1. Justice
an overview of challenges
access to justice in europe:
and opportunities
A ccess to j u st i ce i n E u ro p e : a n ove r v i ew of c h a l l e n g es a n d o p p o r t u n i t i es
7.
contents
ForEword .......................................................................................................................................................3
List oF AbbrEviAtions....................................................................................................................................7
ExEcutivE suMMAry .......................................................................................................................................9
opinions ......................................................................................................................................................11
1 AccEss to JusticE – situAting thE concEpt in thE Eu ...........................................................................13
1.1. heFRAresearchonaccesstojustice....................................................................................................................13
T
1.2. Reportbackground....................................................................................................................................................14
1.3. Theconcept................................................................................................................................................................14
1.4. elatedresearchandinstrumentsbytheCouncilofEurope..............................................................................16
R
1.5. ccesstojusticeinEuropeanlaw............................................................................................................................17
A
1.6. ccesstojusticeinEUpolicy .................................................................................................................................. 20
A .
1.7. Summary.....................................................................................................................................................................22
2 AvAiLAbLE MEchAnisMs At EuropEAn And intErnAtionAL LEvEL ........................................................23
2.1. ommonfeaturesanddistinctions..........................................................................................................................23
C
2.2.TheUNtreatybodies ................................................................................................................................................25
.
2.3. heCouncilofEuropemechanisms........................................................................................................................ 30
T
2.4. ourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnion...................................................................................................................33
C
2.5.Summary................................................................................................................................................................... 36
3 AccEssing JusticE At nAtionAL LEvEL .....................................................................................................37
3.1. Limits......................................................................................................................................................................... 37
3.2.Alternatives..............................................................................................................................................................44
3.3.Summary....................................................................................................................................................................46
4 LEgAL Aid At nAtionAL LEvEL ..................................................................................................................47
4.1. atureandscopeoflegalaid.................................................................................................................................49
N .
4.2.Eligibilityforlegalaid................................................................................................................................................51
4.3.Complementaryschemes.........................................................................................................................................53
4.4.Summary.................................................................................................................................................................... 54
5 rEdrEss At nAtionAL LEvEL ....................................................................................................................55
5.1. Natureofredress...................................................................................................................................................... 56
5.2. eveloffinancialcompensation............................................................................................................................. 58
L
5.3.Paymentoflegalcosts............................................................................................................................................. 59
5.4.Evidence.....................................................................................................................................................................61
5.5.Executionofjudgments............................................................................................................................................ 62
5.6.Summary....................................................................................................................................................................64
concLusions .................................................................................................................................................65
5
15. 1
Access to justice –
Situating the concept in the EU
vulnerable groups, such as minorities and immigrants.
1.1. he FRA research on
T This report on access to justice will be followed by
access to justice a study focussing on the role of equality bodies and
similar entities in facilitating access to justice and the
This report is about ‘access to justice’ in the European
experiences of equality bodies, claimants and those
Union – that is, how rights can be enforced in the EU.
actors providing support to claimants. These studies
This is done by analysing mechanisms in Member
are complementary in nature, focussing respectively
States, as well as mechanisms offered by the EU,
on the court system and on equality bodies in their
the Council of Europe, and the United Nations (UN).
function of assisting claimants or providing an
However, focus is placed on judicial mechanisms at the
alternative avenue of redress. In May 2010, the FRA
national level, and the challenges and good practices
published a set of reports on how the architecture
that pertain to them. A further delimitation is a focus
for the promotion and protection of human rights, in
on access to justice in the area of non-discrimination
particular National Human Rights Institutions, Data
law as laid down by the Gender Equality Directives,
Protection Authorities, and Equality Bodies, could
Racial Equality Directive and Employment Equality
be improved in the EU.3 Other related projects that
Directive.1 This examination is focused principally on
address various components of access to justice
civil law remedies and may also include administrative
include:
law remedies, but excludes the area of criminal law.
This comparative report is the first study of the FRA to
• the asylum-seeker perspective: access to effective
explicitly focus on access to justice.2
remedies and the duty to inform applicants;
The report should be seen in the context of a series • access to remedies for irregular migrants;
of FRA research projects. The FRA 2009 European
• the impact of the Racial Equality Directive – Views of
Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey (EU-MIDIS)
trade unions and employers in the European Union;
showed that awareness of redress mechanisms (for
discrimination) is very low, in particular among • the right to political participation of
persons with mental health problems and
persons with intellectual disabilities;
• joined-up governance: connecting fundamental
1 Directive 2000/43 implementing the principle of equal treatment rights (including improved access to complaint
between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ. L 180,
19 July 2000, p. 22); Directive 2000/78 establishing a general mechanisms at the local level and their links
framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation to national and international levels);
(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 3 Produced in a series as Strengthening the fundamental rights
occupation (recast) (OJ. L 204, 26 July 2006, p. 23). architecture in the EU I–III: National Human Rights Institutions
2 See also the recently published FRA report on Access to effective in the EU Member States; Data Protection in the European
remedies: The asylum-seeker perspective (Vienna, 2010) available Union: the role of National Data Protection Authorities; EU-MIDIS
at: http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/asylum- Data in Focus Report 3: Rights awareness. All available at:
access-remedies-report-092010_en.pdf (all hyperlinks listed in http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/research/publications/
the report have been accessed in November 2010). publications_en.htm.
13
16. AccesstojusticeinEurope:anoverviewofchallengesandopportunities
• developingindicatorsfortheprotection,respect 3. therighttotimelyresolutionofdisputes;
andpromotionoftherightsofthechildinthe 4. therighttoadequateredress;
EuropeanUnion(child-friendlyjustice); 5. theprinciplesofefficiencyandeffectiveness.
• HandbookonEuropeanonnon-discrimination
Thesewereinturnsub-dividedintomoredetailed
case-law.4
points,referredtoasindicators.Forthreeof
Thisfirstchapterelaboratesontheconceptofaccess theseindicators,theFRALEXteamswereaskedto
tojusticeandsituatesitwithintheframeworkof analyseaselectionof50-80nationalcases.6The
Europeanlawandpolicy.Fourchaptersfollow, dealing caseshadtoberelatedto‘civil’rightsasprotected
with:(2)accessingmechanismsatEuropean byArticle6(1)oftheEuropeanConventionon
and internationallevel,(3-5)accessingjusticeat HumanRights(ECHR)andArticle14ICCPR.7
thenationallevel,includinglegalandavailable
remedies.Importantcasesfromnationalcourtsas Non-discriminationwasselectedasafocusareato
wellasfromtheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropean reducethescopeofenquirytoafeasiblelevel,but
Union(CJEU)andtheEuropeanCourtofHumanRights alsobecausepreviousFRAresearchshowedthe
(ECtHR)arepresentedasillustrativeexamples. particularneedforimprovingandfacilitatingaccess
tojusticeinthisarea.However,thepurposeofthe
studyistocaptureaccesstojusticemorebroadly
1.2. report background andthisreportisonlyafirststepinthisregard.
Thisreportdrawsmainlyon27nationalstudies
Elementsofthe27nationalstudies,whichprovide
producedbytheFRAnetworkoflegalexperts
additionalcountry-specificinformationonaccess
(FRALEX)5onthebasisofatypologydesignedto
tojusticeinthecontextoftheaforementioned
allowforacomparativeoverviewonselectedkey
typology,areavailableonlineviatheFRAwebsite.8
elementsofaccesstojustice.Forthenationallevel,
Thereports,structuredinaccordancewiththe
theanalysisandinformationonwhichthisreportis
typology,analysethejudicialsystemsinthe
basedpresentsthesituationasitstoodattheend
respectiveEUMemberStates.Detailsthatwere
of2008.Caseassessmentandstatistics,aswell
notpossibletocaptureinornotrelevanttothis
ashigh-leveladministrativeorpoliticalresponses
comparativereportareprovidedinthesenational
toaccesstojusticeissues,covertheperiodfrom
overviews,whichofferinsightintothemechanisms
2000 to 2009.TheEUandinternationalelements
foraccessingjusticeincasesofdiscrimination.9
representthesituationasitstoodon15October2010.
Sincethereisnostandardisedconceptof‘accessto
justice’,theresearchatnationallevelwasstructured
1.3. the concept
aroundafive-parttypologysettingoutitsconstituent Theterm‘accesstojustice’isnotcommonlyused
elements.Thiswasdevelopedusingtherighttoa aslegalterminologyandisnotexpresslyused
fairtrialaswellasthebroaderrighttoaremedy in,forexample,theECHR.10Instead,theECHR
containedinArticles6and13ECHR;Articles2(3) containsprovisionsonfairtrialandtherightto
and14oftheInternationalCovenantonCiviland aremedy(Articles6and13ECHR).Similarly,the
PoliticalRights(ICCPR);andArticle47oftheCharter UniversalDeclarationonHumanRights(UDHR)
ofFundamentalRightsoftheEuropeanUnion(CFR). statesthat“everyonehastherighttoaneffective
Onthebasisoftheseprovisions‘accesstojustice’ remedybythecompetentnationaltribunalsfor
wasbrokendownintothefollowingelements: actsviolatingthefundamentalrightsgrantedhim
1. therighttoeffectiveaccesstoadisputeresolu- 6 InsomeMemberStatesthisproveddifficultgiventhe
tionbody; impossibilityofaccessingcaselawfromlowercourts.
7 Seefurther,UNHumanRightsCommittee(UNHRC)General
2. therighttofairproceedings; 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,
4 AllFRAprojectsavailableat:http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/ No. 7151/75,23September1982,paragraphs 79-83.Article47CFR
research/projects/proj_accesstojustice_en.htm;andallFRA doesseeminglynothavethesamelimitationbutisapplicableto
publicationsat:http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/research/ alltypesofcases.
publications/publications_en.htm. 8 Seehttp://fra.europa.eu/.
5 FRALEXwassetupin2007andiscomposedofhighlyqualified 9 ReferencestotheUKprimarilyrefertothesituationinEngland
legalexpertsinthefieldoffundamentalrightsineachofthe andWales.However,mostoftherulesandpracticesdiscussed
MemberStatesoftheEuropeanUnion.FRALEXdeliversavariety arealsoapplicableinsubstance(ifnotinform)inScotlandandto
ofreports,analysesandstudiesatthenationalandcomparative alesserextent,NorthernIreland.
level,whichareusedasbackgroundmaterialforFRApublications. 10 Theconceptreceivedexplicitattentioninthelegaldoctrine
AseparatereportonaccesstojusticeattheEUandinternational byMauroCappellettiinthe1970’s-1980’s,seeCappelletti,
levelwasalsocommissioned.Basedonthese27nationalreports M. (ed.) (1978)Access to Justice,Milan:SijthoffandNoordhoff.
andtheEUandinternationalreport,alongwithadditional MorerecentlyseeFrancioni,F.(ed.)(2007)Access to Justice as a
research,theFRAproducedthiscomparativereport. Human Right,OxfordUniversity:OxfordUniversityPress(OUP).
14
17. Accesstojustice–SituatingtheconceptintheEU
bytheconstitutionorbylaw.”11TheICCPRequally • righttoaneffectiveremedybeforeatribunal;
referstoan“effective remedy”(Article2(3a))
• righttoafairandpublichearingwithina
foralltherightsintheconventionandfurther
reasonabletimebyanindependentandimpartial
guaranteestherightto“takeproceedingsbefore
tribunalpreviouslyestablishedbylaw;
acourt”(Article9(4)),therighttoa“fairand
publichearing”(Article14(1)),andtherighttobe • righttobeadvised,defendedandrepresented;and
triedwithoutunduedelay(Article14(3c)).12
• righttolegalaidforthosewholacksufficient
resourcesinsofarassuchaidisnecessary
However,withtheTreatyofLisbon,aspecific
toensureeffectiveaccesstojustice.
referencetoaccesstojusticewasintroduced:
theTreatyontheFunctioningoftheEuropean AttheinternationalleveltheUNHRC,sinceits
Union (TFEU),Article67(4)stipulatesthat establishmentundertheICCPR,hasleadthe
“the Union shallfacilitateaccesstojustice, wayamongtheUNtreatybodiesoninterpreting
inparticularthroughtheprincipleofmutual conceptsrelatedtoaccesstojustice.17
recognitionofjudicialandextrajudicialdecisions
incivilmatters.”13TheCFRwhich,accordingtothe Alsothe1998AarhusConventiononAccessto
reformsintroducedbytheLisbonTreaty,hasthe Information,PublicParticipationinDecision-Making
samelegallybindingstatusastheTreaties,provides andAccesstoJusticeinEnvironmentalMatters18
forthe“righttoaneffectiveremedyandtoafair isanexampleofanexplicituseof‘accessto
trial”(Article47CFR).14Thethirdparagraphofthat justice’.TheConventiondefinesaccesstojustice
Articlespecificallyreferstoaccesstojusticeinthe as“accesstoareviewprocedurebeforeacourt
contextoflegalaid,butthetermaccesstojustice oflaworanotherindependentandimpartial
alsoconcludestheArticleasawhole.15Inthisway bodyestablishedbylaw”(Article9(1)).Moreover,
theArticlesummarisesalltheparticularrights withthe2006ConventionontheRightsof
enshrinedintheconceptof‘accesstojustice’:16 PersonswithDisabilities,‘accesstojustice’was
enshrinedinaUnitedNationsconvention.19
Accordingtocurrentusage,then,accesstojustice
isrelatedtoanumberoftermsthatattimes
areusedinterchangeablyortocoverparticular
elements,suchasaccesstocourt,effective
11 UNGeneralAssembly,Universaldeclarationofhumanrights,
Resolution217A(III),UNDocumentA/810at71(1948),Article 8. remediesorfairtrial.Figure1offersaschematic
12 TheUNHRChasupheldtheviewthatdenialofaccesstojustice overviewofthemostcommonterms.
isasufficientlyegregiousbreachofhumanrightsthatitmay
giverisetotherighttohaveacriminalconvictionreconsidered
iftherighttosubmitanappealhasbeenviolated.UNHRC,Earl
Pratt and Ivan Morgan v. Jamaica,CommunicationsNo.210/1986
andNo.225/1987.Viewsadoptedon6April1989,UNDocument
A/44/40,Vol.II,222.TheInternationalCourtofJustice(ICJ)
has takena similarstance.InAvena (case concerning Avena and
other Mexican nationals (Mexico v. United States)31March2004),
where anumberofMexicannationalshadbeensentencedto
deathintheUnitedStateswithouthavingbenefitedfromthe
consularassistancerequiredunderArticle36oftheVienna
Conventionof1963.
13 Article81(2)(e)referstoaccesstojusticeandArticle81(2)(f)to
the“eliminationofobstaclestotheproperfunctioningofcivil
proceedings”.
14 ThestatusofCFRisprovidedinArticle6(1)TEU.Seethe
ExplanationsrelatingtotheCharterofFundamentalRightsofthe
EuropeanUnion,OJC303/17of14December2007,availableat:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:20
07:303:0017:0035:EN:PDF.
15 CFR,ChapterVI,Justice,Article47,Righttoaneffectiveremedy 17 SeeforexampleUNHRC,GeneralCommentNo.32(n.7),
andafairtrial:“Everyonewhoserightsandfreedomsguaranteed paragraphs 8-13.
bythelawoftheUnionareviolatedhastherighttoaneffective 18 ConventionoftheUNEconomicCommissionforEurope(UNECE)
remedybeforeatribunalincompliancewiththeconditionslaiddown concernedwithtransparencyandaccountabilitythatlinkshumanand
inthisArticle.Everyoneisentitledtoafairandpublichearing environmentalrights.Thephraseaccesstojusticeisreferredtoin
withinareasonabletimebyanindependentandimpartialtribunal thetitle,thepreambleandinArticles1,3,9and10.Itplacespositive
previouslyestablishedbylaw.Everyoneshallhavethepossibility obligationsupontheStatespartiesandimportantlyestablishes
ofbeingadvised,defendedandrepresented.Legalaidshallbe relativelyfirmparameters,whichmustbesatisfiedinordertofulfil
madeavailabletothosewholacksufficientresourcesinsofaras theStates’dutiesandgrantadequateenjoymentoftheright.
suchaidisnecessarytoensureeffectiveaccesstojustice.” 19 Article13placesanobligationuponstatestoensureequalaccess
16 Indeed,theterms“effectiveremedy”and“accesstojustice” tojusticetothosepersonswithdisabilities,furtherobliging
appeartobeusedinterchangeably:theExplanationsrelating thestatestoprovidetheiragentswithappropriatetrainingto
totheCharterofFundamentalRights(n.14),p.30:where accomplishthis.UsefulanalysesofarangeofEuropeanand
the relevantcaselaw(ECtHR,Airey v. Ireland,No.6289/73, internationalstandardsonaccesstojusticecanbefoundin:
09 October1979)oftheECtHRisreferredtoandtheterm McBride,J.(2009)Access to Justice for Migrants and Asylum Seekers
effectiveremedyisusedtoexplainingaccesstojustice. in Europe,Strasbourg:CouncilofEuropePublishing.
15
18. AccesstojusticeinEurope:anoverviewofchallengesandopportunities
Figure 1: Access to justice and related terminology amongotherissues,thefundamentalcriteriaof
theruleoflaw,theindependenceofthejudiciary,
rule of law accesstojustice,andtheprinciplesofethicsand
responsibilityinanationalandinternationalcontext.23
Access to justice
TheCommitteeofMinistersoftheCouncilofEurope
Effective remedies redress adopted,on24February2010,Recommendation
CM/Rec(2010)3oneffectiveremediesforexcessive
lengthofproceedings.TheRecommendation
Access to court Judicial protection
makesreferencetothecaselawoftheECtHRas
wellasitspilotjudgmentsintheareaandcalls
Fair trial due process onMemberStatesto,amongotherthings,ensure
mechanismsthatidentifyexcessivelengthof
proceedings;effectiveremediesforatrialwithin
Source: FRA, 2010 areasonabletime;compensation,includingnon-
pecuniarydamages;andtoconsidernon-monetary
redresswheretrialshaverunforanexcessive
lengthoftime,suchasreductionofsanctions.24
1.4. related research and
ThisFRAreportcomplementsexistingresearchin
instruments by the council thisareabyofferingabroadoverviewandanalysis
of Europe oftheprincipalchallengesandexistinggood
practicesatnationallevelinlightoftherequirements
TheCouncilofEurope’sEuropeanCommissionforthe
ofEuropeanandinternationalhumanrightslaw.
EfficiencyofJustice(CEPEJ)hasdevelopedaseries
Inthissenseitisabletocommentonparticular
ofstudiesonaccesstojusticeintheMemberStates
practiceswhicheitherlimitorhelptocontribute
oftheCouncilofEurope.20CEPEJcollectsjudicialdata
totherealisationofMemberStates’obligations.
fromthe47MemberStates,analysesshortcomings
ItwillinthiswayalsofeedintotheFRAresearch
andnewtrends,andpromotesamorehomogenous
onaccesstojusticewithrespecttocomplainant’s
datacollectionatnationallevel.Acomprehensive
accesstojusticethroughequalitybodies.
report,European Judicial Systems(2008-2010),covers,
forinstance,publicexpendituresoncourtsandlegal
aid,typesoflegalaidincriminalcases,numberof
casesinvolvinglegalaid,conditionsforgranting
aid,systemsofcourtfees,lengthofprocedures,
availabilityoflegalrepresentationincourt,and
executionofcourtdecisions.21CEPEJhasalsoissued
areportontheuseofe-justiceinEurope.22
On18November2010,theConsultativeCouncil
23 Forthetext,seehttps://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CCJE-
ofEuropeanJudges(CCJE,anadvisorybodyof MC%282010%293&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=original&BackCol
theCouncilofEuropeonissuesrelatedtothe orInternet=DBDCF2&BackColorIntranet=FDC864&BackColorLogg
ed=FDC864.Inabroadercontext,seealsotheCCJE’sOpinion
independence,impartialityandcompetenceofjudges, No. 13ontheroleofjudgesintheenforcementofjudicialdecisions,
composedexclusivelyofjudges,adoptedtheMagna whichisanessentialelementofthefunctioningofastate,based
CartaofJudges(Fundamentalprinciples).ThisMagna ontheruleoflawadoptedon09December2010,availableat:
https://wcd.coe.int/wcd/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CCJE(2010)2&Langua
Cartaofjudgeshighlightsthefundamentalprinciples ge=lanEnglish&Ver=original&BackColorInternet=DBDCF2&BackC
relatingtojudgesandjudicialsystems.Itreiterates, olorIntranet=FDC864&BackColorLogged=FDC864.
24 SeealsotheRecommendationoftheCommitteeofMinistersof
theCouncilofEuropetoMemberStatesonjudges:independence,
20 SeeinparticularEuropeanCommissionfortheefficiencyof efficiencyandresponsibilities,adoptedon17November2010.
justice(CEPEJ)European Judicial Systems – Edition 2008 (2006 data): Itplacesemphasisontheindependenceofeveryindividual
Efficiency and quality of justice;aswellasAccess to Justice in Europe, judgeandofthejudiciaryasawhole,preciselytoguarantee
CEPEJStudiesNo.9.TheEuropeanParliament,initsresolution theindependenceofindividualjudges.Forthefirsttimeever,
of 19May2010(2009/2241(INI))ontheaccessionof theUnionto judicial“efficiency”isdefinedinaclearandsimplemanner
theECHR,calledontheUniontobecomememberoftheCEPEJ. as“thedeliveryofqualitydecisionswithinareasonabletime
Moreinformationavailableat:www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/ followingfairconsiderationoftheissues”.Furthermeasures
cepej/series/default_en.asp. proposedconcerningtheselectionandtrainingofjudges,their
21 CEPEJ(2010)European Judicial Systems(2008-2010),Strasbourg: responsibility,aswellasjudicialethics,arefurtherstepstowards
CouncilofEurope,availableat:www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/ strengtheningtheroleofindividualjudgesandthejudiciaryin
cepej/evaluation/default_en.asp. general.CEPEJalsohostsacentreforjudicialtimemanagement,
22 CEPEJ(2008)Use of information and communication technologies SATURN,thatprovidesstatisticsontimemanagementand
(ICT) in European judicial systems, Strasbourg:CouncilofEurope, supportsselectedcourtsinimprovingtimemanagement.
availableat:www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/cepej/series/ See furtherwww.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/cepej/Delais/
Etudes7TIC_en.pdf. default_en.asp.
16
19. Accesstojustice–SituatingtheconceptintheEU
influencedbythecaselawoftheECtHR.30TheCJEU
1.5. Access to justice in hastraditionallyusedtheconstitutionaltraditions
European law commontotheMemberStatesandArticles6
and13ECHRasabasisfortherighttoobtainan
InEurope,therighttoaccesstojustice–specifically
effectiveremedybeforeacompetentcourt.
toacourtoratribunal–wasdevelopedbythe
ECtHRinthecontextofArticle6ECHRandhassince
AdvocateGeneralRuiz-JaraboColomerhasstatedin
beenextensivelydealtwithinscholarlydoctrine.25
hisOpinioninRoda Golf & Beach Resort SL:“Accessto
Article6ECHRappliesonlyto“civilrightsand
justiceisafundamentalpillarofwesternlegalculture
criminalcharges”.AlthoughECtHRjurisprudencehas,
[...].Thereforetherighttoeffectivelegalprotection
overtheyears,continuouslyenlargedthescope
isoneofthegeneralprinciplesofCommunity
ofthenotionof‘civilrights’,sothatnowadaysalso
law,inaccordancewithwhichaccesstojusticeis
considerablepartsofadministrativelawarenow
organised[...].Accesstojusticeentailsnotonly
coveredbythesafeguardsofthisprovision,26itis
thecommencementoflegalproceedingsbutalso
nonethelessanotablestepforwardthatArticle47
therequirementthatthecompetentcourtmustbe
CFRhasabandonedthisrestriction,deliberately
seizedofthoseproceedings.”31Inotherwords,access
grantingaccesstojusticetoallsortsofrightsand
tojusticemustbemuchmorethanamereformal
freedomsguaranteedbythelawoftheUnion.27
possibility,itmustalsobefeasibleinpracticalterms.
Accordingtolongestablishedcaselawofthe
WithintheEUlegalorder,therighttoeffectivelegal
CJEU,accesstojusticeisoneoftheconstitutive
protectionequallycoversaccesstotheEUcourts
elementsofaUnionbasedontheruleoflaw.28This
(here,theCourtofJusticeandtheGeneralCourt),
isguaranteedinthetreatiesthroughestablishinga
aswellasaccesstonationalcourtsandtribunalsfor
completesystemoflegalremediesandprocedures
theenforcementofrightsderivedfromEUlaw.
designedtopermittheCJEUtoreviewthelegality
ofmeasuresadoptedbytheinstitutions.29Theright
toeffectivejudicialprotectionhasbeenaccepted
1.5.1. rights derived from Eu law in
bytheCJEUasageneralprincipleofUnionlaw,as national courts: equivalence and
effectiveness
TheideathatEUlawmay,incertaincircumstances,
giverisetoindividualrightsthatarecapableofdirect
enforcementbydomesticcourtshasbeenrecognised
sincetheclassiccaseofVan Gend en Loos.Inthis
25 StartingwiththeGoldercase(ECtHR,Golder v. the United
case,theCJEUconcludedthat:“Communitylaw[…]
Kingdom, No.4451/70,21February1975).Seeaswell:Harris, D.J., notonlyimposesobligationsonindividualsbutisalso
O’Boyle,M.,Bates,E.P.andBuckley,C.M.(2009)Harris, intendedtoconferuponthemrightswhichbecome
O’Boyle and Warbrick, Law of the European Convention on Human
Rights,2ndedition,Oxford:OUP,Chapter6;vanDijk,P.,van Hoof, partoftheirlegalheritage.Theserightsarisenot
G.J.H.,vanRijn,A.andZwaak,L.(eds.)(2006)Theory and onlywheretheyareexpresslygrantedbytheTreaty
Practice of the European Convention on Human rights,Antwerpen:
Intersentia,Chapter10;Frowein,A.J.andPeukert,W.(2009)
butalsobyreasonofobligationswhichtheTreaty
Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, EMRK-Kommentar,Kehl: imposesinaclearlydefinedwayuponindividuals
N.P.EngelVerlag;andGrabenwarter,C.(2009)Europäische aswellasupontheMemberStatesanduponthe
Menschenrechtskonvention,4thedition,Basel:HelbingLichtenhahn
Verlag.
26 TheECtHRhasbeenreluctanttoofferaconcretedefinition
of‘civil’rights,inpracticeitsinterpretationseemsconsistent 30 TheapproachoftheCJEUhasgenerallybeentofollowthe
withthatoftheUNHRC(seeGeneralCommentNo.32(n.7), reasoningoftheECtHRwithregardtothemeaningoftheright
paragraph 16).Seeibid. toafairtrialasageneralprincipleofUnionlaw.Seeforexample
27 “InUnionlaw,therighttoafairhearingisnotconfinedtodisputes CJEU,Baustahlgewebe Gmbh,C-185/95,17December1998.
relatingtocivillawrightsandobligations.”Thatisoneofthe However,ithasnotbeencommonfortheCJEUtofocusindetail
consequencesofthefactthattheUnionisacommunitybasedon uponparticularaspectsofthisright;whereithasdoneso,
theruleoflawasstatedbytheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropean thecontextofapplicationhasoftendifferedtothatofthepresent
Communities(CJEU),Les Verts v. European Parliament,Case294/83, report.Forinstance,thecaselawoftheCJEUrelatingto
23April1986,ECR1339.ExplanationsrelatingtotheEUCharter thecriteriaof‘reasonabletime’hastendedtofocusuponactions
ofFundamentalRights,OJC303/17of14December2007,p. 30, broughtagainsttheUnioninstitutions,whichmayreducetheir
availableat:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ. relevanceforthepresentreport.SeeforexampleCJEU,
do?uri=OJ:C:2007:303:0017:0035:En:PDF. Hoechst v. Commission,T-410/03,18June2008,
28 Thiscanbeseeninitsreasoningforestablishingthe paragraphs 227-228;CJEU,Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij
principlesofdirecteffect(CJEU,Van Gend en Loos,Case26/62, (LVM) v. Commission and Others,C-238/99P,15October2002,
05 February 1963)andsupremacy(CJEU,Costa v. ENELCase6/64, paragraph 169;CJEU,Chronopost and La Poste v. UFEX and Others,
15July1964),aswellastheconceptofstateliability(Francovich C-341/06P,1July2008,paragraph 45.
and Bonifaci v. Italy,CaseC-6andC-9/90,19November1991) 31 OpinionofAdvocateGeneralRuiz-JaraboColomer,CJEU,
andtherequirementthatnationalremediesforbreachesof Roda Golf & Beach Resort SL,C-14/08,paragraph29,delivered
rightsderivedfromCommunitylawcomplywiththeprinciples on5 March 2009.TheCJdelivereditsjudgmentinthiscase
ofequivalenceandeffectiveness(CJEU,Preston v. Wolverhampton on25June2009(notethatthejudgmentdoesnotinclude
Healthcare NHS Trust, C-78/98,16May2000). any discussionontheissueofaccesstojusticeraisedby
29 Case294/83,Les Verts v. Parliament,No.25,paragraph 23. the AdvocateGeneral).
17
