This allows people to challenge decisions taken by a public authority whose procedures fail to satisfy Article 6. However, the whole process needs to be considered. If the original decision is taken by a public authority whose procedures do not satisfy Article 6, the requirement may nevertheless be met if that decision can be reviewed (in the form of an appeal on both facts and law) by a court or tribunal that does satisfy Article 6. If the conditions of Article 6 are met by the original decision, it is not necessary to provide for an appeal. But if they are not met by the original decision then an appeal process that does meet those conditions may be necessary to ensure that the whole process (taking into account the appeals processes) is compliant. The right to a court or tribunal is not absolute, but restrictions on it must not impair the essence of the right. For example, the system should not be set up in such a way as to prevent access to a court or tribunal, by creating inadequate time limits or not providing for the giving of notice of decisions. However, the European Court of Human Rights has accepted that some people can be restricted from bringing cases, ie prisoners, litigants who keep bringing cases without merit, bankrupts, minors, people who are not within a time-limit or limitation period for bringing a case and other people where there is a legitimate interest in restricting their rights of access to a court, provided that the limitation is not more restrictive than necessary.Access to a court might include access to the financial means to bring a case to court. Article 6 does not give an absolute right to legal aid in all civil cases where the person concerned cannot afford to bring proceedings. Legal aid in civil cases is only required by Article 6 where either the person cannot present the case themselves due to the complexity of the court proceedings and the law or where legal representation is compulsory. The right to a public hearing protects against the administration of justice in secret and without public scrutiny. It is possible in certain cases to dispense with an oral hearing (where the subject matter is of a particularly technical nature for example). It is also possible to exclude the public from the hearing (though not the judgement) where this can be justified. Judgement shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of public morals.
No comments:
Post a Comment