckbetweenlegalcertaintyandtherighttopursueaclaimbeforethecourts.

3.1.2. Legal standing

Legalstanding(standingtosueorlocus standi)representsthegatewayforaccesstojustice.Rulesrelatingtolegalstandingmaybedividedintothreeclasses.Narrowrulesforstandingrestricttheabilitytopursueaparticularclaimtotheindividualwhohassufferedtheharminquestionortheirdirectrepresentatives(forinstance,wheretheindividualisdeceased).Attheotherextreme,widerulesofstandingmayallowanyindividualtobringaclaimrelatingtoharmsufferedbyathirdparty,whichissometimesreferredtoasanactio popularisor‘publicinterest’claim.Oftenrulesofstandingofthissortarerestrictedtoparticularareasoflawthatmayrelatetoageneralpublicinterest,suchastheenvironment.Betweenthesetwoextremesonemayfindrulesofstandingthatallowcertainthirdpartiesthatmayhaveaninterestinparticularlegalissues,tobringclaimsrelatingtobreachesoflawswithintheirareaofexpertise,suchasNGOs,tradeunionsorequalitybodies.

Intheareaofnon-discriminationlaw,theRacialEqualityDirective(Article7),EmploymentEqualityDirective(Article9),GenderEqualityDirective(recast)(Article12),andGenderEqualityDirectiveonGoodsandServices(Article8)obligeMemberStatestoensure,inaccordancewithnationallaw,thatassociations,organisationsorotherlegalentitiesmayengageinjudicialoradministrativeproceedingsonbehalfoforinsupportofvictims,withthevictim’spermission.SuchassociationsmayincludeNGOs,tradeunionsorequalitybodies.156

InDenmark,Finland,SwedenandtheUKnospecialrulesappeartoregulateassociationsindiscriminationprocedures.157However,individuallawyersworking

156SeeFRA(2010)The Racial Equality Directive: application and challenges,Luxembourg:PublicationsOffice.

157Chopin,I.andGounari,E.N.(2009)Developing anti-discrimination law in Europe. The 27 EU Member States compared,reportpreparedfortheEuropeanNetworkofLegalExpertsinthenon-discriminationfield,Luxembourg:PublicationsOffice,p. 63.

forassociationssuchasNGOsortradeunionsmayrepresentavictimwiththeirpermission.InotherMemberStatesmorespecificrulesexist.InmanyMemberStatesNGOsareabletoprovidelegalrepresentationorinitiatecourtproceedingseitherinthenameofthevictimorontheirownbehalf.NGOsareabletobringcasestocourtwithouttheconsentofthevictimincertaincircumstances(suchasfor‘classactions’),forexampleinBulgaria,Hungary,ItalyandtheSlovakRepublic.InotherMemberStatestheconsentofthevictimisrequired,forexampleinLatvia,Lithuania,andSpain(thoughinthelatteronlyincasesoutsidethesphereofemployment).InotherMemberStatesitappearsthatthestandingofNGOsismorelimited,eithertoappearingbeforeparticularbodiesorarightofthirdpartyintervention.158

InmorethanhalfoftheMemberStatesvictimsareentitledtoberepresentedbytradeunionsinatleastsomedisputesettlementfora:Austria,Belgium,Bulgaria,Cyprus,theCzechRepublic,Estonia,Germany,Ireland,Italy,Latvia,Luxembourg,theNetherlands,Poland,Portugal,Slovenia,SpainandtheUK.TradeunionsinsomeMemberStatesalsoprovidefinancialassistancetocoverthelegalcostsofthoseinvolvedindisputes.TheyarealsoabletoinitiatelegalproceedingsuponsatisfactionofcertaincriteriainthefollowingMemberStates:Belgium,Bulgaria,Denmark,France,Italy,Malta,theNetherlands,Poland,Romania,SpainandSweden.InCyprus,HungaryandItalytradeunionsareentitledtobringclaimsofa‘collective’nature(thatis,wherealargegroupofindividualsareaffected,orthereisnoidentifiablevictim).159

InasmallnumberofMemberStatesequalitybodiesmayensuretherepresentationofprivateindividualspursuingremediesinthecourts,forexampleHungaryandtheUnitedKingdom.InaroundonethirdofMemberStatesequalitybodiesmaythemselvesinitiatecourtproceedingseitherinthevictim’sand/ortheirownname(thoughsometimestheconsentofthevictimisrequired).InBelgium,HungaryandIrelandtheequalitybodiesmaybringclaimsaddressingpotentiallywidespreaddiscriminationsuchaswherethereisnoidentifiablevictim,inrelationtopatternsofdiscrimination,orasapublicinterestaction(actio popularis).160

158SeeFRA(2010)The Racial Equality Directive: application and challenges,Luxembourg:PublicationsOffice.

159Idem.160Idem.


40

TheroleofNGOsbeforetheInter-AmericanandAfricancourtsystems

Theabilityofcivilsocietyorganisationstosupportvictimsortakecasesontheirbehalfcanreducethefinancialandpersonalburdenoflegalactionontheindividualclaimant.InthissensetherolethatNGOsplaybeforetheInter-AmericanCommissionandInter-AmericanCourtofHumanRightsandtheAfricanCommissiononHumanandPeoples’Rightsshouldbenoted.UndertherulesofprocedureofthesesystemsNGOsmaybringclaimsintheirownnames,andinrelationtotheAfricansystem,thevastmajorityofclaimsarebroughtbyNGOs.161Thisillustratestheimportantroleofcivilsocietyorganisationsinfacilitatingaccesstojustice,particularlywhereclaimantsfacefinancialdifficulties.

Therearetwopracticallimitationsontheabilityofcivilsocietyorganisationstobringcases.Firstly,humanandfinancialresourceswilldictatethenumberofcasesthattheymayundertake.Secondly,thecriteriaimposedundernationallawthatsuchorganisationsneedtosatisfyinordertobeeligibletoexercisethisfunctionlimitsthenumberoforganisationsavailabletovictims.Forinstance,inGermanyanassociationwishingtoactascounselforavictimmustoperateonanon-profitandnon-temporarybasis,haveatleast75members,orbecomprisedofatleastsevenassociationsactingtogether.InItalyassociationsmustfirstregisterwithpublicauthorities,butthisprocesscanbealengthyprocess.InFranceandLuxembourgsuchassociationsmusthavealreadybeeninexistenceforatleastfiveyears.

Beyondtheareaofnon-discriminationlawresearchfindingsshowthatintenoutof27MemberStates,thedomesticrulesonlegalstandingareconsideredoverlyrestrictive(Figure4).Inthiswaylegalstandingisoneofthemajorrestrictionsregardingtherightofaccesstojustice.Legislationonstandinginthesetenstatesdoesnotenableindividualstobringaclaimtoacourtunlesstheyhavefulllegalcapacity(forinstance,thattheydonothaveintellectualdisability)andatthesametimearedirectlyconcernedinthematter.Althoughinlimitedinstances,aclaimfortheprotectionofapresumedrightorinterestofanotherpersonorthepublicisallowedintheseEUMemberStates,suchclaimshavebeenmostlyacceptedincaseswherethishasbeenspecificallyprescribedbydomesticlaw–suchasparentsthatcanfileaclaim

161 Inter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRights,RulesofProcedure,OAS/Ser.L/V/I.4rev.13,30June2010,Rule23;AfricanCharterofHumanandPeoples’Rights,1981,OAUDoc.CAB/LEG/67/3Rev. 5,Article 55;Seefurther:Butler,I.(2007)Unravelling sovereignty: Human rights actors and the structure of international law,Antwerp: Intersentia,p. 104.

onbehalfoftheirchild.Asaresult,thirdpartieshavingonlyaremoteinterestorfightingmerelypublicinterest havenoaccesstoacourt.162Apartfromenvironmentalcases,themajorityofEUMemberStateshaverefusedtoacceptageneralrighttofileapublicinterestcomplaint(actio popularis),whichwouldenableanindividualorotherentitytoobtainredressinthenameofthegeneralpublic,withoutbeingthevictimordirectlyauthorisedtorepresentthevictim.163AsaresultofimplementationoftheAarhusConvention,inenvironmentalcasestherequirementofhavingasufficientinterestinacaseorbeingdirectlyconcernedmaybewaivedwhenitcomestoenvironmentalprotectionmatters,whereakindofactio popularishasbecomeacceptedinmostoftheEUMemberStates.164

3.1.3. Length of proceedings

Theoveralllengthofproceedingsundoubtedlyhasimplicationsforaccesstojustice.AccordingtotheECtHR,accesstothecourtscanberenderedlargelytheoreticalandillusorywheredisputesarenotresolvedinatimelymanner,sincetheprinciplemotiveoftakingadisputeistoreceivearemedy.Delaysinlegalproceedingshavetheeffectofkeepinganindividualinaprotractedstateofdoubtthatmaybeconsideredsimilartoadenialofjustice.165

AccordingtoECtHRstatistics,averylargenumberofcasessubmittedtotheECtHRconcerntherightguaranteedbyArticle6ECHRtoahearingwithin

162NotealsothatinsomeEUMemberStates,NGOsspecialisingincombatingdiscriminationareconsideredprivilegedapplicantsanddonothavetoshowaninteresttostandbeforenationalcourts.

163Veryspecificrestrictionsregardinglocus standirulescanadditionallybeidentifiedinCyprus.Casesinvolvingclaimantswhoarepurportedtobelongtocertaincategoriesorareascribedcertaincharacteristicsseemtobeparticularlyvulnerabletohavingtheiraccessblocked;suchacategoryareTurkish-CypriotsclaimingtheirpropertieslocatedintheRepublic-controlledareasagainsttheinstitutionoftheCustodianofTurkishCypriotProperties,whichistheInteriorMinister.

164UNEconomicCommissionforEurope(UNECE),ConventiononAccesstoInformation,PublicParticipationinDecision-makingandAccesstoJusticeinEnvironmentalMatters(AarhusConvention),adoptedon25June1998.ForrelevantCJEUcaselawsee,forinstance,areferenceforpreliminaryrulingslodgedinLesoochranárske Zoskupenie VLK v. Ministerstvo životného prostredia Slovenskej republiky,C-240/09,15July2010orinMarie-Noëlle Solvay and others v. Walloon Region¸C-182/10,lodgedon09April2010.

165Edel,F.(2007)The Length of Civil and Criminal Proceedings in the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights,Strasbourg:CouncilofEuropePublishing.Despitethefactthatjusticedelayedisjusticedenied,however,veryrapidproceedingsdonotalwaystranslateintogoodjustice.Certainexpeditedprocedureswherespeedtakespriorityovertherightsofthedefencemaybedetrimentaltothequalityofjustice.TheECtHRhasalwaysheldthattheprincipleofgoodadministrationofjusticegoeswellbeyondthenotionofreasonabletimeandmayjustifyresorttolengthierbutfairerproceedings.SeeCalvez,F.(2006)Length of court proceedings in the Member States of the Council of Europe based on the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights,ReportadoptedbyEuropeanCommissionfortheEfficiencyofJustice(CEPEJ)atits8thplenarymeeting,Strasbourg:CEPEJ,availableat:www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/cepej/delais/Calvez_en.pdf.


41

Source: ECtHR, ‘50 Years of Activity: European Court of Human

Rights. Some Facts and Figures’, 2010166

areasonabletime.Indeed,unduedelaysintheproceedingsaccountformorejudgmentsoftheECtHRthananyotherissuescoveredbyotherECHRArticles.Intheperiod1959–2009,theECtHRhandeddownmorethan12,000judgmentsfindingviolations,ofwhichmorethanonequarterconcernedtheexcessivelengthofproceedings(acrossthe,bynow,47StateParties).167Figure5indicatesthetotalnumberofECtHR’sjudgmentsfindingviolationoftherighttoahearingwithinareasonabletimeasapercentageofallECtHR’sviolationjudgmentsagainsttherespectivepresent27EUMemberStatesintheperiod1959-2009.168AccordingtoFigure5,morethan95%ofalljudgmentsagainstSloveniaconcernedviolationofArticle6ECHRduetounduedelaysinproceedings,inHungaryitwasmorethan80%andinSlovakiamorethan75%.

AsshownpreviouslyinFigure4,intenofthe27 MemberStates,findingssuggestthatproblemswithdelaysinjudicialproceedingswereofasystemicnature.169StructuralproblemsrelatingtoexcessivelengthofjudicialproceedingshaveresultedinahighnumberofviolationsofArticle6ECHRandtheyoftenrepresentthemostsignificantobstaclesindividualsfacefromthepointofviewofaccesstojusticein

166Availableat:www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/ACD46A0F-615A-48B9-89D6-8480AFCC29FD/0/FactsAndFiguresENAvril2010.pdf.

167SeeECtHR(2010)50 Years of Activity: European Court of Human Rights. Some Facts and Figures,Strasbourg:ECtHR,availableat:www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/ACD46A0F-615A-48B9-89D6-8480AFCC29FD/0/FactsAndFiguresENAvril2010.pdf.

168Notethatthatdatausedconcernsbothcivilandcriminalproceedings.

169Thefindingsarehoweveronlyveryindicativeasagreatmajorityofnationalresearchteamsexplicitlyacknowledgedthelackofempiricaldataduetonon-existenceofrelevantdatabasesand statistics.

theirterritories.InCyprus,forinstance,courtusersincivilcaseswill,duetothelengthofproceedingsinthevastmajorityofcases,ratherreachanout-ofcourtsettlement.Asaresult,onlyveryfewcivilcasesaredecidedbytheCypriotcourts.Inthisrespect,itisalsointerestingtonotethatinsomeMemberStates,therearestrongregionaldifferenceswhenitcomestotheaveragelengthofcivilproceedings.IntheCzechRepublic,forexample,whereaconsiderablelengthofproceedingsissuggestedtobede-motivatingforvictimsofdiscrimination,theaveragedurationofcivilproceedingscantakeseveralyearsinoneregion,yetonlyafewmonthsinanother.170

AcrosstheEU-27,theproceduresinnon-discriminationcases,asforcivilcasesingeneral,arelengthyforvariousreasons.Themostcommonlyidentifiedintheresearchstudiesincludeexcessiveworkloadandinsufficientnumberofjudges;inefficientorganisationofcourtwork;excessivedelaysbetweenthehandingdownofajudgmentanditsnotificationtothepartiesaswellasdelaysbetweenindividualhearings;lackofcommunicationbetweenjudges

170On1May2009thePolishPresidentsignedalawamendingtheLawof17June2004oncomplaintsaboutabreachoftherighttoatrialwithinareasonabletime.Theamendmentprovidesthatintheeventofexcessivelengthofdetention,thecourtisrequiredtoawardanappropriatesumofmoney(“odpowiedniasumapieniężna”)rangingfromPLN2,000(approximately€500)toPLN20,000(approximately€5,000).TheFinnishParliamentlikewiseadoptedabillforanActintheCompensationforExcessivelyLongTrialProceedings.TheActenteredintoforce1January2010.Itawardsdamagesforpartiestotheexcessivelylongtrials.Thelawisapplicabletocivilandcriminalproceedingsandpetitionsinordinarycourtsbutnottoextendedadministrativeproceedingsorproceedingsinspecialcourts.ThebillisbeingmotivatedbyaseriesofECtHRrulingsagainstFinlandforlengthofproceedings(violationofArticle6(1)oftheECHR).

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Austri

a

Belgium

Bulgari

a

Cypru

s

Czec

h Rep

ublic

Denmark

Eston

ia

Finlan

d

Franc

e

German

y

Greece

Hunga

ry

Irelan

dIta

lyLa

tvia

Liech

tenste

in

Lithu

ania

Luxe

mbourg

Malta

Netherl

ands

Norway

Polan

d

Portu

gal

Roman

ia

Slova

kia

Slove

niaSp

ain

Swed

en

United

Kind

gom

Figure 5: violations concerning length of proceedings as a percentage of all Ecthr’s judgments finding violations of the Echr, by Eu Member state plus Liechtenstein and norway (%), during the period 1959–2009

Source: ECtHR, ‘50 Years of Activity: European Court of Human Rights. Some Facts and Figures’, 2010166


42

andpartiestotheproceedings;andtherigidityofproceduralrules,includingrulesofevidence.

InLatvia,thefindingsspecificallyunderscoredtheimpactofeconomiccrisesontheaveragelengthofproceedings.Thedelaysinproceedingshavebeencausedbytheincreaseofnumberofcasesduetosocioeconomicreasonsandinsufficientcapacityofthecourtstoprocesscasesduetobudgetcuts.

Expeditedtypesofprocedures

Inordertomakeproceedingsinequalpayclaimsspeedier,theUnitedKingdomintroducedtwospecificprocedures:theequalvaluedisputeprocedureandthequestionnaireprocedure.Inthe‘averagestraightforwardcase’,thetimetableenvisagesthatclaimsnotinvolvinganindependentexpertshouldtakenomorethan25weeksfrompresentationoftheclaimtofullhearing.Casesinvolvinganindependentexpertareexpectedtotake37weeks.AnothertypeofexpediteddiscriminationprocedureintheUnitedKingdomistheso-calledquestionnaireprocedure.Thistypeofprocedureisaimedathelpingclaimantsdiscoverthereasonsforthetreatmentofwhichtheyseektocomplainandassisttheminestablishingwhethertheyhavebeendiscriminatedagainst.Thistypeofprocedureisdesignedtohelpaclaimantdecidewhethertomakeacomplaintandhowtoformulateandpresentacasemosteffectively.

InBelgium,thenon-discriminationlegislationprovidesforinjunctionproceduresinurgentcases.Thedurationoftheseprocedures,inwhichthepresidentofacourtcanestablishandorderthecessationofaviolationwhenaggrievedpartieslodgeaninjunctionaction(action en cessation),allegingdiscriminationandordercoercivefinesincasetheviolationisnotterminated,hasoftenonlybeenamatterofdays.

InHungary,non-discriminationlegislationsetsoutthatshallbereachedinafasttrackprocedure,andatmostwithin45daysfromsubmittingtheapplicationorfrominitiatingtheprocedure,where(i)theclientisaminor;(ii)theprocedurewasinitiatedbyaParliamentaryCommissioner;or(iii)theprocedurewasinitiatedbythepublicprosecutor.

InAustria,theCivilProcedureCodeprovidesforanexpeditedprocedureforcivilsuitsregardingpecuniaryclaimsnotexceeding€75,000.Thecourtwillordertherespondenttopaywithin14dayswithoutconductinganoralhearing.Therespondentcanobjecttotheorderwithinfourweeks.Incaseofobjection,thecourtmustcallforahearing.Thislong-establishednationalsystemoperatessimilarlytotheEuropeanorderforpaymentprocedurecreatedbyRegulation(EC)No1896/2006of12December2006.

3.1.4. Legal costs

AsindicatedinFigure4,ineightEUMemberStatesthefindingssuggestthatthehighamountoflegalcosts,whichmainlyincludesattorneyandcourtfees,oftenpreventsaccesstojustice.171Theanalysisofrelevantcaselawofthesestateshasindeedshownthatthefearofincurringcostscanturnouttobeasignificantfactordeterminingwhether(ortowhatextent)avictimdecidestopursuejustice,especiallygiventheprevalenceofthelooser-paysruleintheEU,whichimpliesthatthelosingpartywillpaythewinningparty’scosts.172Forthisreason,somenationalcourtsareleftwithacertainleewayindecidingwhetherornottoorderthepaymentoflegalcosts.Dependingontheindividual’sfinancialsituationaswellasthemeritsofthedispute,theymaydecidetocompletelyorpartiallyrelieveapartyfromlegalcosts.Inaddition,thepersonmayreceiveothertypesoflegalaidfromthestate,suchastheappointmentofa lawyerforrepresentationinthejudicialproceedings.

IntheNetherlands,theso-calledLiquidationRatearrangementexistsbetweentheDutchBarAssociationandthejudiciarybasedonfixedratessubjectto,ontheonehand,theinterestinvolvedinthecaseand,ontheotherhand,thenumberandnatureofactivities.Thismeansthatthecostscannotrisetoohighincaseofapartyemployinganexcessivelyexpensivelawyeroraninexperiencedlawyerwhochargesfortoomanyhours.AccordingtotheDutchnationalteam,withouttheLiquidationRateinstrument,thecaselawoflowercourtswouldprobablydivergesubstantially.Inthisrespect,thisinstrumentofthejudiciarymayprevent(toacertainextent)inequalitiesandprovideforlegalcertainty.

InCyprus,ifaclientisnotsatisfiedwiththebillrenderedbyhisorherlawyer,sheorhemayapplytotheCourtsRegistrartohavethebillreduced.TheRegistrarwillexercisehis/herdiscretiononwhethertoreducethebillornotbytakingintoconsideration

171 IntheUnitedKingdom,forinstance,LordJusticeJacksonwasappointedtoleadafundamentalreviewoftherulesandprinciplesgoverningthecostsofcivillitigationandtomakerecommendationsinordertopromoteaccesstojusticeatproportionatecostinNovember2008.Inhisfindings,whichwerepublishedinJanuary2010,hestatedthat“insomeareasofcivillitigationcostsaredisproportionateandimpedeaccesstojustice”,moreinformationavailableat:www.judiciary.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/8EB9F3F3-9C4A-4139-8A93-56F09672EB6A/0/jacksonfinalreport140110.pdf.SeealsoECtHR,Marina v. Lativa,No.46040/07,26October2010,inwhichitwasheldthattherequirementtopayfeestocivilcourtsatthetimeofbringingaclaimcouldnotberegardedasarestrictionontherightofaccesstocourtincompatiblepersewithArticle6ECHR,providedthattheveryessenceoftherightofaccesstocourtwasnotimpaired.Inthisrespect,restrictionsofapurelyfinancialnaturewhichhadbeencompletelyunrelatedtotheprospectsofsuccessoftheclaimhadtobesubjectedtoaparticularlyrigorousscrutinyfromthepointofviewoftheinterestsofjustice.

172Forfurtheranalysisofloser-paysrule,seesection5.3onrulesrelatingtothepaymentoflegalcosts.


43

allrelevantcircumstancesandespeciallythecomplexity,difficultyornoveltyofthecase,thespecialisedknowledgeandresponsibilityrequiredaswellastimeconsumedbythelawyer,thevolumeofdocumentsdrafted,theurgencyandimportanceofthemattertotheclientandthevalueofthemoneyorpropertyatstake.

Effectiveremedy–legalcosts

Theapplicanthadinstitutedproceedingsagainstthestatefordamagescausedbyunjustifiedpre-trialdetention.Thedomesticcourtsawardedthedamagesbutthecourtfeesamountedtoapproximately90%ofthecompensation.TheECtHRheldthattheimpositionofaconsiderablefinancialburdendueaftertheconclusionoftheproceedingsactedasarestrictionontherightofaccesstocourt.

Asaresultofthisjudgmentandothersimilarcases,anewlowfixedfeewasintroducedasopposedtothepreviousformulabasedonapercentageofthedamages.

(ECtHR, Stankov v. Bulgaria,No. 68490/01,12October2007)

Effectiveremedy–legalcosts

TheapplicantsuedthemunicipalityofPłockforfailuretoissueanadministrativedecision,whichresultedinhiseconomicloss.Heappliedforanexemptionfromcourtfees.Thecourtrefusedtoaccepttheapplicant’sargumentthathewasunabletopaythecourtfees,butreducedtheamounttotheaverageannualsalaryinthecountry.Fortheapplicantthesumwasstillsubstantialandhedidnotpaythefees.Theproceedingswereforthisreasondiscontinuedandhiscasewasnotheard.TheECtHRfoundaviolationofArticle6ECHRandtherulingleadtochangesintheCourtFeesActtomakethefeesystemmoreefficientandtransparent.

(ECtHR, Kreuz v. Poland,No. 28249/95,19June2001)

3.1.5. procedural formalities

InsixoftheEUMemberStatestheresearchsuggeststhatsomespecificproceduralformalitiesandrequirementsintheirnationallegislationlimitaccesstojustice.Theserequirementsrelatetotheformorcontentofintroductorydocumentswithwhichanindividualinitiatescourtsproceedingsand/ortospecificpre-trialproceduralstepswhicheachindividualisobligedtoundertakebeforeapproachingthecourt.

InBulgaria,forinstance,anapplicationincivilcaseshastobelodgedinwritingandcontainthefollowinginformation:specificationofthecourt,thenameandotherdetailsoftheapplicant,thefullnameandaddressoftherespondent,theessenceoftheviolation,subjectofthedisputeandsignatureofthepersonwholodgestheapplication.Intheapplication,furthermore,theapplicantisobligedtospecifytheevidencewhichheorshewantstohavecollectedandtopresentthewrittenevidencethatheorshepossesses.Iftheapplicationdoesnotcontaintherequiredinformationorisnotpresentedinarequiredform,itmaygetrejectedwithoutacourtexaminingthemeritsofthecase.

IntheNetherlands,therelevantstatutorylawdistinguishesbetweenthepetitionprocedure(verzoekschriftprocedure)andthesummonsprocedure(dagvaardingsprocedure).Inprinciple,claimsrelatingtopropertyrightsaredealtwithinthepetitionprocedurewhilealltheotherclaimsareaddressedinthesummonsprocedure.Asforpetitions,theyneedtocontainobligatoryinformation,suchasnameanddomicileofbothclaimantanddefendant,claimandmotivationthereof,designatedcourtortribunal,and,ifacourtsessiontakesplace,furtherdetailssuchasthedateandtimeofthatsession,meansofevidence.Petitionsshouldbeissuedbyabailiff(deurwaarder)inaspecificwayasprescribedbylaw.Summonsesareformalisedtoalesserextent.Flawsinthesedocumentsmaybesanctioned.Inaddition,insomecases,theDutchlawprovidesforobligatorypreliminaryprocedures.Thismayincludeobligationsfordeliberationwiththedefendant.Suchprovisionsaimtoenhancefriendlysettlementofdisputes.Estonianjudgeswilllikewiserefuseacomplaintifapersonhasnotmetthemandatorypre-trialprocedurerequirements.

3.1.6. complexity of legislation

InAustria,thecomplexityofalegalframeworkscatteredinseverallawsseemstoposeunduedifficultiestothosewhowishtoaccessnon-discriminationprocedures.

InPoland,thereisequallynosinglelawonnon-discriminationcomprisingageneralbanondiscriminationonallgroundsandprovisionsarescatteredacrossmanydifferentpiecesoflegislation.Whencombinedwiththelackoflegalawarenessandexistinggapsinlegislation,theycreateaseriousobstacletoaccesstojustice.

IntheCzechRepublic,thepositionoftheAntidiscriminationActinrelationtootherlawsthatalsoincludesprovisionsondiscriminationappearstobeunclear.EventhoughtheAntidiscrimination


44

Actissupposedtoconstitutetheoverarchinglegislation(lex generalis),itamendsonlysomeofthelawscontainingspecialprovisionsondiscriminationwhileotherrelevantlawsremainingunchanged.Thustherecontinuestobelackofclarityonprovisionsofthevariouslaws,whichproduceslegaluncertainty,potentiallyhamperingtheaccesstocourtsindiscriminationcases.

3.2. Alternatives Havinganalysedrulesandpracticessurroundingaccesstocourts,thefollowingtwosectionsexaminealternativestojudicialroutes.Althoughtherighttoinitiateproceedingsbeforeacivilcourtisconsideredinstrumentaltoeffectiveaccesstojustice,theremaybecaseswhenanindividualmaywanttoavoidjudicialproceedingswhichareoftenoverlyformal,expensiveortoolengthy.Victimsofdiscriminationmaydosobywaivingtheirrighttobringacasebeforeacivilcourt.Ratherthanseekingredressbeforethecourt,furthermore,victimsofdiscriminationmaydecidetoinitiateproceedingsbeforeanon-judicialbody.TheRacialEqualityDirective(Article7),EmploymentEqualityDirective(Article9),GenderEqualityDirective(recast)(Article17)andGenderGoodsandServicesDirective(Article8)allowMemberStatestoprovideforconciliationormediationasameansforindividualstoobtainredressforabreachoftheirrights.Itshouldberecalled,however,thattheseinstrumentsalsorequireanyremedytobeeffective,proportionateanddissuasive.173

173RacialEqualityDirective,Article15;GenderEqualityDirective(recast),Article25;GenderGoodsandServicesDirective,Article 14;EmploymentEqualityDirective,Article17.

3.2.1. waiving access

AccordingtoECtHRcaselawitwouldappearthatitispossibleinprincipletowaive,atleastinpart,therightofaccesstoajudicialbodythrough,forinstance,anarbitrationclauseinacontract.174Italsoappearspermissibleinprincipletowaivetherightofaccesstoacourtthroughagreementofafriendlysettlementatthenationallevel,solongastherearenoelementsofcoercion.175

OnthebasisoftheanalysisoftheFRA(Figure6),itwouldappearthatitispossibletowaive,althoughnotcompletely,therightofaccesstoajudicialbodyinsevenEUMemberStates.176IntheseMemberStatesitappearspermissibleinprincipletowaivetherightofaccesstoacourtthrough,forinstance,agreementofafriendlysettlementoranarbitrationormediationclauseinacontract.Eveninthesecases,however,cautionisexercisedbynationalcourtsinassessingtheacceptabilityofwaiverofrightsandsuchwaiverwillberegardedaslegallyvalidonlysolongastherearenoelementsofcoercioninvolved.

Thenationaldiscriminationlawsof13EUMemberStates,ontheotherhand,donotprovideavictimofdiscriminationwithapossibilitytowaivehis/herrighttoaccesstoajudicialbody.Therelevantlegislativeprovisionsratherstatethatacontractual

174ECtHR,Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece,No. 13427/78,9December1994,paragraphs 44-45;ECtHR,Regent Company v. Ukraine,No.773/03,3April2008,paragraphs 51-61.

175ECtHR,Popov v. Moldova,No.74153/01,18January2005, paragraph 48.

176ItshouldbenotedthatspecificexceptionsexistinvariousEUMemberStates(especiallywithrespecttoemploymentdisputes)and,asaresult,generalisationwasrequiredtodetermineinwhichcategorytoplaceaMemberState.Furthermore,in7EUMemberStateseitherparticularlyspecificregimesexistornosufficientdataisavailabletobeabletoclassifyagivenMemberState.

Source: FRA, 2010

Figure 6: possibility of waiving the right of access to a judicial body in Eu Member states

7 7

13

MemberStatesinwhichtherightofaccesstoajudicialbodycanbewaived

Norelevantdata/veryspecificregimes

MemberStatesinwhichtherightofaccesstoajudicialbodycannotbewaived


45

termthatpurportstoexcludeorlimitanindividual’srighttoaccessacourtshallbeunenforceable.

3.2.2. Access to non-judicial procedures

BoththeCJEUandtheECtHRacceptthevalidityofnon-judicialdisputemechanismssolongasthedecisionsofsuchbodiesmayultimatelybesupervisedbyajudicialbody(whichitselfconformstotherequirementsofArticle6ECHR),andsolongasthealternativemechanismsthemselvesconformtogeneralrequirementsoffairness.177ThesecriteriaoffairnessarenotasrigorousasthoseapplyingtojudicialproceedingsunderArticle6ECHR.Thecase-lawincludesthefollowingstipulationsconcerningnon-judicialproceedings:theindependenceandlackofbiasofthebodyorofficialinquestion,theabilityoftheapplicanttopresentandcontestevidence,andtheabilityofthatbodytotakealegallybindingdecision.178

AsreflectedinFigure7,in14EUMemberStates,victimsofdiscriminationhaveapossibilitytoaccessnon-judicialproceduresinordertoobtainredress.179Theadvantagesoftheseproceduresarethattheyareusuallyfreeofcharge,simplerandmoreaccessible

177ECtHR,Peck v. the United Kingdom,No.44647/98,28 January 2003,paragraph 109.

178SeeforexampleCJEU,Evans,C-63/01,4December2003,paragraphs 48-58;ECtHR,Silver v. the United Kingdom,No. 5947/72,25March1983,paragraph 116;ECtHR,Campbell and Fell v. United Kingdom,Nos.7819/77and7878/77,28June1984,paragraph 126.

179Itshouldbenotedthatthisfigurecoversonlythoseequalityorothernon-judicialbodieswhichhavepowertoinvestigatesuspectedactsofunlawfuldiscriminationand,atthesametime,arecompetenttoresolvecomplaintsbetweenprivateindividual,havepowertodeliverlegallybindingdecisionsandimposesanctions.InthisrespectseealsoFRA(2010)National Human Rights Institutions in the EU Member States,Luxembourg:PublicationsOffice,Thereportaddressestheissueofdataprotectionauthorities,equalitybodies,andnationalhumanrightsinstitutions,whichconstituteacornerstoneinthefundamentalrightsarchitectureintheEU.

tovictimsofdiscriminationthancourts.Non-judicialproceduresareusuallyseenascomplementarytootherlegalremediesandaregenerallysubjecttojudicialsupervision.

Mediation

Asnotedabove,theRacialEqualityDirective,GenderGoodsandServicesDirective,GenderEqualityDirectiveandEmploymentEqualityDirectiveallowtheMemberStatestoprovidearemedyforbreachofnon-discriminationlawnotonlythroughthecourts,butalsothroughconciliationormediation.Mediationhastheadvantageofavoidingthelegalcostsanddelaysassociatedwithjudicialproceedingsaswellastheconflictandpolarisationthatmayariseduringdisputesettlementmechanismsingeneral.However,itisalsoessentialthatthesettlementsachievedreflecttheoutcomesavailablethroughregulardisputesettlementchannelsandthattheinterestsofthevictimareadequatelyprotected.InsomeMemberStatesitisobligatorytoattemptmediationbeforeproceedingtothetrialphaseofadispute.ForexampleinFrance,PortugalandSpainmediationismandatorypartofcourtproceedings,whileinHungaryandSlovakiatheyaremandatorybutseparatefromcourtproceedings.180Theinvolvementofequalitybodiesmayrangefromdirectlyofferingmediationservices,tosimplyreferringcasestoathirdpartymediator.Whereequalitybodiesaredirectlyinvolvedinmediation,orwheresettlementsreachedmustbeapprovedbytheequalitybody,thismayservetoensurethatthevictims’interestsareadequatelyprotected,soastoensurethattheyreceivean

180Chopin,I.andGounari,E.N.(2009)Developing anti-discrimination law in Europe. The 27 EU Member States compared,reportpreparedfortheEuropeanNetworkofLegalExpertsinthenon-discriminationfield,Luxembourg:PublicationsOffice,p. 58.

Source: FRA, 2010

Figure 7: possibility of accessing non-judicial procedures in Eu Member states

13 14MemberStateswhichprovideforaccesstojudicialauthoritiesonly

MemberStateswhichprovideforaccesstojudicialaswellasnon-judicialauthorities


46

effective,andproportionateremedywhichisalsohasadissuasiveeffectontheperpetrator.181

Quasi-judicial mechanisms

Inthecontextofnon-discriminationlawtheprinciplealternativedisputesettlementmechanismsoperatethroughtheequalitybodiesdesignatedbytheMemberStatesundertheGenderEqualityandRacialEqualityDirectives.WhileMemberStatesarenotobligedtoendowthesebodieswithaquasi-judicialrole,someofthemhavechosentodoso.

Thepowersoftheseinstitutionsarenotidenticalinallcountries.DecisionsoftheBulgarianequalitybody(PADC),theHungarianEqualityAuthorityortheRomanianequalitybody(NCCD)arelegallybindingandwheretheymakeafindingofdiscrimination,theycanorderthatdiscriminatoryactionbeceasedaswellasimposeafine.Inallthesecountries,finesoftheequalitybodyareinpracticethemostlikelysanctionsincasesofdiscrimination.

InRomania,furthermore,thevictimofdiscriminationcanchoosebetweenlodgingacomplaintwiththeNCCDwhichcanissueadministrativesanctions:administrativewarningsandfines,or/andfilingacivilcomplaintbeforethecourtwhichcanawardmoralandpecuniarydamages,orre-establishthestatusquoanteor,nullifythesituationestablishedasaresultofthediscrimination,accordingtocivillaw.Thecourtscanalsodecidethatthepublicauthoritieswillwithdraworsuspendtheofficialrecognitionoflegalpersonsthatcausedsignificantdamageasaresultofdiscriminatoryactionorthatrepeatedlyinfringedtheprovisionsofanti-discriminationlegislation.Thetwoavenuesarenotmutuallyexclusiveandtheplaintiffcanchoosetousethemsimultaneouslyoronlyoneofthem.

InAustriaandtheNetherlands,thedecisionsoftherespectiveEqualTreatmentCommissionsarenotlegallybindingandcannotincludeafineorothersanction.IntheNetherlands,althoughclaimantsmayaskforacourtorderforcompensationorotherformsofsanctionsafteranopinionoftheDutchEqualTreatmentCommission(CGB),mostofthemdonotdoso.182InAustria,thesituationissimilar.

181 SeeFRA(2010)The Racial Equality Directive: application and challenges,Luxembourg:PublicationsOffice.

182TheCGBappliesanactivefollow-uppolicy.Inrelevantcaseswherediscriminationhasbeenestablished,theCGBcommunicateswiththepetitionerandthereferringparty(employer,serviceprovider).Theobjectiveistoascertainthatthereferringpartyappliestheopinionbytakingindividualorstructuralmeasurestoredressthediscrimination.Asdescribedaboveinparagraph[24],the‘successrate’ishigh:inaround70 %ofall(relevant)cases,thereferringpartyappliesmeasures.Incasesrelatingtoracethepercentageisevenhigher:86%.SeeCommissiegelijkebehandeling(2005)Het verschil gemaakt: evaluatie AWGB en werkzaamheden CGB 1999-2004,Utrecht:CGB,pp. 77-84.

ThedecisionoftherespectiveEqualTreatmentCommissionisalegalexpertopinionfocusingonthequestionofwhetherdiscriminationoccurred.Thedecisionthencanbeusedinasubsequentcourtcasetoobtaincompensation,eventhoughthecourtisnotobligedtofollowit.ItappearsthatinpracticeitisnotcommonforcourtcasestobebroughtsubsequentlytotheissuingofadecisionbytheEqualTreatmentCommission.AconsequenceofthisphenomenoninboththeseMemberStatesisthatcompensationawardsconcerningdiscriminationarerelativelyrare.

3.3. summarySection3.1providedacomparativeanalysisofthemainlimitsthathavethepotentialtounderminevictims’rightofaccesstoacourt.Thelimitswereexaminedunderthefollowingheadings:(i)timelimits;(ii)legalstanding;(iii)lengthofproceedings;(iv)legalcosts;(v)proceduralformalitiesandrequirements;and(vi)complexityoflegislation.Asregardstheissueoftimelimits(i.e.statutorylimitationsforbringingaclaim)itismostcommonlyreferredtoin22EUMemberStates,andcomplexityoflegislationisregardedasarestrictiononlyinfiveEUMemberStates.

Section3.2examinedpossiblealternativestocourtproceedingsthatareavailabletovictimsofdiscrimination.Fromwhathasbeenstatedabove,itfollowsthatvictimsofdiscriminationmaydecidetowaive,firstofall,theirrightofaccesstoajudicialbodythrough,forinstance,anarbitrationclauseinacontractoranagreementofafriendlysettlement,solongastherearenoelementsofcoercion(insevenEUMemberStates).Secondly,inmanyEUMemberStates(13),itislikewiseopentothevictimstoinitiateproceedingsbeforeanon-judicial(equality)body.ThepowersofequalitybodiestoissuelegallybindingdecisionsimposefinesorinitiatecourtproceedingsarenotidenticalinallMemberStates.Ingeneral,non-judicialremediesmaybeconsideredtoformpartoftherightofaccesstojusticeinsofarasthesecontributetotheexistenceofaneffectiveremedy.Nonetheless,theirroleisseenascomplementaryinthattherighttoafairtrialwillnotbedeemedsatisfiedunlessthenon-judicialmechanismcanbesubjecttoreviewbyajudicialbody.

47

Article47CFRstatesthat“legalaidshallbemadeavailabletothosewholacksufficientresourcesinsofarassuchaidisnecessarytoensureeffectiveaccesstojustice.”Thus,denialoflegalaidmayconstituteaviolationofthefundamentalrightofaccessingjusticeifthelackoflegalaidmaylead,forexample,toaninequalityofarms,whichwouldcreateasubstantialdisadvantagefortheindividual.

Initscaselaw,theECtHRnotedthatthestatemust“displaydiligencesoastosecuretothosepersonsthegenuineandeffectiveenjoymentoftherightsguaranteedunderArticle6”.183InthecaseofMiroslaw Orzechowski v. PolandtheECtHRfoundthatthedecisiontorefuselegalaid“infringedtheveryessence”oftheapplicants’righttoaccessthecourts.

LegalAidDirective

TheLegalAidDirectiveaimstoimprovecross-borderaccesstojusticewithintheEU.184Thedirectiveestablishestheprinciplethatpersonswhodonothavesufficientresourcestodefendtheirrightsinlawareentitledtoreceiveappropriatelegalaid.Itlaysdowntheservicesthatmustbeprovidedforthelegalaidtobeconsideredappropriate:accesstopre-litigationadvice,legalassistanceandrepresentationincourtandexemptionfrom,orassistancewith,thecostofproceedings,includingthecostsconnectedwiththecross-bordernatureofthecase.

183ECtHR,Miroslaw Orzechowski v. Poland,No.13526/07,13 January 2009,paragraph20.

184EuropeanUnion,theCouncilDirective2002/8/ECwasadoptedinordertoestablishminimumstandardsensuringanadequateleveloflegalaidincross-bordercaseson27January2003(see n. 45above).Forfurtherinformation,see:http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/legal_aid/legal_aid_ec_en.htmandalsothee-Justiceportal,availableat:https://e-justice.europa.eu/home.do?action.Althoughnotcomprehensivefromacomparativepointofview,thiswebsitesareavaluablesourceofinformationonlegalaidsystemsthatexistinindividualEUMemberStates.

Itbaseditsreasoningonthefactthattheapplicantwasdestitute(therebyqualifyingforawaiverofcourtfees)andthatthenationalcourthadnotjustifieditsrefusal.185Asimilarlyexceptionalcasecanbenoted,wheretheapplicantsweredefendingalong,complicatedcaseandthepossibilityofasubstantialorderofdamagesagainstthemmeantthatlegalaidshouldbeavailable.186Thusitseemsthatwhilethereisnorighttolegalaidincivilproceedings,therewillbecircumstanceswheretheinterestsofaccesstojusticerequirethatitbegranted.187

CouncilofEuropeagreementonlegalaid

FortheCouncilofEurope,theEuropeanAgreementontheTransmissionofApplicationsforLegalAidwasadoptedin1977188undertheaegisoftheCouncilofEurope.AllEUMemberStates,withtheexceptionofGermany,arepartytoit.TheAgreementintroducesaprocedurewhereby,ifanindividualhashisorherhabitualresidenceintheterritoryofoneoftheContractingPartiesandwishestoapplyforlegalaidintheterritoryofanotherContractingParty,heorshemaysubmitanapplicationinthestatewhereheorsheishabituallyresident.Thatstatewilltransmittheapplicationtotheotherstateunlesssuchapplicationappearstobemanifestlynotmadeingoodfaith.

185Ibid.,paragraphs21-22.186ECtHR,Steel & Morris v. the United Kingdom,No.68416/01,

15 February2005.187However,theStrasbourgjurisprudencehasacceptedcertain

limitationstothedistributionoflegalaidasproportionateinpursuingthelegitimateaimofensuringthatpublicfundsareusedappropriately.First,thatitisreasonabletoimposeconditionsontheavailabilityoflegalaiddependingonthefinancialsituationofthelitigant.Secondly,itwasacknowledgedthattheprospectsofsuccessofthelitigationcanbetakenintoaccountwhenthecaseisbroughtbeforeacourt.See,forinstance,ECtHR,Airey v. Ireland(n.16),orECtHR,Munro v. the United Kingdom,No.10594/83,14July1987.

188Forfurtherinformationseewww.conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/092.htm.

4 Legal aid at national level


48

Legalaid–mentalhealthproblems

Theapplicant,whoexperiencedmentalhealthproblems,wasinvolvedincivilproceedings.Eventhoughtheapplicantrepeatedlyreferredtolowincomeandlackoflegalexpertiseandrequestedlegalassistancebeforetwocourtinstances,thiswasrejectedsincethelawatthistimedidnotprovidefreelegalaidincivilproceedings.TheapplicantlostthecaseinnationalcourtsandlodgedanapplicationwiththeECtHR.

Giventheimportanceoftheoutcomeofthecase,aswellasthecomplexityoftheprocedures,theprincipleoftheequalityofarms,andthementalhealthproblemsoftheapplicant,theECtHRconcludedthatlegalaidwasrequiredandconsequentlyfoundaviolationofArticle6(1).

(ECtHR,Nenov v. Bulgaria,No.33738/02,16 July 2009)

Legalaid–effectiverepresentation

Theapplicantsintwocasesclaimedthatthelawyersappointedunderthelegalaidschemefailedtotakethenecessarystepstorepresenttheirinterestseffectively.AccordingtotheCodeofCivilProcedurelegalrepresentationwasmandatoryincaseofacassationappealtotheSupremeCourtagainstajudgmentoftheappellatecourt.Theappointedlawyersrefusedtolodgeacassationappealarguingthattherewasnoprospectofsuccess.However,theapplicantswereinformedabouttherefusalleavinginsufficienttimebeforethedeadlineforlodgingtheappeal,makinganalternativeimpossible.

Themererefusalofalegal-aidlawyertoprepareacassationappealdoesnotconstituteasufficientgroundforanewlawyertobeautomaticallyassignedtothecaseunderthelegal-aidscheme.However,refusalofalegal-aidlawyertoprepareandlodgeacassationappealshouldmeetcertainqualityrequirements,includingawrittenformatandwithinareasonabletime.

TheECtHRfoundaviolationofArticle6ECHR.Asaresultofthejudgment,PolishBarAssociationandtheNationalBarofLegalAdvisorsintroducednewethicalrequirementsforlawyerspreparingcassationappeals.

(ECtHR,Staroszczyk v. Poland,No.59519/00,Siałkowska v. Poland,No.8932/05and59519/00,22March2007)

AllEUMemberStateshaveestablishedsomekindoflegalaidsystemsinordertoensureeffectiveaccesstojusticeforindividualsregardlessofincomeandwealth.Theresearchforthisreportdealtwithaseriesofissuesrelatingtothenatureandscopeoflegalaidavailableandtheconditionsforentitlement.Theoverviewofthefindingsisprovidedintwoseparatesectionsbelow.Inaddition,researchfromsomeMemberStatesshowedvariousschemesthatcomplementthestateaidsystems;thisissuewillbetoucheduponinsection4.3below.

Legalaidinitiativesatinternationallevel

Attheinternationallevel,theConventiononInternationalAccesstoJusticeof1980alsomakesprovisionsforthetransmissionofapplicationsforlegalaidbetweentheContractingPartiesintheformofacommonlyagreedmodel.189ThisConventionrequiresthatnationalsandresidentsoftheContractingPartiesbegrantedlegalaidinotherContractingStatesunderthesameconditionsasiftheyresidedthere.TheConventionlikewiseestablishestheentitlementofallsuchpersons,whenpursuingtheirproceedingsinanyotherContractingStates,tofreeserviceofdocuments,lettersofrequestandsocialenquiryreports,andtolegalaidtosecuretherecognitionandenforcementofthedecisionobtained.190ThepresentscopeoftheConventionremainsratherlimitedasithassofarbeenratifiedonlyby19EUMemberStates191and,assuch,doesnotguaranteereal‘universal’accesstojusticeattheinternationallevel.192

189Forfurtherinformation,seewww.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.text&cid=91.

190Forfurtherdetailsontheseandotherprovisions,seewww.hcch.net/upload/outline29e.pdf.

191 ThefollowingEUMemberStatesratifiedthisConvention:Bulgaria,Cyprus,theCzechRepublic,Estonia,Finland,France,Germany,Greece,Italy,Latvia,Lithuania,Luxembourg,theNetherlands,Poland,Romania,Slovakia,Slovenia,SpainandSweden.Fortheofficialchartofsignaturesandratifications,see:www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.status&cid=91.

192In2008,thePermanentBureauoftheHagueConferenceonPrivateInternationalLawdrewupaQuestionnaireaimedatevaluatingthepracticaloperationoftheHagueConventionof25October1980onInternationalAccesstoJustice;acomparativesynthesisandanalysisoftheresponsesreceivedisavailableat:www.hcch.e-vision.nl/upload/wop/2008pd15e.pdf.

Legalaidatnationallevel

49

4.1. nature and scope of legal aid

Essentially,therearetwocomplementaryformsoflegalaid:193(i)exemptionfromorassistancewithallorpartofthecourtfees;and/or(ii)assistanceofalawyerwhoprovidespre-litigationadvice194andrepresentsanindividualincourteitherfreeorforasubsidisedfee.Figure8summarisesthestudies’findingswithrespecttothequestionwhetherthereislegalaidavailabletoindividualswholacksufficientfundsinMemberStatesandwhatformssuchlegalaidmaytake.195

AsshowninFigure8,themajorityofMemberStates(20)provideindividualswithbothformsoflegalaid:legalrepresentationandassistancewithcourtcosts(fees).196InsixMemberStates,legalaidtakestheformoffreelegalrepresentation.197

Regardingtheextenttowhichlegalaidcanbemadeavailable,thelegalaidsystemsofmostMemberStatesarebasedonstate‘contributions’asopposedto‘statepaysall’funding.Incaseof

193Thetermlegalaidisusedtoencompassboththeconceptoffreelegalrepresentationaswellasassistancewithcourtcosts(fees).

194NotethatnotallMemberStateshavethesystemenablingthelegalassistancetobeprovidedalreadyatpre-trialstage(suchasapre-litigationadvice).

195Thecasesinwhichfinancialassistancewasprovidedonlyinordertocoverthecostsoflegalrepresentationwereclassifiedundertheheading“legalrepresentationonly”.Thecasesinwhichfinancialassistancewasprovidedinordertocoverthecostsoflegalrepresentationaswellasassistwithcourtcosts(fees),wereclassifiedundertheheading“bothlegalrepresentationandassistancewithcourtcosts(fees)”.

196InDenmark,forinstance,apracticalproblemseemstobethatitisofteneasiertogetfreelegalaidinthelargercitiesthaninthesmallerones.

197ItshouldbenotedthatintheUnitedKingdomlegalrepresentationisavailableonlyinalimitednumberofcasesintheCountyCourts(first-instancecourtswithciviljurisdiction),butnotinsmallclaims(upto€5,814(thatis£5,000–exchangerateasofSeptember2010)).Inaddition,legalrepresentationisnotprovidedintheEmploymentTribunals,whichareindependentjudicialbodieswhichdeterminedisputesbetweenemployersandemployeesoveremploymentissuesincludingunfairdismissal,redundancypaymentsanddiscrimination(butherelabourunionsarelikelytoassist).

theformer,applicantsarerequiredtocontributetowardscostsandtheamountofsuchcontributionusuallydependsontheindividual’sincome.Insomecountries,suchasIreland,thelawprovidesforanobligatoryminimumwhichanindividualalwayshastopayinordertobeprovidedwithlegaladvice.198

Finally,inmostMemberStates,thefactthatlegalaidhasbeenprovideddoesnotremovetheconsiderableriskofbeingobligedtopaythelitigationcostsoftheopposingpartyincaseoflosingthecase.199

ThelegalaidsystemsofEUMemberStatesworkinavarietyofways.InLithuania,legalaidisdividedinto‘primary’and‘secondary’legalaid.Primarylegalaidreferstotheprovisionoflegalinformation,legaladviceanddraftingofthedocumentstobesubmittedtostateandmunicipalauthorities,withtheexceptionofproceduraldocuments.Thislegalaidalsocoversadviceontheout-of-courtsettlementofadispute,actionsfortheamicablesettlementofadisputeanddraftingofasettlementagreement.Secondarylegalaidincludesdraftingofdocuments,defenceandrepresentationincourt,includingtheprocessofexecution,representationintheeventofpreliminaryextrajudicialconsiderationofadispute,wheresuchaprocedurehasbeenlaiddownbylawsorbyacourtdecision.Thislegalaidshallalsocoverthelitigationcostsincurredincivilproceedings,thecostsincurredinadministrativeproceedingsandthecostsrelatedtothehearingofacivilactionbroughtinacriminalcase.Thestateguaranteesandcovers100%ofthecostsofprimarylegalaid.Thecostsofsecondarylegalaidprovidedtothepersonsbytakingaccountofaperson’spropertyandincome.200

198Inthisrespect,itisalsointerestingtonotethataccordingtotheprovisionsinAustriaifthepersonconcernedacquiressufficientfinancialmeansduringthefirstthreeyearsafterbeingprovidedwiththelegalaid,heorshehastopaybackthelegalaidgranted.

199Formoredetailonhowthiscanbemitigatedthroughjudicialdiscretionarypowers,seesection5.3onrulesrelatingtothepaymentoflegalcosts.

200Theso-called“meanstest”asexplainedinsection4.2Eligibilityoflegalaid.

1

6 21

720

26Assistancewithlegalcostsonly

Legalrepresentationonly

Bothlegalrepresentationandassistancewithlegalcosts

Figure 8: Availability of legal aid in Eu Member states

MemberStatesinwhichtherelevantformofaidexistsMemberStatesinwhichtherelevantformofaiddoesnotexist

Source: FRA, 2010


50

Asforthepre-trialaid,theexampleofBelgiumcanbetaken,whereineveryjudicialdistrict(arrondissement)thereisaspecialCommissionforLegalAid(Commissie voor Juridische Bijstand – Commission d’Aide Juridique).Itiscomposedofrepresentativesofthelocalbarandofthepubliccentresforsocialwelfare.Itsmaintasksaretoprovidepracticalinformation(e.g.admissionrequirementsforlegalaid)andjudicialinformationorpreliminarylegaladvice.

IntheNetherlands,anti-discriminationagencies(ADAs)werelocallyfundedbymunicipalitiesforactivitiesrelatedtosupportofvictimsandawarenessraising.Theywerefirstestablishedinthe1980sanddevelopedovertheyearsintoprofessionalorganisationstrainedincounsellingvictimsofdiscriminationonallgrounds.Inadditiontotheirlocalpresenceadedicatedhotlineassistsvictimstolodgecomplaints,whichareregisteredinanationaldatabase.ExperienceshowedovertheyearsthatmanycaseswereresolvedlocallythroughADAswithoutrecoursetolegalproceedings.AftertheadoptionoftheActonthemunicipalanti-discriminationfacilitiesin2009,allcitizensintheNetherlandshaveaccesstoalocallypresentprofessionallyrunanti-discriminationagencywheretheycanreceivesupportandassistanceincasesrelatingtodiscrimination.Comparedtothepastsystemthereisnownationwidecoverageofthesefacilities.Thetypeofparalegalaidofferedtovictimsofdiscriminationmeansthatpeoplereceiveinformationabouttheirposition,receiveadviceabouthowtoaddresstheirspecificsituationandreceiveassistanceincaseswhereajudicialprocedureisthebestsolution.TheroleoftheADAsissuchthattheDutchEqualTreatmentCommissionandcourtswillreceivecasesthatarerelevant.203

203Seewww.binnenlandsbestuur.nl/nieuws/2009/01/sukkelende-aanpak-discriminatie.106816.lynkx.

Specificnationallegalaidmechanisms

InordertoensureaccessofRomatofreelegalaidinHungary,theMinistryofJusticeandLawEnforcementhasbeenoperatingtheRomaAnti-diszkriminációsÜgyfélszolgálatiHálózat(IRM-RAÜH)[RomaAntidiscriminationNetworkService]since2001.ThelawyersparticipatingintheNetworkprovidefreelegalaid(providinglegaladvice,draftinglegaldocuments,initiatinglawsuitsandrepresentationincourt)specificallyincaseswhereclients’rightswereinfringedbecauseoftheirRomaorigin.TheMinistryensuresthefinancialresourcesoftheoperationoftheNetwork(lawyers’fees)andthepotentialcostsofinitiatinglawsuits.TheNetworkiscontinuouslyexpanding:theinitialnumberofattorneyswas23in2001,27in2003and30in2005.Currentlyclientsmayreceivelegalassistancein44offices,andtherearemoreattorneysinthoseregionswhereRomaareoverrepresented.AvailableinformationrelatingtotheoutputoftheNetwork’sactivitieshoweverindicatethatonlyafractionofthecasesrelatetodiscrimination.201Moreover,anasyetunpublishedresearchpapercommissionedbytheMinistryofJusticeandLawEnforcementarguesthatnotonlyarethelawyermembersoftheNetworkinneedofclearguidelines,methodologyandtraining,butthattheNetworkitselfisinneedofbeingconnectedtootherbranchesofrightsprotection,notablytheEqualTreatmentAuthority(i.e.theHungarianequalitybody).202

201Between15October2001and31July2005networklawyersprovidedassistancein4908cases,outofwhich328revealeddiscrimination(mainlyinrelationtohousing,education,executionofsentencesandpersonalcivilrightsclaims),availableat:www.irm.gov.hu/index.php?mi=2&katid=2&id=103&cikkid=2839(09.03.2009).

202LászlóPap,A.(2008)ARomaanti-diszkriminációsügyfélszolgálatihálózatszerepeajogvédelemben[TheRoleoftheRomaAntidiscriminationNetworkServiceinRightsProtection],unpublishedresearchpaper.


51

4.2. Eligibility for legal aidOnthebasisoftheanalysisofresearchfindingsfromthe27EUMemberStates,itcanbeconcludedthattherearetwomajorapproachestothequestionofanindividual’seligibilityforlegalaidacrosstheUnion.Inordertodecidewhetherornottoawardlegalaid,Statestypicallyapplyoneofthefollowingtests:

• ‘meanstest’(includingpropertyandfamilysituation);

• ‘meansandmeritstest’.

Whileapplyingoneofthesetests,somenationalcourtstakeintoaccountadditionalcriteria,suchasthe importanceofthecase,theamountofcompensationatissue,ortheavailabilityofhomeinsurancecoverage.

AsFigure9shows,somejurisdictionsonlyapplyincometests,excludingmerits,namelythefollowing18countries:Belgium,Cyprus,theCzechRepublic,Estonia,Finland,France,Greece,Germany,Hungary,Italy,Latvia,Lithuania,Luxembourg,Poland,Portugal,Romania,SpainandSlovakia.Aspecificformof

Means test

Means and merits test

Either of the tests plus additional criteria

Figure 9: Eligibility tests for legal aid in Eu Member states

Source: FRA, 2010


52

incomequestionnairewasintroducedasafirststeptomakingtheprocessofreceivingafeeswaiverandexofficiolawyermoreobjectiveinPoland,forexample.Apartfromlookingattheperson’sincome,themajorityofthesecountriesexaminepropertystatusandfamilysituation(suchasthenumberofdependantfamilymembers)oftheindividual.

Conditionsgettougherwhena‘meanstest’isappliedinconjunctionwitha‘meritstest’,whichassessesthelegalmerits204ofthecaseanditslikelyoutcome.205Figure9indicatesthatthecountriesthattakebothincomeandmeritsissuesintoaccountwhendetermininglegalaideligibilityincludeAustria,Ireland,Malta,206andtheUnitedKingdom.

Finally,asshowninFigure9,whileusingoneofthetwotests,someMemberStateslookatadditionalcriteriawhendecidingwhetherornottoawardlegalaid.IntheNetherlandsandSlovenia,forinstance,theimportanceofthecaseandtheamountindisputeplayaroleinassessingwhetheranindividualisentitledtolegalaid.InBulgaria,theindividual’seligibilityisassessednotonlyinlightofincomelevel,butalso,forexample,healthcarecoverage,employmentstatus,andage.AnotherexampleisDenmark,whereapplyingforfreelegalaidissecondarytolegalexpensesinsurance.Ifanindividualhassuchinsuranceanditcoverstheconcretecaseitisnotpossibletograntanexemptionfromcourtfeesorappointalawyertorepresenttheindividualintheproceedings.AsimilarmechanismexistsinSweden.

NotwithstandingthewayinwhichindividualMemberStatesapproacheligibilityforlegalaid,itseemsthatmostcountriestargetlegalaidtowardsthepoorersectionofthepopulation.

204Inordertoassesslegalmeritsofthecase,onemustexaminewhethertheapplicanthasreasonablegroundsfortakingordefendingproceedingsbeforethecourts.

205Thereasoningbehindthisapproachis,ofcourse,tokeepabalancebetweenareasonableextenttowhichanindividualcanaccessthecourtsandcourts’workload.

206Inaddition,inMalta,theapplicantseekinglegalaidmusttakeanoathconfirminghis/hermeans.

Equalityofarmsandlegalaid

TheapplicantswereassociatedwithLondonGreenpeace.Theyproducedanddistributedaleafletcalled‘What’swrongwithMcDonald’s?’.McDonaldsissuedawritagainstthemforlibelandtheapplicantscontestedtheclaim.Theapplicantswererefusedlegalaid,whichwasnotavailablefordefamationproceedings.Damageswereawardedagainstthem,and,althoughthesewerereducedonappeal,theyremainedsubstantialwhencomparedtotheirincomesandresources.

Itwascentraltotheconceptofafairtrialthatalitigantshouldnotbedeniedtheopportunitytopresenthisorhercaseeffectivelyandshouldenjoyequalityofarmswiththeopposingside.ItwasfoundthatthedisparitybetweenthelevelsoflegalassistanceenjoyedbytheapplicantsandMcDonaldshadbeensogreatthatitmusthavegivenrisetounfairness.Inthesecircumstances,thelackofavailabilityoflegalaidforindigentlitigantswasaviolationoftherighttoeffectiveaccesstoacourtandtheECtHRfoundaviolationofArticle6(1)ECHR.

(ECtHR,Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom,No.68416/01,15February2005)


53

Legalaid,theInter-Americanhumanrightssystem,andvulnerablegroups

TheInter-Americansystemfortheprotectionofhumanrightshascriticisedcasesofsystematicexclusionofparticularlyvulnerablesectorsofsocietyfromaccesstojustice.Inparticular,ithasstressedtheobligationofthestatetoprovidefreelegalservicesandtostrengthencommunitymechanismsforthispurpose,inordertoenablethesegroupstoaccessjudicialbodies.Itheldalsothatthosesectorsmayneedmoreinformationabouttheresourcesavailabletothemwithinthejusticesystemandabouttheirrights.

4.3. complementary schemesOvertime,usuallybecauseofgapsinstate-fundedlegalaidsystemsandlimitedpublicresources,complementingschemeshavebeguntoemerge.Theseincludelegalexpensesinsurance,legaladvicecentres,probonowork(free-of-chargeservicesby,forexample,lawfirms)andself-helpservices.

InSwedenandDenmark,legalclaimsareprimarilyfinancedbytheprivatesectorthroughthemediumoflegalexpensesinsurance.Infact,itseemsthatakindof‘subsidiarity’principleexistsbetweensuchinsuranceandlegalaid.Theruleisthatwhereindividualshavelegalexpensesinsurance,theywillnotnormallybeentitledtofreelegalaidandwillhavetousetheirinsurance.

InmanyMemberStates,avarietyofNGOsand‘legalaidclinics’arefoundtobedeliveringlegalaidsolutions,supplementingthestatesystem.Theseclinicsoftenspecialiseinadvisingvictimsofdiscrimination.Therearealsovariousspecialisedcentres/bodiesestablishedtoaddresstheabsenceofadequatelegalservicesavailabletodisadvantagedcommunities(e.g.theTravellerCommunityin

Accesstojustice–irregularimmigrant

ABraziliancitizenlivinginPortugalaskedthePublicBodyofSolidarityandWelfare(Instituto Português de Solidariedade e Segurança Social)forlegalaidinacaseinvolvingalabourdispute.TheBodyrefusedtherequestduetothepersonbeinganirregularimmigrant.TheLisbonLabourLawCourtruledthatregardlessofimmigrationstatus,aslongasthepersonwasregisteredforsocialwelfareandpaidtaxes,legalaidshouldbeprovided.TheConstitutionalCourtupheldthedecision.

(PortugueseConstitutionalCourt,17/04,24March2007,availableat:www.tribunalconstitucional.pt/tc/acordaos/20040208.html)

Access to legal aid for all, irrespective of nationality and immigration status

TheSpanishOmbudsmanlodgedanappealwiththeConstitutionalCourtinvokingtheunconstitutionalityofArticle2a)ofAct1/1996onLegalAid.

Article2a)read:“Personalscopeofapplication:[…]Thefollowingpersonsareentitledtofreeofcharge-legalassistance:

a)TheSpanishcitizens,thecitizensofotherEUmemberstatesandthealienslegallyresidingin

Spainwithoutsufficientfinancialmeansinordertotakelegalactions.”

TheOmbudsmanarguedthatthenotion“alienslegallyresiding”violatestherighttoeffectivejudicialprotectionofthealienssincealienspossesstherighttoeffectivejudicialprotectionwhichcomprehendstherighttofreeofcharge–legalassistance.

TheConstitutionalCourtheldthateverypersonregardlessofnationalityisholderoftherighttoeffectivejudicialprotectionsincethisrightemanatesfromtherighttohumandignity.

TheConstitutionalCourtdeclaredthenotionof“aliensresidinglegally”tobeunconstitutional.Asaresult,evenaliensnotlegallyresidinginSpainareentitledtoreceivelegalaid(orrepresentationbyanassignedcounsel)inallproceedingsofalljurisdictionswheretheyareapartyandnotonlywithinpenalorcontentious-administrativeproceedingsregardingtheirexpulsionfromtheSpanishterritoryorrelatingtoasylum.

(Spain, Pleno del Tribunal Constitucional[PlenaryoftheConstitutionalCourt],STC95/2003,appealnumber1555/96,22May2003,availableat:www.tribunalconstitucional.es/es/jurisprudencia/Paginas/Sentencia.aspx?cod=8064)


54

Ireland).207Inaddition,nationallawyersinmanyjurisdictionsofferservicesonapro bono basis.208

Finally,theUnitedKingdomoffersanexampleofaself-helpservicesystemwheretheabsenceoflegalaidforrepresentationinsmallclaimsbeforenationalcourtsseemstobeoverweighedbylessrestrictiveproceduralrules.209Pursuanttotheserules,aggrievedindividualsarenotonlyentitledtorepresentthemselvesbeforethecourtbuttheyare,infact,implicitlyencouragedtodoso.210

LegalaidcentresandNGOs

InIreland,theIrishTravellerMovement,whichisaspecialistlawcentreaimingtoprotectTravellers’humanandlegalrightsbyprovidingaccesstoexpertlegaladvice,toadvancetheirhumanrightsthroughthecourts,toachievepositivechangeintheperceptionoftheTravellercommunity,andtoeducateTravellerorganisationstodealwiththelegalissuesfacingthem.

Variousnon-discriminationNGOsorquasiNGOsofferinglegalandotheradvicetodiscriminationvictimsfreeofchargeexistinotherEUMemberStates,includingAustria,theCzechRepublic,Spain,France,Lithuania,Latvia,Poland,Slovakia,SwedenandtheUnitedKingdom.Insomeofthesecountries(namelytheCzechRepublic,Romania,PolandandSlovakia),theseorganisationscan,inaddition,representtheirclients(victimsofdiscrimination)incourtproceedings.InotherMemberStates,suchastheNetherlands,thestatehasmandatedtheestablishmentofindependentandaccessiblelocalanti-discriminationbureauxacrossthecountry.Theirtaskistoprovideindependentlegalassistanceandsupportoncasesconcerningdiscriminationandtoregisteralldiscriminationcomplaints.

207SeeIrishTravellerMovement,availableat:www.itmtrav.com.208InBulgaria,forexample,mostoftherevieweddiscrimination

caseswereinitiatedandleadbyattorneys-at-lawwhoworkforhumanrightsNGOsandprovideinprinciplepro bonolegalaidtotheapplicants.SeealsoFRA(2009)EU-MIDIS Data in Focus Report 1: The Roma,Luxembourg:PublicationsOffice,availableat:http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/eu-midis/index_en.htm.

209Evenlessrigidproceduralrulesexistwithrespecttotheproceedingsbeforeemploymenttribunalswherenolegalaid(assistance)isavailableeither.

210Notwithstandingtheinformalityinsuchproceedings,thiscaninfactraiseanissueofequality.Indeed,accordingtotheUnitedKingdomresearchfindingsthelackoffree,detailedguidanceontheprocedureandthepreparationrequiredinsuchclaimsunderminesclaimants’abilitytorepresentthemselves.

4.4. summaryAccordingtotheresearchfindingspresentedinthisChapter,somekindoflegalaidsystemcanbesaidtoexistinallEUMemberStatesinthecontextofproceedingsforcasesofdiscrimination.

Section4.1,whichdealtwithaseriesofissuesrelatingtothenatureandscopeoflegalaidavailable,showsthatthemajorityofMemberStates(20)provideindividualswithbothtypesoflegalaid:legalrepresentationandassistancewithcourtfees.

Inthelightofresearchfindingsfromthe27EUMemberStatesincludedinsection4.2,itcanbeconcludedthattherearetwomajorapproachestothequestionofanindividual’seligibilityforlegalaidacrosstheEU:a‘meanstest’approach(includingpropertyandfamilysituation)anda‘meansandmeritstest’approach.Additionalcriteriasuchastheimportanceofthecase,theamountatdispute,ortheavailabilityofinsurancecoverage,mayalsoplayacertainroleinsomeEUMemberStates.

Finally,section4.3examinedcomplementaryschemesthatexistinsomeEUMemberStatesandsuccessfullyfillgapsinthenationallegalaidprovisions.Theseincludelegalexpensesinsurance,legaladvicecentres,probonowork,andself-helpservices.

55

Effectiveaccesstojusticepresupposesthepossibilityforavictimnotonlytobringperpetratorstocourtbutalsotoobtainadequateandpromptreparationforharmsuffered.Providingeffectiverecoursetoanyonewhoallegesthathis/herrightshavebeenviolatedisessentialaswithoutsuchrecourse,thesubstantiverightatissuebecomesempty.Inthecontextofnon-discriminationlawMemberStatesarerequiredtoprovideeffective,proportionateanddissuasiveremedies.211

TheUNHRChasstatedthatwhereastatefailstoguaranteearightundertheICCPR,reparation“generallyentailsappropriatecompensation”.Indeed,theUNHRCseemstoindicatethattherewillbeapresumptionthatcompensationshouldbetreatedastheprimarymeansofaffordingaremedy.212Howeverreparationmayalsotakeotherformssuchas“restitution,rehabilitationandmeasuresofsatisfaction,suchaspublicapologies,publicmemorials,guaranteesofnon-repetitionandchangesinrelevantlawandpractices”.213

TheECtHRhasbeenlessexplicitinthisrespectsinceitsapproachtoremedieshasgenerallybeentofocusonthoseremediesthatitmayofferitselfincasesbeforeit,ratherthanassessingtheadequacyofremediesofferedatthenationallevel.AtageneralleveltheECtHRhasstatedthatwhereastatebreachesitsobligationsitmust“putanendtosuch

211 RacialEqualityDirective,Article15;GenderEqualityDirective(recast),Article25;GenderGoodsandServicesDirective,Article 14;EmploymentEqualityDirective,Article17.

212 SeeforexampleUNHRC,Lnenicka v. Czech Republic, CommunicationNo.1484/2006,9February2009,paragraph 8;UNHRC,Howell v. Jamaica, CommunicationNo.798/1998,20 January 1998,paragraph 8;UNHRC,Zheludkov v. Ukraine, CommunicationNo. 726/1996,20October2002,paragraph 10;UN HRC,Boodoo v. Trinidad and Tobago,Communication No. 721/1996,13June1994,paragraph 8.

213 UNHRC,GeneralComment31(abovenote47),paragraph 16.

breach[…]andmakereparationforitsconsequencesinsuchawayastorestoreasfaraspossiblethesituationexistingbeforethebreach(restitutio in integrum).”214Thus,althoughprovisionforfinancialcompensationshouldnotnecessarilybeconsideredaninherentandpermanentelementoftherighttoaremedyaccordingtotheECtHR,inmanycasesitmaybedifficulttoimaginehowrestitutioncanbemadewithoutit.215IncasesofseriousviolationstheECtHRseemstoassumeimplicitlythattheavailabilityofcompensationatnationallevelisrequiredasaminimum,andthatthisshouldbesupplementedwithothermeasuressuchastheconductofaninvestigationoracriminalprosecution.216

TheCJEUhasgenerallynotstipulatedthatcompensationmustbeavailableaspartofanindividual’srighttoeffectivejudicialprotection.InthissenseitcanbenotedthatsecondaryEUlegislation,suchasArticle15oftheRacialEqualityDirective,statesthatsanctionsforbreachesoftheprohibitionondiscrimination‘mayinclude’thepaymentofcompensation.Nevertheless,theCJEUdoesseemtohaveestablishedastrongpresumptionthatcompensationshouldbeavailableforvindicatedindividualsinordertorestore“asituationofequality”unlesstherewassomeothermeansavailabletodoso,suchasreappointinganindividualinthecaseof

214ECtHR,Mentes v. Turkeyi,No.23186/94,25July1998,paragraph 24.215 InapplyingthisapproachtheUNHRChasstatedthatincasesof

deprivationofpropertyrestitutionwouldrequirethereturnofthisproperty,andifthiswerenotpossiblethencompensationshouldbeoffered.SeeUNHRC,Persa v. Czech Republic, CommunicationNo. 1479/2006,24March2009,paragraph 9;UN HRC,De Fours v. Czech Republic, CommunicationNo.747/1997,21November 1996,paragraph 9.2;UNHRC,Brok v. Czech Republic, CommunicationNo. 774/1997,23December1996,paragraph 9.

216ECtHR,Zubayrayev v. Russia,No.67796/01,10January2008,paragraph 105;ECtHR,Khashiyv and Akayeva v. Russia, No. 57942/00,24February2005,paragraph 183.

5

redress at national level


56

unlawfuldismissal.217Atthesametimetheprincipleof‘equivalence’developedbytheCJEUrequiresthatremediesavailableatthenationallevelforindividualstosecuretheirrightsunderEUlawshouldnotbelessfavourablethanthoseavailableforsimilaractionsinnationallaw.218Thus,wherecompensationisnormallyavailableundersimilarnationalprocedures,itshouldalsobeavailableinthecontextofnon-discriminationlaw.AtthesametimetheCJEUalsorequiresthatremediesshouldbe‘effective’,andithastakenthistoincludearequirementthatadequatecompensationbeavailablewherethisisnecessarytorepairthedamagecausedtoindividualasaresultofbreachesoftheirrightsunderEUlaw.InthissensetheCJEUhasfoundthatceilingsontheamountofcompensationpayablemayrendersucharemedyineffective.219

Thereareseveralissuesthatareexaminedinthesubsequentsectionsinthecontextoftherighttoaneffectiveremedy,namely(i)natureofredress;(ii)leveloffinancialcompensation;(iii)rulesrelatingtothepaymentoflegalcosts;(iv)rulesrelatingtoevidence;and(v)executionoffinaljudgmentsawardingvictimsfinancialcompensationorothertypesofsatisfaction.

5.1. nature of redressIncasesconcerningdiscrimination,redressgenerallyincludesfinancialcompensation.Researchfindingsfromthenationalteamssuggestthatinall27EUMemberStates,anawardoffinancialcompensationistheprincipalmeansofcompensatinganindividualwheretheirrightsarebreachedasaresultofdiscrimination(Figure10).

217CJEU,Marshall v. Southampton and South West Hampshire Area Health Authority II,C-271/91,2August1993,paragraph25.ItappearstobeacceptedbyboththeCJEUandtheECtHRthattheabilitytorequestaninterim,emergencyorpreventivemeasureshouldlikewisebeavailabletoindividualswhereanallegedbreachoftheirrightswillotherwiseresultinirreversibledamage:CJEU,Factortame,C-213/89,19June1990,paragraph 20.CJEU,Köbler v. Austria, C-224/01,30September 2003,paragraph 61; ECtHR,Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, No 1948/04,11 January 2007,paragraph153.ComparethecaseofECtHR,Soering v. the United Kingdom,No.14038/88,7July1989,paragraph123wheretheECHRheldthattheexistenceornotoftheabilitytograntinterimreliefwouldnothaveabearingontheeffectivenessoftheremedyinquestionbecausethecourtsinthe UnitedKingdomwouldnotpermittheextraditionofanindividualwhiletheirclaimwasstillpending.

218CaseC-78/98Preston,[2000]ECRI-3201,paragraph 31.219CaseC-271/91Marshall v. Southampton and South West Hampshire

Area Health Authority II, [1993]ECRI-4367,paragraphs 0-31;CaseC-180/95Draemphael v. Urania,[1997]ECRI-2195.Thesecasessuggestthataprioriceilingsontheamountofdamagespayablewillnotbepermittedwherethesedonotallowthelevelofcompensationtoreflectthatactualdamagedsuffered.However,ceilingsmaybepermittedforthoseclaimswhereitcanbeprovedthattheindividualwouldreceivethesametreatment,evenintheabsenceofdiscrimination.

Thecomparativeanalysissuggeststhatsuchcompensationisavailableforpecuniaryaswellasnon-pecuniarydamagesinthemajorityofEUMemberStates.Theformerisrelatedtotheeconomiclosseswhereasthelatterisawardedinrespectofdistressandinconveniencecausedbybreachesofrights.Itappearsthatwherecompensationisavailableforbothpecuniaryandnon-pecuniarydamage,theemphasisindiscriminationcasesisonnon-pecuniarydamages.220

In19EUMemberStates,thefinancialcompensationissupplementedbyothernon-financialformsofreparation(Figure10).221Themostcommonlynon-financialformsofreparationreferredtobytheEUMemberStatesare:

• requestsforreinstatementtoapreviousposition;

• requestfornullificationofadiscriminatorycontractualclause;

• orderforequaltreatmentoranorderthatspecificactionbetakentorelievetheinjuredparty.

Insomecases,courtscanevenissueordersofamoregeneralnature,goingbeyondthepartiestothecase.Forinstance,inIreland,in58 Named Complainants vs Goode Concrete Ltd,222decidedundertheEmploymentEqualityActsinIreland,therespondentwasorderedtopaycompensationtotheclaimantsand,inaddition,toputinplaceclearproceduresforensuringnon-nationalemployeesareclearastothetermsandconditionsoftheiremploymentandunderstandallsafetydocumentation,toprovidetrainingtomanagementontheprovisionsoftheEmploymentEqualityActsandtomaintainbetterrecordsofdisciplinaryproceedings.Thislatterpartoftheordergoesbeyondtheindividualsinthecase.Thepowerforcourtstoorderperpetrators

220Thereare,however,countries,suchasMalta,wherecompensationisonlyavailableforactualdamagessufferedandthereisnoevidencethatmoraldamagesareconsideredorcompensatedfor.Itshouldbelikewisenotedthatalthoughcompensationfornon-pecuniarydamagesexistinPoland,itisrarelyawardedbycourtsinpractice.

221 Interestingly,inItaly,non-financialformsofsatisfactionaremoreoftenusedbythecourtsasaformofredressforthelosssufferedbyavictimofdiscriminationthanthefinancialcompensation.

222EqualityOfficer’sdecisionNo.DEC-E2008–020, 30April 2008,availableat:www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=139&docID=1770.

Redressatnationallevel

57

totakeactiongoingbeyondtheindividualcaseofthevictimhasnowbeenexpresslyincludedinlegislation.UnderthenewEqualityAct2010,EmploymentTribunalscanmakerecommendationsthatbenefitthewholeworkforce,ratherthanjustapplyingaremedytotheindividualthatbroughttheclaim.Forexampleitcanorderthatanorganisationintroducesorrevisesitsequalopportunitiespolicy,orprovidestrainingforitsmanagers.

InsomeMemberStates,administrativesanctionsarepossibleindiscriminationcases.Onepossibleformofadministrativesanctionconcernspublicprocurement:somebodywhodiscriminatescanbeexcludedfrompublicprocurementand,thus,fromapossiblesourceofbusinessandrevenue(forexample,inFrance,223Italy224andPortugal225).Anotherformofadministrativesanctionconcernsthecancellationsoflicensesandpermits(forexample,inAustria226andPortugal227).Anotherexampleistheofficialrecognitionoflegalpersonality:thiscanbewithdrawnorsuspendedinsomeMemberStatesincaseofdiscrimination(forexample,inRomania).228

223Article225-4oftheFrenchPenalCode.224Article44(11)oftheImmigrationAct,availableat:

www.migpolgroup.com/public/docs/169.2008_Countryreportonmeasurestocombatdiscrimination_Italy_EN.pdf.

225PortugueseDecree-law111/2000226Article87(1)oftheAustrianBusinessRegulation

[“Gewerbeordnung”].227PortugueseDecree-law111/2000.228Article21.5,Romania/OrdonanţaGuvernuluiNo.137/2000privind

prevenireaşicombatereatuturorformelordediscriminare,republishedinFebruary2007[GovernmentOrdinanceNo 137/200regardingthepreventionandcombatingofallformsofdiscrimination].

Differenttypesofredress

InBelgium,theAnti-DiscriminationandAnti-RacismActsprovidefortwotypesofcompensation.Firstofall,thevictimcanclaimanamountfixedbylaw.Thisamountisintheorderof€650to€1,300.Secondly,hecanclaimcompensationfortheactualdamage.Inthiscase,however,thevictimneedstoprovetheextentofthedamage.

InPoland,itisquitecommontoclaim–asawayofcompensation–paymentofasumtobededicatedtoaparticularindicatedsocialpurpose,suchasadonationtoanNGO.Thismechanismhasmanypositivefunctions.First,itprovidessomeNGOswithadditionalfunds.Second,ifjudgmentisgiveninhigh-profilecase,itpromotesactivityoftheNGOstowhichthemoneyispaid.Third,itmaypromotethevalue-orientedapproachoftheclaimant,whomayshowthathe/sheisnotinterestedinbenefitinghimself/herselfbutissuingforthesakeofpublicinterestorhonour.

AspecificarrangementfordealingwithfinancialcompensationincaseswheretheproceedingshavebeeninitiatedbyinterestgroupswascreatedbytheActontheCollectiveSettlementofMassLosses2005(Wet collectieve afwikkeling massaschade)intheNetherlands.Thisactallowsforcompensationfortheindividualmembersofagivengroupwiththepossibilitytooptoutofthecollectivesettlement.

Source: FRA, 2010

Figure 10: nature of redress in Eu Member states

19

8Financialcompensationonly

Financialcompensationandnon-financialformsofsatisfaction


58

Thereare,finally,twoEUMemberStates,whosenationalordersallowforpunitivedamages–ineffect,damagesthatgobeyondcompensationforactuallossorharmsuffered–tobeawarded(Figure 11).229Punitivedamages(‘exemplary’damagesintheUnitedKingdom)aredamagesintendedtodeterthedefendantandothersfromengaginginconductsimilartothatwhichformedthebasisofthelawsuit.IntheUnitedKingdom,courtsandtribunalsmayawardpunitivedamagesifthecompensationthatwouldotherwisebeawardedwouldbeinadequatetopunishtheguiltyparty.ThesameisthecaseforCyprus,althoughthenationalcourtstendtoawardpunitivedamagesonlyoccasionally.

5.2. Level of financial compensation

TheCJEUandECtHRhavesetoutcertainprinciplesrelativetothecalculationofcompensation,inthatitshouldbeproportionatetothedamagesuffered.230InthissensetheCJEUhasspecifiedthatforcompensationtobeconsidered“adequate”it“mustenablethelossanddamageactuallysustained[...]tobemadegoodinfullaccordingwiththe

229Hungarianlawdoesnotprovidefortheawardofpunitivedamages;yet,aso-called“finetobeusedforpublicpurposes”maybeimposedbythecourtiftheamountofthedamages(pecuniaryornon-pecuniary)thatcanbeimposedisinsufficienttomitigatethegravityoftheactionableconduct.Thisfineishoweverrarelyappliedandispayabletothestateandnotthe victim.

230CJEU,Von Colson and Kamman v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, Case 14/83,10April1984,paragraph28;ECtHR,Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, No.18139/91, 13 July 1995,paragraph50;ECtHR,Independent News and Media and Independent Newspapers Ireland Limited v. Ireland,No.55120/00,16June2005,paragraph 112;ECtHR,Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom,No. 68416/01,15February2005,paragraph92;ECtHR, Shilyayev v. Russia, No. 9647/02,6October2005,paragraphs20-21.

applicablenationalrules”.231Furthermore,theCJEUunderlinedthatcompensationshouldnotbelimiteda prioribyaceilinginnationallawandthepaymentofinterestshouldbeaddedtofinancialawardstoreflectchangesinthevalueofanawardfromthedateofthebreachtothedateofpayment.232Bywayofexceptiontothis,certainfinancialawardswillnotincurinterestwheretheawardcannotberightlyseenaspaymentofcompensation(suchasaclaimforarrearsofbenefits).233Furthermore,aceilingonthepaymentofcompensationwillbepermissibleifitcanbeshownthatthedamagesufferedbytheapplicantislimitedbyobjectivefactors(forinstance,iftheindividualhasbeendiscriminatedagainstinanapplicationforemployment,butitcanbeshownthattheywouldnothavebeenofferedtheposteveniftherehadbeennodiscrimination).234

TheFRAresearchshowsthatthequestionoftheamountoffinancialcompensationcommonlyawardedbydomesticcourtsdependsheavilyonthenationalcontext.Suchamountswilltosomeextentberelativetothenationalstandardoflivingandalsoforthisreasonitdiffersfromstatetostate.Figure12indicatesthehighestrecordedamountsawardedindiscriminationcasesindifferentEUMemberStates.235Furthermore,therelevantnationalrulesinFinland,GermanyandIrelandprovideforaspecificceilingonthepaymentofcompensation.

231 CJEU,MarshallII, C-271/91,2August1993, paragraph25.232Idem.,paragraphs 30-31.Thishasalsobeentheapproachofthe

ECSR.SeeECSR,‘Conclusions2006(Albania)’,at:www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/socialcharter/Conclusions/State/Albania2006_en.pdf.

233CJEU,R v. Secretary of State for Social Security, ex parte Eunice Sutton,C-66/95,22April1997.

234CJEU,Draemphael v. Urania, C-180/95,22April1997.235ItshouldbenotedthatsevenEUMemberStatesdidnotprovide

relevantdataontheamountofcompensationawardedinnon-discriminationcases.

Source: FRA, 2010

Figure 11: Availability of punitive damages in Eu Member states

25

2

MemberStateswherepunitivedamagesareavailable

MemberStateswherenopunitivedamagesareavailable


59

AveragecompensationinemploymentdiscriminationcasesintheUnitedKingdomin2007-2008,byground(€)

Race 17,000

Sex 13,000

Disability 23,000

Religionorbelief 4,000

Sexualorientation 9,000

Age 4,000

Average 12,000

(UK/TribunalsService(2008)EmploymentTribunalandEATStatistics(GB)1April2007to31 March 2008(in€,exchangerateasofSeptember2010).Seewww.employmenttribunals.gov.uk)

5.3. payment of legal costsNationalrulesplacinganexcessivefinancialburdenonindividualswhowishtoobtainredressforaviolationoftheirrightsunderEUlaw,andmaydeterthemfrompursuingtheirrights,mightbeconsideredtointerferewiththerighttoaneffectiveremedy.TheUNHRChasstatedthat“theimpositionoffeesonthepartiestoproceedingsthatwouldde factopreventtheiraccesstojusticemightgiverisetoissuesunderArticle14,paragraph1.Inparticular,arigiddutyunderlawtoawardcoststoawinningpartywithoutconsiderationoftheimplicationsthereoforwithoutprovidinglegalaidmayhaveadeterrenteffectontheabilityofpersonstopursuethevindicationoftheirrightsundertheCovenantinproceedingsavailabletothem.”236Similarly,theECtHRhasnotedthatcourtfeesthatarepayableinadvanceofinstitutingproceedingsshouldnotprovesuchafinancialburdenastopreventordeterapplicantsfromexercisingtheirrighttoaremedy.237However,theimpositionofhighfeesorhighlegalcostswillnotalwaysresultinafindingofaviolationoftherighttoafair

236UNHumanRightsCommittee,GeneralCommentNo.32 (n. 7),paragraph11;UNHRC,Äärelä and Näkkäläjärvi v. Finland, CommunicationNo.779/1997,4November1997,paragraph7.2.

237ECtHR,Scordino v. Italy,No.36813/97,29March2006,paragraph 201.Inthiscontext,seealsoECtHR,Perdigão v. Portugal,No. 24768/06,16November2010,inwhichitwasheldbytheECtHRGrandChamberthatforcingtheapplicanttopaycourtfeesthatwerehigherthanthecompensationawardedbreachedArticle1ofProtocolNo.1totheECHR.

Figure 12: Level of compensation: the highest recorded amounts in Eu Member states (€)

1

2

1

2

1

1

3

3

4

1

1

7

morethan90,000

upto43,000

upto22,000

upto17,000

upto12,000

upto7,500

upto5,500

upto3,000

upto2,000

upto1,000

upto600

Nodataavailable

NumberofMemberStates

Source: FRA, 2010


60

Loser pays legal costs

Each party pays their own costs

Figure 13: rules regarding payment of legal costs, by Eu Member state

Source: FRA, 2010

trial(Article6ECHR)astheoverallassessmentwilldependonthespecificcircumstancesofthecase.238

Figure13showsthatinthenon-discriminationproceedings,nationalcourtsof22EUMemberStates

238ThusinthecaseofECtHRTolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom,No.18139/91,13 July 1995,forexample,therequirementbytheCourtofAppealfortheappellanttopayasubstantialsecuritydepositinrespectofthelegalcostsoftheopposingpartywasnotseenasunreasonableinlightofthefactthatthenationalcourtsdidnotconsidertheappealtobemeritorious.Inthissituationtheopposingpartyriskedincurringhighlegalcostsandtherewasariskthatthesecouldnotthenbepaidbytheappellant.Itwasthusconsideredthattherightsofthetwopartieshadbeenproperlybalanced.

applya‘loserpays’rule.239Thisrule,whichimpliesthatthelosingpartywillpaythewinningparty’scosts,isbelievedtoplayanimportantfunctioninfilteringoutunfoundedcases.Therulethateachpartybearshisorhercourtfeesindependentlyfrom

239Notwithstandingthisgeneralrule,intheUnitedKingdom,thesituationinsmallclaims(withavalueofupto€5,814(thatis£5,000–exchangerateasofSeptember2010)casesismodifiedandthecoststhatalosingpartywillpayhavebeendeliberatelyrestrictedtolimitthefinancialriskfortheparties.Thereisnopresumptionthatthelosingpartywillpaythevictor’scostsintheemploymenttribunaleither.InGermany,ageneralrulethataloserpaysequallydoesnotapplytotheemploymentproceedingsinwhicheachpartypayshisorherowncosts.Suchapproachaimstoencouragevulnerableemployeestoinitiateproceedingswithouttheriskofpayingtheiremployer’scosts.


61

theoutcomeofthelitigationisappliedinfiveEUMemberStates.However,sincearigiddutytoapplysuchruleswithoutconsiderationoftheimplicationsthereofwouldeffectivelylimitaccesstoredressinthesejurisdictions,specificexemptionshavebeenestablishedintheseStates.Thus,inordernottodiscouragevictimsofdiscriminationwithmeritoriousclaims,nationalcourtsinmostoftheEUMemberStatesareempoweredtoderogatefromthedefaultrulesandgrantanexemptionfromtherelevantruleonthebasisoftheprincipleofequityandjusticeinthelightoftheindividual’sfinancialorpersonalsituation.InDenmark,apartywhohasrecklesslyfrustratedjudicialhearings,causedunnecessarydelays,askedforirrelevantproductionofevidenceorotherunnecessaryproceduralstepscanbechargedforthecosts,eventhoughheorshewinsthecase.

Paymentoflegalcosts

Notwithstandingthegeneralrulethattheloserpayslegalcosts,intheunited Kingdom,thesituationin‘smallclaims’cases(withavalueofupto€5,814240)ismodifiedandthecoststhatalosingpartywillpayhavebeendeliberatelyrestrictedtolimitthefinancialriskfortheparties.Thereisnopresumptionthatthelosingpartywillpaythevictor’scostsintheemploymenttribunaleither.

InGermany,ageneralrulethataloserpaysequallydoesnotapplytotheemploymentproceedingsinwhicheachpartypayshisorherowncosts.Suchanapproachaimstoencouragevulnerableemployeestoinitiateproceedingswithouttheriskofpayingtheiremployer’scosts.

Proceduresinspecialnon-judicialcomplaintsmechanismsarenormallyfree,forexampleinAustria(EqualTreatmentCommission),Denmark(BoardofEqualTreatment),theNetherlands(EqualTreatmentCommission(CGB)),inBulgaria(PADC)andinRomania(NCCD).However,whencourtactionisinvolvedthecostoflegalproceedingscanbeabarriertoeffectiveredress.ThisisparticularlythecaseinthoseMemberStates,wherelosingacourtcaseleadstopayingtheotherparty’slegalcosts(seeFigure13).

240Thatis£5,000(exchangerateasofSeptember2010).

5.4. Evidence Inorderforvictimsofdiscriminationtoobtainadequateredressforharmsufferedfromthecourts,theyhavetobringsufficientevidencetoprovediscriminatorytreatment.Iftheobstaclestobringingevidencearesogreatthatanactionbeforecourtsisdoomedtofailure,individuallegalrightsarenotreallyenforceableinpractice.Toaddressthedifficultyofprovingdiscrimination,Europeannon-discriminationlawallowstheburdenofprooftobeshared.241Inaddition,aclaimantmayneedtorelyonstatisticaldatathatprovesgeneralpatternsofdifferentialtreatment.Somenationaljurisdictions,furthermore,acceptevidencegeneratedthrough‘situationtesting’.

5.4.1. the burden of proof

Inthecontextofnon-discriminationlaw,provingdiscriminationisoftendifficult,sincetheperpetratorwillnotnecessarilyexpresslyindicatethattheyaretreatingthevictimlessfavourablythanothersbecausetheypossessaparticularprotectedcharacteristic,suchasageorsex.Suchamotiveoftenonlyexistsinthemindoftheperpetrator.InordertoaddressthisdifficultytheRacialEqualityDirective(Article8),GenderGoodsandServicesDirective(Article9),GenderEqualityDirective(recast)(Article18)andEmploymentEqualityDirective(Article10)expresslyallowtheburdenofprooftobe‘shared’betweentheparties.Accordinglywheretheclaimantisabletoestablishfactsfromwhichitmaybepresumedthattherehasbeendiscrimination,itthenfallstotherespondenttoprovethattherehasbeennobreach.242ThisprovisionarticulatesaprinciplealreadyestablishedinthecaselawoftheCJEUconcerningdiscriminationonthegroundofsex.243Nevertheless,itappearsthatthisrulewasnotinoperationinmanyMemberStatespriortotheintroductionofthesedirectives.AsmallnumberofMemberStatesappearnottohaveexplicitlyincorporatedthisprincipleintotheirrulesofcivilprocedure,orhavenotapplieditduringcourtproceedings.244

241SeeArticle10ofDirective2000/78,theEmploymentFrameworkDirective,OJL303,2 December2000,p. 16.SeealsoECtHR,Gurgurov v. Moldova, No.7045/08,16June2009,paragraph 56.

242ThoughMemberStatesinwhichthecourthasaninvestigatoryrolearenotobligedtoapplytherule.Forin-depthdiscussionofEuropeanstandardsonevidenceinnon-discriminationlawseeECHRandFRA(2011) Handbook on European non-discrimination law,Luxembourg:PublicationsOffice,Chapter5.

243SeeEnderby v. Frenchay Health Authority and Secretary of State for Health,[1993]ECRI - 5535,paragraph 14.

244Chopin,I.andGounari,E.N.(2009)Developing anti-discrimination law in Europe. The 27 EU Member States compared,reportpreparedfortheEuropeanNetworkofLegalExpertsinthenon-discriminationfield,Luxembourg:PublicationsOffice,pp. 66-67.


62

5.4.2. Statistics

In order to be able to substantiate a claim of discrimination the claimant must prove that they have received less favourable treatment than other individuals in a comparable situation. However, this information may sometimes be difficult to obtain.245 For instance in order to prove a claim of direct discrimination in the context of pay a claimant will need access to evidence that they are receiving less pay than colleagues in similar posts with similar levels of experience or qualifications. However, this information is not always readily available. In order to prove indirect discrimination it is necessary to show that a uniform (that is, apparently ‘neutral’) rule or practice has a disproportionately negative impact on a particular group of persons characterised by, for instance, their racial or ethnic origin. In certain situations this requires the production of statistical data. For instance, it may be shown that a service provider, who refuses to offer a service in a particular neighbourhood, is in fact committing indirect discrimination on production of evidence that this area is populated predominantly by members of an ethnic minority. Statistical data has been accepted as evidence capable of giving rise to a presumption of discrimination by the CJEU and the ECtHR and its use is well established in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.246 However, this practice remains uncommon in many Member States, since data which might be of assistance is not actually collected – the reasons for which are discussed below.

More than a third of Member States appear to allow ‘situation testing’ to be used in order to prove the existence of discrimination, subject to certain criteria (Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Hungary, Latvia, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom).247 ‘Situation testing’ has been conducted by some equality bodies and NGOs and involves using both members of the majority population and minority groups who may try to access a particular service, such as entry to a restaurant or bar. Similarly, it may involve sending out job applications from candidates with

245 On statistical evidence see also: FRA (2010) The Racial Equality Directive: application and challenges, Luxembourg: Publications Office.

246 See, for example, CJEU, Joined Cases C-4/02 and C-5/02 Hilde Schönheit v. Stadt Frankfurt am Main and Silvia Becker v. Land Hessen, [2003] ECR I-12575; ECtHR, D.H. and Others v. The Czech Republic (GC) No. 57325/00, 13 November 2007. In the United Kingdom, the use of statistics is a well-established means of proof in racial and ethnic discrimination cases: see, for example, West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive v. Singh (1988) IRLR 186. In the Netherlands, the Commission for Equal Treatment uses statistical evidence in individual cases, often in order to establish indirect discrimination: the Netherlands/CGB, Case No. 2004-15, 1 March 2004.

247 Rorive, I. (2009) Proving discrimination cases – the role of situation testing, Sweden/Brussels: Centre for Equal Rights, Migration Policy Group, p. 56.

identical qualifications and employment histories but with names identified both with the majority population and ethnic minorities. Where evidence is collected that members of the minority group are systematically treated less favourably without objective justification this has been accepted as proof of discriminatory treatment by the courts.

5.5.ExecutionofjudgmentsFailure to execute or enforce judgments – that is, the carrying out of a final judgment in order to ensure that obligations actually are imposed or fulfilled in practice – constitutes a further obstacle to access to justice. Non-execution or delayed execution of final judicial decisions which grant financial or other forms of compensation to an individual, may thus restrict rights protected in such decisions and hence undermine the right to adequate redress and effective judicial protection.248

The ECtHR and the UN HRC have made clear in their jurisprudence that failure to execute a final judgment249 in itself will amount to the breach of a right to an effective remedy. Clearly, the right to an effective remedy relies not only on removing barriers to access justice, but also on the execution of any findings and orders of the national authorities in order to put the ruling into practice.250

248 The lack of execution of a court decision is also of relevance in determining whether proceedings have been reasonable in length, see Section 3.1.3.

249 The judgment becomes final only after the appeals process is exhausted or waived. Where a possibility of appeal does exist (note that there is no a general right of appeal in civil cases: ECtHR, Ekbatani v. Sweden, No. 10563/83, 26 May 1988, paragraphs 23-33 or Protocol No. 7 to the ECHR (ETS 117) only guarantees a right of appeal in criminal trials), it is not necessary for each stage of the proceedings to conform to the requirements of Article 6 ECHR. Rather the assessment of whether Article 6 requirements have been complied with should be based on the totality of proceedings. Once the judgment becomes final, the principle of res judicata begins to apply. Res judicata is the principle of the finality of legal proceedings, which requires that a particular decision be regarded as final and irrevocable once all available proceedings or remedies have been exhausted or the time limits for these have been allowed to expire. While it is possible for higher courts to conduct a review of final proceedings this should be limited in purpose to correcting judicial errors or miscarriages of justice, but not to obtain a rehearing or a fresh determination of the case Thus where courts are permitted to re-hear a particular dispute on its merits once a judgment is finalised this will conflict with the right to an effective remedy, since a vindicated party will not dispose of the certainty and security of a final decision. See, for instance, ECtHR, Brumarescu v Romania, No. 28342/95, 28 October 1999, paragraph 61, or ECtHR, Driza v. Albania, No. 33771/02, 13 November 2007, paragraph 64.

250 ECtHR, Iatridis v. Greece, No. 31107/96, 25 March 1999, paragraph 66; ECtHR, Karahalios v. Greece, No. 62503/00, 11 December 2003, paragraph 23; ECtHR, Scordino v. Italy, No. 36813/97, 29 March 2006, paragraph 198. See as well UN HRC, Czernin v. Czech Republic, Communication No. 823/1998, 4 December 1996, paragraph 7.5.


63

Enforcementofjudgments

Agovernmententitydelayedpaymentofdebtsdeterminedbyacourttoanemployeeforperiodsofuptotwentymonths.TheECtHRconsideredthedelaysdisproportionate.Theexecutionofacourtdecisionororderofanyjurisdictionmustbeconsideredasanintegralpartoftheprocedureunderthisprovision.

ApublicauthoritycannotinvokethelackofresourcesfornotpayingadebtorderedbyacourtdecisionandfailuretorespectafinaldecisionofacourtwithinareasonabletimemightviolatetheECHR.

(ECtHR,Săcăleanu v. Romania,No.73970/01,6 September2005)

‘Anticipatory’enforcementofjudgements

InBulgaria,thenationallawprovidesforso-called‘anticipatory’enforcement.TheBulgariancourtsallowanticipatoryenforcementofthejudgmentincasetheyawardmaintenance,remunerationandcompensationforwork.Bulgariancourtsmayfurthermoreallowanticipatoryenforcementwheretheyawardamountsofmoneydueorowedonthebasisofanofficialdocumentorwheresuchamountshavebeenadmittedbytherespondent,wherethedelayofenforcementmayresultinmaterialandirreparabledamagestotheplaintiffortheenforcementitselfwouldbecomeimpossibleorbeconsiderablyimpeded.

Accordingtotheresearchfindingsin15EUMemberStates,therewasnoevidencetosuggestthatfinaljudgmentsremainunexecutedwhereasnineotherdidnothaverelevantdatatoproperlyevaluatethesituation(Figure14).

Problemswithnon-executionoffinaljudgmentswerefoundinthreeEUMemberStates(Figure14).Non-executionoffinaljudgmentsappearstobeasystemicprobleminparticularinRomania.251IntheUnitedKingdom,theMinistryofJusticehasproducedstatisticsindicatingthatemploymenttribunaldecisionsonclaimsstemmingfromnon-discriminationinemploymentandunequalpayregularlyremainunexecuted.Accordingtotherelevantfindings,amendmentstonationallawhaverecentlybeenmadetosimplifyenforcementprocedureseventthoughitisdifficulttopredictthesignificanceoftheirimpact.Someproblemsinrelationtonon-executionoffinaljudgmentsalsoexistinGreece.252

251 See,forexample,Săcăleanu v. Romania,No.73970/01,6 September2005.

252Inthisrespect,itshouldalsobenotedthatalthoughthereisnoevidencetosuggestthatfinaljudgmentsremainunexecutedintheareaofnon-discriminationinHungary,theexecutionofdecisionsgrantingsatisfactionotherthanfinancialcompensationmaybeproblematic,asthedomesticlawdoesnotcontainanyrelevantrulesonhowtoexecutedecisionsorderingspecificperformance.

Source: FRA, 2010

Figure 14: Execution of final awards in Eu Member states

15

3

MemberStatesinwhichfinaljudgmentsareexecuted

Norelevantdataavailable 9

MemberStatesinwhichfinaljudgmentsoftenremainunexecuted


64

5.6.SummaryThe preceding sections of Chapter 5 analysed, in a comparative way, several aspects of the right to an effective remedy, namely nature of redress (section 5.1), level of financial compensation (section 5.2), rules relating to the payment of legal costs (section 5.3), and finally, execution of final judgments awarding victims financial compensation or other types of satisfaction (section 5.4).

According to the relevant research findings (section 5.1), in all 27 EU Member States, financial compensation is the primary means of compensating victims of discrimination. Such financial compensation is supplemented by other non-financial forms of reparation (e.g. requests for reinstatement to a previous position or an order that specific action be taken to relieve the injured party or a discriminatory contractual clause be nullified) in the majority of EU Member States (19). The award of punitive damages is only provided for in two EU Member States.

As for the amount of financial compensation commonly awarded by domestic courts, the relevant research findings (section 5.2) showed that this depends heavily on the national context, national

standard of living in particular. It can be concluded that in the majority of EU Member States that provided relevant statistical data, the average amount of financial compensation ranges from €2,000 to €5,000.

In the non-discrimination proceedings, national courts of 22 EU Member States apply a ‘loser pays’ rule (section 5.3). Yet, in order not to discourage victims of discrimination with well-founded claims, domestic judges in most of the EU Member States can derogate from this rule, granting an exemption on the basis of the principle of equity and justice.

The ‘sharing’ of the burden of proof between the parties in the context of non-discrimination law is of particular importance in this area of law given the difficulties involved in proving a case of discrimination. Experience in various Member States likewise shows that statistics and discrimination testing may be very useful tools in providing evidence of discriminatory practice (section 5.4).

But for two EU Member States, there are no major problems with execution of final judgments (section 5.5).


65

conclusions

complaintsrelatingtoEUlaw.IndividualsmayaccesstoCJEUdirectly(throughtheactionforannulment)orindirectly(throughthepreliminaryrulingprocedure).Whileremainingrelativelyrestricted,legalstandingbeforetheCJEUinthecontextofannulmentproceedingshasbeenbroadenedbyreformsintroducedbytheTreatyofLisbon.

Atnationallevel,thereportfocussedonanalysingexistingpracticesinlightofatypologyofaccesstojusticeinordertoidentifychallengesandgoodpractices.Proceduralrules,caselawandpracticesintheareaofnon-discriminationlaw,asrepresentedbytheRacialEqualityDirective,GenderEqualityDirectivesandEmploymentEqualityDirective,formedthefocusoftheenquiry.MemberStatesareobligedtoimplementtheseinstrumentsandensurethatredressforbreachesoftherightstheyguaranteearebotheffectiveandequivalenttothatavailableatnationallevelforsimilarprocedures.Itwasfoundthatwhileaccesstojusticeisavailabletoasubstantialdegree,thereisstillroomforimprovementamongtheEUMemberStates.

ThisrepresentsFRA’sfirststudyspecificallyontheissueofaccesstojustice,andhasservedtoidentifyareaswherefurtherresearchmaybeneeded.Whilethereporthasfocussedonaccesstocourtsasameansofobtainingredress,itshouldbereadtogetherwithforthcomingFRAresearchontheroleandexperiencesofnon-judicialmechanisms,inparticularequalitybodies,asanalternativeavenuetoobtainingaccesstojustice.

Accesstojusticeisessentialinensuringthatrightsaremadeeffectiveandimplemented.ThisreportprovidesanEU-widecomparativeoverviewandanalysisofchallengesandgoodpracticesrelatingtoaccesstojustice.Attheinternationallevel,itprovidedacomparativeoverviewofmechanismsavailableintheEUthroughEuropeanandinternationalmechanisms,andtheirrelationshipwithnationaljurisdictions.Atthenationallevel,itdiscussedlimitationsonaccessingdisputesettlementprocedures,suchastimelimitsforlodgingcomplaints,rulesonlegalstandingandlegalfees,aswellastheabilitytousenon-judicialproceduresinordertoobtainredress.Itwentontoexaminetheavailabilityoflegalaid,existingalternatives,andthetypesofredressavailableatnationallevel.

AttheEuropeanlevel,thereportexaminedtheUNtreatymonitoringbodies,theECtHR,ECSRandCJEU.TheUNoffersmechanismsthatcontributetomakingjusticewidelyaccessiblethroughquasi-judicialmonitoringbodies.However,Statepartieshavenotexpresslyundertakentobelegallyboundbytheirdecisionsonindividualcomplaints.Further,notallEUMemberStateshaveconsentedtotheindividualcomplaintsprocedure.TheECtHRmayhearcomplaintsrelatingtobreachesoftheECHR,whiletheECSRmonitorsimplementationoftheEuropeanSocialCharter.ThelattermayonlyhearcomplaintsofacollectivenaturelodgedbycertainbodiessuchasNGOsandtradeunions.TheECtHRunsustainablyhighcaseloadhasledtotheintroductionofa‘pilot’proceduredesignedtodealwithrepeatviolations.TheCJEUmayhear

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights

access to Justice in europe: an overview of challenges and opportunities

2011 – 65 p. – 21 x 29.7 cm

ISBN 978-92-9192-676-3 doi: 10.2811/171

A great deal of information on the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the FRA website at fra.europa.eu.

hoW to oBtAin Eu puBlicAtions

free publications:• via EU Bookshop (www.bookshop.europa.eu);• at the European Union’s representations or delegations. You can obtain their contact details on the Internet

(www.ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.

priced publications:• via EU Bookshop (www.bookshop.europa.eu).

priced subscriptions (e.g. annual series of the Official Journal of the European Union and reports of cases before the court of Justice of the european union):• via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union

(www.publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

The ability to enforce a right is central to transforming fundamental rights from theory into concrete reality. Access to justice is not only a right in itself but also an enabling and empowering right since it allows individuals to enforce their rights and obtain redress. This report, the first study of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights to focus on this issue, provides an overview of challenges to and opportunities for the realisation of access to justice. It provides a comparative analysis of procedures available at the European and international levels and their relationship with national judicial systems. Its main focus, however, is on national judicial systems, and the procedures and practices through which access to justice is delivered. It identifies concrete obstacles such as strict time limits for lodging complaints, restrictive rules on legal standing, excessive legal costs and the complexity of legal procedures.

TK-31-11-085-EN-C

doi: 10.2811/1711

FRA - EuRopEAn union AgEncy FoR FundAmEntAl Rights Schwarzenbergplatz 11 - 1040 Vienna - AustriaTel: +43 (1) 580 30 – 60 - Fax: +43 (1) 580 30 – 693fra.europa.eu - [email protected]

Helping to make fundamental rigHts a reality for everyone in tHe european union

Documents

an overview of challenges and opportunities · access to justice in europe: an overview of challenges and opportunities Justice Ac c e s s t o jus tic e in Eur ope: an o v ervie w