نویسندگان

1 استاد دانشکدة حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران

2 دانش آموخته دکتری حقوق بین‌الملل دانشگاه شهید بهشتی

چکیده

در حقوق بین‌الملل، مانند حقوق داخلی، احترام و حمایت از حقوق بشر در صورتی مؤثر است که سیستم‌های قانونی دادخواهیِ مؤثر جهت تضمین حق وجود داشته باشند. زمانی که این حق نقض می‌شود، دسترسی به سیستم دادخواهی برای شخص زیان‌دیده بسیار بنیادی خواهد بود. هرچند در کنوانسیون اروپایی حقوق بشر به مواردی از دادرسی عادلانه اشاره شده است، به حق بر دادرسی، به مفهوم حق بر طرح دعوا، به‌صراحت اشاره‏ نشده است. لیکن رویة قضایی این موضوع را گسترش داده و حق بر دادرسی را نه‌تنها شامل برخورداری شخص از سیستمی عادلانه و مؤثر، بلکه آن را شامل طرح دعوا نیز می‌داند. با این حال، این حق مطلق نیست و در مواردی می‌توان محدودیت‌هایی بر آن وارد کرد؛ مشروط بر آنکه این محدودیت‌ها متناسب و دارای هدف مشروع باشد و حق خواهان را بر دسترسی به محاکم قضایی به طور کلی زایل نسازد. این نوشتار درصدد بررسی موردی قضایای مطروحه در دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

The right of access to Justice in the European convention on Human Rights

نویسندگان [English]

  • Jamshid Momtaz 1
  • Sirous Motevassel 2

1 Professor, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 PhD in International Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

چکیده [English]

As in the case of national law, respect and protection of Human Rights is only effective if the executive legal systems can ensure access to an effective remedy. When such right is violated, access to the justice system is essential for the victim. Although the European Convention on Human Rights refers to some aspects of a Fair Hearing, there is no clear reference to the right of hearing within the concept of access to an effective remedy or the right to proceedings. The jurisprudence has broadened the scope of the mentioned subject matter beyond just the right to a fair and effective process system to the right to proceedings. However, provided that the restriction is subject to a legitimate purpose, the principle of proportionality is awarded and that the limitation has no effect on the nature of the stated right, the right of access to justice has proven not to be absolute in some instances.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Access to justice
  • European Convention on Human Rights
  • human rights
  • legitimate purposes
  • Margin of appreciation

  1. FRA -European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Access to justice in Europe: an overview of challenges and opportunities (2011). Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union. Available at: http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2011/access-justice-europe-overview-challenges-and-opportunities.
  2. Francioni, Francesco (15 Dec. 2007). Access to Justice as a Human Right (Collected Courses of the Academy of European Law, Oxford University Press, USA.
    1. Harris, O'Boyle and Warbrick (24 July 2014). Law of the European Convention on Human Rights,Oxford University Press.
    2. Nedjati, Zaim M. (1978). Human Rights under the European Convention, Elsevier Science Ltd; First Edition edition, Amesterdam, Netherlands.
    3. Reid, Karen (2011). A Practitioner's Guide to the European Convention on Human Rights, Sweet & Maxwell, London, UK.
    4. Simor, Jessica (Oct 2015). Human Rights Practice,Sweet & Maxwell, London, UK.
    5. Van Dijk, Piete (1998). Fundamental Rights and principles, Intersentia, Belgium.
    6. Van Dijk, Pieter, Godefridus, J. H. Hoof, G. J. H. Van Hoof (1998). Theory and Practice of European Convention on Human Rights, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Cases:

-      A. v. The United Kingdom, ECHR reports 17 December 2002.

-      Abenavoli v. Italy, ECHR reports 2 September 1997.

-     Admissibility decision of Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom, EHRR 2000.

-      AL-ADSANI v. The United Kingdom, ECHR reports 21 November 2001.

-      Ashingdane v. The United Kingdom, ECHR reports 28 May 1985.

-      Beer and Regan v. Germany, ECHR reports 18 February 1999.

-     Cudak v. Lithuania, ECHR reports 23 March 2010.

-     De Santa v. Italy, ECHR reports 2 September 1997.

-     Dyer v. The United Kingdom, ECHR reports 9 October 1984.

-     Fayed v. The United Kingdom, ECHR reports 21 September 1990.

-      Fogarty v. The United Kingdom, ECHR reports 21 November 2001.

-     Golder v. The United Kingdom, ECHR reports 21 February 1975.

-     Handyside v. The United Kingdom, ECHR reports 7 December 1976.

- Johnson v. Vhief-Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, ECR 1986.

-     Kiss v.  The United Kingdom, ECHR reports 16 December 1976.

-     Konig v. Germany, ECHR reports 10 March 1980 .

-      Kopp v. Switzerland, ECHR reports 25 March 1998.

-     McElhinney v. Ireland, Merits, ECHR reports 21 November 2001.

-     Melchior v. Germany, ECHR reports 2 February 2006.

-     Nicodemo v. Italy, ECHR reports 2 September 1997.

-     Pellegrin v. France, ECHR reports 8 December 1999.

-     Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany, ECHR reports 12 July 2001.

-     Rekasi v. hungary, Commission decision of 25 November 1996, D/R 87 A.

-     Sporrong and Loenroth v. Sweden , ECHR reports 23 September 1982.

-     Suküt v. Turkey, ECHR reports 11 September 2007.

-     T. v. Belgium, ECHR reports 14 July 1983.

-     The Sunday Times v. The United Kingdom, ECHR reports 26 April 1979.

-     Tomasi v. France, ECHR reports of 27 August 1992.

-     Van der Peet v. Germany, ECHR reports 12 April 1996.

-     Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland, ECHR reports 19 April 2007.

-     Waite and Kennedy v. Germany, ECHR reports 18 February 1999.

- X & Y v. the Netherlands, EHCR reports 26 March 1985.