session 1 : ideological background of the constitution, … · 2014. 10. 28. · 1 guy carcassonne,...

Freacutedeacuterique Ferrand (France)

International Association of Procedural Law Seoul Conference 2014 1

Session 1 Ideological Background of the Constitution

Constitutional Rules and Civil Procedure

11 Keynote Speech on general aspects of the topic

Prof Freacutedeacuterique Ferrand

Tenured Professor University Jean Moulin Lyon 3 France

Session 1 Ideological Background of the Constitution Constitutional Rules and Civil

Procedure

2 International Association of Procedural Law Seoul Conference 2014

Freacutedeacuterique Ferrand

Keynote Speech

Constitution and Civil Proceedings

Summary

I Introduction

II Constitution and Access to the Court

A Access to a Court of First Instance

B Is There a Constitutional Right to a Mean of Recourse

III Constitution and Course of Civil Proceedings

A Institutional Constitutional Procedural Guarantees

B Functional Constitutional Procedural Guarantees

IV Constitution and Transnational Dialogue or Conversation Between Courts

V Conclusion

I Introduction

laquo Une bonne Constitution ne peut suffire agrave faire le bonheur drsquoune nation Une mauvaise

peut suffire agrave faire son malheur raquo1 A good constitution is not enough to make the

happiness of a nation A bad one can be enough to make its misfortune This sensible

statement made by a famous French professor of constitutional law (Guy Carcassonne)

shows what important role the basic fundamental law of a country often plays

Concept of Constitution - What is a constitution What are its form aims and contents

The concept of a constitution goes back to ancient Greece Aristotle (384-322 BC) in

his work of political philosophy Politics2 defines the constitution in the following way

ldquolaquo one citizen differs from another but the salvation of the community is the common

buiness of them all This community is the constitution3 the virtue of the citizen must

therefore be relative to the constitution of which he is a member raquo A constitution can be

described as the supreme law of the land It is mostly located at the top of the legal

system and all laws decrees and orders must be consistent with its principles However

this highest ranking may be challenged with regard to international treaties4 especially

1 Guy CARCASSONNE La Constitution Paris Seuil coll Points 1996 p 33

2 ARITOTLE Politics transl by Benjamin JOWETT Univ of Adelaide webedition published by

eBooksAdelaide 3 The first sentence of Aritotlersquos book Politics contains the following statement laquo Each state is a

community of some kind raquo (book 1 first sentence p 1) 4 With regard to the ranking of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in Italy and Spain

see Charlotte GIRARD laquo Ce qursquoappliquer la Convention en droit interne veut dire ndash Le rocircle des doctrines

nationales raquo in Steacutephanie HENNETTE-VAUCHEZJean-Marc SOREL Les droits de lrsquohomme ont-ils

constitutionnaliseacute le monde Bruxelles Bruylant 2011 pp 125 et seq On the ranking of EU law and of

the ECHR in France Germany and Austria see Christophe de ARANJO Justices constitutionnelles et



those relating to a regional economic institutional integration such as the European

Union5 as the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled several times on the ground of

the precedence principle6 On the other hand since the entry into force of the Lisbon

justices europeacuteennes des droits de lrsquohomme Eacutetude compareacutee France-Allemagne Brussels Bruylant ed

2009 pp 189 et seq and pp 343 et seq In France according to the Constitution in the domestic legal

order the prevailing norm is the constitution (see eg Cass Ass Pleacuten 2 June 2000 No 99-60274 laquo la

supreacutematie confeacutereacutee aux engagements internationaux ne srsquoappliquant pas dans lrsquoordre interne aux

dispositions de valeur constitutionnelle raquo) international treaties rank before national statutes In

Germany in the domestic legal order the highest norm is the Basic Law (constitution) then 2deg the

general rules of international law and EU law 3deg federal statutes and international conventions such as

the ECHR The main difference between France and Germany is the ranking of the ECHR (2deg in France

as an international treaty 3deg in Germany) 5 See eg the decision given by the French Constitutional Council 19 November 2004 2004-505 DC

Traiteacute eacutetablissant une Constitution pour lrsquoEurope see also 27 July 2006 No 2006-540 DC Loi relative

au droit dauteur et aux droits voisins dans la socieacuteteacute de linformation (laquo 19 Consideacuterant en premier lieu

que la transposition dune directive ne saurait aller agrave lencontre dune regravegle ou dun principe inheacuterent agrave

lidentiteacute constitutionnelle de la France sauf agrave ce que le constituant y ait consenti raquo The Italian Corte

costituzionale (sentenza No 2321989 21 April 1989) has ruled that primacy of EU law does not apply to

fundamental constitutional principles Also the German Bundesverfassungsgericht hold that the Basic

Law has priority over EU law where the ldquoVerfassungsidentitaumltrdquo is at stake see BVerfG 22 November

1986 2 BvR 19783 Solange II BVerfGE 73 pp 339 et seq Before the change of case law contained in

the Solange II judgment the Bundesverfassungsgericht had ruled (29 May 1974 2 BvL 5271 Solange I

BVerfGE 37 pp 271 et seq) that the European Community ldquostills lacks in particular a codified

catalogue of fundamental rights the substance of which is reliably and unambiguously fixed for the future

and a decision as to whether at the time in question the Community law standard with regard to

fundamental rights generally binding in the Community is adequate in the long term measured by the

standard of the Basic Law with regard to fundamental rightsrdquo ldquoAs long as this legal certainty hellip is not

achieved in the course of the further integration of the Community the reservation derived from Article

24 of the Basic Law appliesrdquo 6 The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled that according to the precedence principle European

law is superior to the national laws even to those of constitutional origin The precedence principle

applies to all European acts with a binding force Therefore Member States may not apply a national rule

which contradicts to European law The ECJ enshrined the precedence principle in the Costa v Enel case

of 15 July 1964 (case 664) Since the ECJ has ruled that national constitutions should also be subject to

the precedence principle (ECJ 17 December 1980 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr-

und Vorratsstelle fuumlr Getreide und Futtermittel case 1170 No 3 laquo in fact the law stemming from the

treaty an independent source of law cannot because of its very nature be overridden by rules of national

law however framed without being deprived of its character as community law and without the legal

basis of the community itself being called in question Therefore the validity of a community measure or

its effect within a member state cannot be affected by allegations that it runs counter to either

fundamental rights as formulated by the constitution of that state or the principles of a national

constitutional structure raquo) it is a matter for national judges not to apply the provisions of a constitution

which contradict European law However since the Maastricht treaty introduced a provision stating that

the Union shall respect the national identities of the Member States (see now Art 42 TEU and infra

under IV) the ECJ has several times referred to the relevance of particular constitutional requirements in

Member States in order to justify an exception see eg ECJ 6 September 2006 C-8803 Portuguese

Republic v Commission of the European Communities 13 October 2004 C-3602 Omega Spielhallen-

und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v Oberbuumlrgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn 8 September 2010 C-

40906 Winner Wetten GmbH v Buumlrgermeisterin der Stadt Bergheim See also Leonard FM

BESSELINK laquo National and constitutional identity before and after Lisbon raquo Utrecht Law Review Vol

6 Issue 3 Nov 2010 p 46 ldquoonce as a result of what some metaphorically call a lsquodialoguersquo of courts it

has emerged that a certain rule of principle belongs to that identity the ECJ proves to be sensitive to this

identityrdquo


Procedure


treaty Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) requires the Union to

ldquorespect the equality of Member States before the Treaties as well as their national

identities inherent in their fundamental structures political and constitutional inclusive

of regional and local self-government raquo7

Constitution has been defined as containing ldquothe most important rules for the state

which means those which determine the form of the state and of its governmentrdquo8 The

powers of the constitutional organs (Parliament government etc) are organised as well

as the relationships between the state and the citizens Besides establishing the

institutions of government and the manner in which they function toward each other and

toward the people a constitution may also set forth the rights of the individual and a

governments duty to respect those rights Juumlrgen Habermas a famous German

philosopher makes a distinction between a liberal and a republican conception of a

constitution in the republican conception a constitution aims at founding and justifying

the sovereignty of a State whereas the liberal view gives the constitution the function of

limiting power (Macht)9 In a State under the rule of law (Eacutetat de droit Rechtsstaat)

there should be no arbitrary power and individual rights should be respected A

constitution is at the same time a political and a legal act since it does not only regulate

the distribution of powers but also gives a political orientation towards specific values

in a specific geographical and human space unit Due to this specific nature the national

constitution ldquoshould only be done for the nation to which one wants to adapt itrsquo and has

been compared to ldquoa garment that if well made should only fit one personrdquo10

If we

adhere to this metaphor we then must admit that a constitution is an ldquoevolving bodyrdquo11

that may be adapted by judicial interpretation or by process of amendment

Can There Be a Transnational Constitution The Examples of the Failed Project of

a European Constitution of the European Union and of the European Convention

on Human Rights12

ndash Attempts have been made to enact a Treaty establishing a

7 For more details see Leonard FM BESSELINK laquo National and constitutional identity before and

after Lisbon raquo Utrecht Law Review Vol 6 Issue 3 Nov 2010 pp 36-49 8 Georges VEDEL Manuel de droit constitutionnel Paris 1949 p 112 reed Paris Dalloz 2002

9 Juumlrgen HABERMAS laquo Une constitution politique pour notre socieacuteteacute mondiale pluraliste raquo in Juumlrgen

HABERMAS Entre naturalisme et religion Les deacutefis de la deacutemocratie Paris coll Nrf Essais Gallimard

2008 p 275 10

Comparison made during the 19th century by the French emperor Napoleon III (1808-1873) laquo Une

constitution doit ecirctre faite uniquement pour la nation agrave laquelle on veut lrsquoadapter Elle doit ecirctre comme un

vecirctement qui pour ecirctre bien fait ne doit aller qursquoagrave un seul homme raquo 11

This is probably what the former State President Charles DE GAULLE meant by stating that ldquoune

Constitution crsquoest un esprit des institutions une pratiquerdquo (Press conference of 31 January 1964 ldquoA

constitution it is a spirit institutions a practicerdquo) Comp Benjamin CONSTANT Ecrits politiques

Paris Gallimard Folio Essais 1997 p 385 laquo Tant qursquoon nrsquoa pas essayeacute une constitution par la pratique

les formes sont une lettre morte la pratique seule en deacutemontre lrsquoeffet et en deacutetermine le sens raquo For an

analysis of Constantrsquos political philosphy (constitutionalism as a limited government) see Jean-Philippe

FELDMANN laquo Le constitutionnalisme selon Benjamin Constant raquo Revue franccedilaise de droit

constitutionnel 20084 p 675-702 12

See the American analysis of the European laquo constitutionalism raquo eg Eric STEIN laquo Lawyers Judges

and the Making of a Transnational Constitution raquo American Journal of International Law vol 75 No 1

p 1981 Anne-Marie SLAUGHTERWalter MATTLI laquo Revisiting the European Court of Justice raquo



Constitution for Europe commonly referred to as the European Constitution This

Treaty created a consolidated constitution of the European Union and was supposed to

replace the European Union Treaties with a single document Signed in October 2004 by

representatives of 25 Member States it was then ratified by 18 of them The French and

Dutch people rejected the Treaty respectively in May and June 2005 by referendum

which halted the ratification process Later the Treaty of Lisbon was signed in

December 2007 and came into force on 1st December 2009 it did not make any

reference to a European Constitution (this terminology had caused reservations and

partly great unconcealed hostility) though it contained many of the changes originally

placed in the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe13

In a less ominous manner

for the people hostile to a European Federation these changes were formulated as

amendments to the existing treaties so that ldquoles apparences eacutetaient sauvesrdquo (appearances

were kept up) The failed Treaty incorporated the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the

European Union (signed in Nice in December 2000) that gained therefore full legal

effect The Lisbon Treaty also gave force to the Charter albeit by referencing it as an

independent document rather than by incorporating it into the treaty itself14

As we will

see later the Charter contains important procedural guarantees which are ldquoaddressed to

the institutions and bodies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity

and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union lawrdquo15

There could

have been a European Constitution that would have formalised the federal nature of the

European Union The project failed but those main profound changes that had been

planned were subsequently incorporated in a formally different way in the major reform

act named the Treaty of Lisbon The ECJ itself often refers to the European Treaties as a

ldquobasic constitutional charterrdquo16

and to the review by the ECJ as ldquo a constitutional

guarantee stemming from the EC Treaty as an autonomous legal system raquo17

According

International Organization vol 52 No 1 Winter 1998 p 177-209 Alec STONE The Judicial

Construction of Europe Oxford Oxford Univ Press 2004 13

See Nicolas MOUSSIS laquo Le Traiteacute de Lisbonne une constitution sans en avoir le titre raquo Revue du

Marcheacute Commun 2008 pp 161 et seq See also Koen LENAERTS Piet VAN NUFFEL and Robert

BRAY Constitutional Law of the European Union 3rd

ed 2011 Sweet amp Maxwell 14

See Article 61 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) laquo The Union recognises the rights freedoms

and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000

as adapted at Strasburg on 12 December 2007 which shall have the same legal value as the Treaties raquo 15

Article 511 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union On this issue see ECJ 26

February 2013 C-39911 Melloni v Ministerio Fiscal 26 February 2013 C-61710 Aringklagaren contre

Hans Aringkerberg Fransson 6 March 2014 C-20613 Crucinao Siragusa v Regione Sicilia Europe May

2014 Comm No 190 16

See also Ninon COLNERIC laquo European Constitution raquo in Juumlrgen BASEDOWKlaus HOPTReinhard

ZIMMERMANNAndreas STIER The Max Planck Encylopedia of European Private Law VoL 1

Oxford Oxford Univ Press 2012 p 572-577 laquo The EEC Treaty albeit concluded in the form of an

international agreement nonetheless constituted the constitutional charter of a community based on the

rule of law raquo 17

See eg ECJ 2 September 2008 joint cases C-40205 P and C-41505 P Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al

Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission laquo In this connection it is to be borne in

mind that the Community is based on the rule of law inasmuch as neither its Member States nor its

institutions can avoid review of the conformity of their acts with the basic constitutional charter the EC

Treaty which established a complete system of legal remedies and procedures designed to enable the

Court of Justice to review the legality of acts of the institutions raquo (No 281) laquo The review by the Court of

the validity of any Community measure in the light of fundamental rights must be considered to be the


Procedure


to the ECJ the general principles of Community law do therefore have constitutional

status18

In legal literature some also see the European Convention on Human Rights as a certain

European Constitution binding on those States which are members of the Council of

Europe The European Court of Human Rights itself has defined the European

Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as an ldquoinstrument constitutionnel de lrsquoordre

juridique europeacuteen raquo (constitutional instrument of the European legal order) in its

decision Loizidou v Turkey of 23rd March 1995 (application No 1531889) However

this formulation has not often been used again by the Court meaning it can be

considered that laquo son usage relegraveve plus du registre symbolique qursquoautre chose raquo19

(its

use is more of symbolic nature than anything else) This reference of the European

Court of Human Rights to the Convention as a laquo constitutional instrument raquo probably

follows from the conviction of the judges of this court that their role as supranational

judges is to guarantee a European and universal identity20

This issue of safeguarding an

identity explains why some European justices such as former President Luzius

Wildhaber21

see in the European Court of Human Rights a constitutional court22

one

which applies the Convention on Human Rights as a kind of safety device designed to

correct any errors which have slipped through the filter of national constitutional bodies

Therefore it has been argued that the European Court of Human Rights should not

concentrate on individual decisions bur rather on landmark cases aiming to keep

common minimal standards and even increase the general level of protection of human

expression in a community based on the rule of law of a constitutional guarantee stemming from the EC

Treaty as an autonomous legal system which is not to be prejudiced by an international agreement raquo (No

316) ECJ 23 April 1986 case 29483 Les Verts European Court Report (ECR)19861339 See also

Antoine VAUCHEZ laquo LrsquoEurope et son nom de code ndash Paradigme constitutionnel et formation drsquoun

nouveau centre politique raquo in Steacutephanie HENNETTE-VAUCHEZJean-Marc SOREL Les droits de

lrsquohomme ont-ils constitutionnaliseacute le monde Bruxelles Bruylant 2011 pp 239-256 18

ECJ 15 October 2009 case C-10108 Audiolux and Others European Court Report (ECR)

2009I09823 See also Armin VON BOGDANDY and Juumlrgen BAST (eds) Principles of European

Constitutional Law 2nd

ed 2010 Oxford Hart Publishing 19

Marie-Elisabeth BAUDOIN laquo Consonances et dissonances dans le discours europeacuteen des droits de

lrsquohomme violationnistes et eacutetatistes la deacutefinition du rocircle du juge europeacuteen raquo in Steacutephanie HENNETTE-

VAUCHEZJean-Marc SOREL Les droits de lrsquohomme ont-ils constitutionnaliseacute le monde Bruxelles

Bruylant 2011 p 80 footnote 54 20

Marie-Elisabeth BAUDOIN prec p 90 21

Luzius WILDHABER laquo A constitutional future for the European Court of Human Rights raquo Human

Rights Law Journal vol 23 nos 5-7 2002 pp 161-165 22

See Luzius WILDHABER laquo lsquoConstitutionnalisationrsquo et rsquojuridiction constitutionnellersquo le point de

vue de Strasbourg raquo in Steacutephanie HENNETTE-VAUCHEZJean-Marc SOREL Les droits de lrsquohomme

ont-ils constitutionnaliseacute le monde Bruxelles Bruylant 2011 pp 92 et seq (p 95 laquo Plutocirct que de

sauver une deacutemocratie dans une affaire exceptionnelle la Cour EDH a contribueacute agrave fortifier les

deacutemocraties gracircce agrave la lsquonormativiteacutersquo de son action continue Elle a deacutecideacute le mecircme genre drsquoaffaires que

les Cours constitutionnelles nationales sur la base de principes similaireshellip A cause de cette similitude

certains auteurs ndash y compris moi-mecircme ndash ont qualifieacute la Cour EDH de lsquocour quasi-constitutionnellersquo sui

generis raquo)



rights in all Europe23

Such a mission would be ldquoconstitutionalrdquo within the meaning of

ldquoruling on issues for reasons of public order in the general interestrdquo The issue of

laquo constitutionalization raquo24

has also been raised in view of safeguarding the authority of

the European Court which is threatened by the high number of individual complaints it

cannot deal with within a reasonable time-frame25

Should the Convention on Human

Rights be subject to an individualistic approach or is a ldquomore constitutionalrsquo (ie

abstract) one preferable The opinions are far from unanimous The Convention has a

strong normative role und should be placed at the top of the hierarchy of norms Thus

as one scholar suggested26

the term ldquoconstitutionalrdquo which has been increasingly used

in the past few years could simply refer to a symbolic and rhetorical proposal

performing the function of an identification and unification instrument of the European

Courtrsquos members

Constitutional Values and Preamble of the Constitution - The values that are the

basis for a constitution are sometimes stated in a preamble to the Constitution as in the

Spanish Constitucioacuten of 27 December 1978 ldquo Garantizar la convivencia democraacutetica

dentro de la Constitucioacuten y de las leyes conforme a un orden econoacutemico y social justo

Consolidar un Estado de Derecho que asegure el imperio de la ley como expresioacuten de la

voluntad popular

Proteger a todos los espantildeoles y pueblos de Espantildea en el ejercicio de los derechos

humanos sus culturas y tradiciones lenguas e instituciones27

raquo or in the preamble to

the French Constitution of 4th October 1958 laquo Le peuple franccedilais proclame

solennellement son attachement aux Droits de lhomme et aux principes de la

souveraineteacute nationale tels quils ont eacuteteacute deacutefinis par la Deacuteclaration de 1789 confirmeacutee

et compleacuteteacutee par le preacuteambule de la Constitution de 1946 ainsi quaux droits et devoirs

23

Luzius WILDHABER laquo Place de la Cour europeacuteenne des droits de lrsquoHomme dans le paysage

constitutionnel europeacuteen raquo XIIth Conference of the European constitutional courts Brussels 13-17 May

2002 p 5 24

See Steacutephanie HENNETTE-VAUCHEZJean-Marc SOREL Les droits de lrsquohomme ont-ils

constitutionnaliseacute le monde Bruxelles Bruylant 2011 Olivier DE FROUVILLE laquo Le paradigme de la

constitutionnalisation vu du droit international raquo in Steacutephanie HENNETTE-VAUCHEZJean-Marc

SOREL Les droits de lrsquohomme ont-ils constitutionnaliseacute le monde Bruxelles Bruylant 2011 pp 193-

215 For a different opinion see Jean-Marc SOREL laquo Le paradigme de la constitutionnalisatin vu du

droit international (2) le cocircteacute obscur de la force raquo in Steacutephanie HENNETTE-VAUCHEZJean-Marc

SOREL Les droits de lrsquohomme ont-ils constitutionnaliseacute le monde pp 217-238 25

Luzius WILDHABER laquo lsquoConstitutionnalisationrsquo et laquorsquojuridiction constitutionnellersquo le point de vue de

Strasbourg raquo prec p 96 26


laquo Guarantee democratic coexistence within the Constitution and the laws in accordance with a fair

economic and social order Consolidate a State of Law which ensures the rule of law as the expression of

the popular will Protect all Spaniards and people of Spain in the exercise of human rights of their

culture and traditions languages and institutions raquo translation provided by the website of the Spanish

Congreso

httpwwwcongresoesportalpageportalCongresoCongresoHist_NormasNormconst_espa_texto_ingl

es_0pdf


Procedure


deacutefinis dans la Charte de lenvironnement de 200428

raquo Many constitutions do not only

mention human rights (derechos humanos droits de lrsquohomme Menschenrechte) in their

preamble but even dedicate to them a specific part such as the German Grundgesetz of

23rd May 1949 which starts with a Part 1 dealing with the Grundrechte This was a

strong political statement of the hierarchy of values in the newly founded Federal

Republic of Germany The same applies to the Spanish Constitution enacted about three

years after Francorsquos death of which the first Title reads ldquo De los Dereches y Deberes

Fundamentalesrdquo (Fundamental Rights and Duties) and deals more specifically in

Chapter 2 with ldquoDerechos y Libertadesrdquo (Rights and Liberties) The constitution is thus

a tool which protects people The Italian constitution (Costituzione della Repubblica

italiana) of 27th December 1947 also contains a first part called ldquoRights and duties of

citizensrdquo (Rapporti civili art 13-28)29

The same applies to the Brazilian constitution30

By contrast the American constitution of 1787 did not initially contain a part dedicated

to the rights and duties of the people It originally comprised only a few articles

delineating the frame of government After its coming into force in 1789 it was

amended several times and the first ten amendments (Bill of Rights) address major

peoplersquos rights setting rules for indictment by grand jury protecting the right to due

process and prohibiting self-incrimination and double jeopardy (5th Amendment)

protecting the right to a fair speedy and public trial by jury including the rights to be

informed of the nature and cause of the accusation to be confronted by witnesses to

obtain witnesses and to retain counsel (6th Amendment) and stating the right to trial by

jury in certain civil cases (7th

Amendment)31

The 14th

Amendment adopted in 1868

extended the due process clause to the individual states whereas the 5th

Amendment had

made this clause applicable to the federal government32

Form of the Constitution - The form of the Constitution may vary from one

jurisdiction to another It can be codified or not In England for example Magna Carta

(Great Charter) was issued on 15 June 1215 in Latin of course and was the first

document imposed upon a King of England by a group of his subjects in an attempt to

limit his powers by law and protect their rights During the second half of the 19th

28

laquo The French people solemnly proclaim their attachment to the Rights of Man and the principles of

national sovereignty as defined by the Declaration of 1789 confirmed and complemented by the

Preamble to the Constitution of 1946 and to the rights and duties as defined in the Charter for the

Environment of 2004 raquo translation provided by the website of the French Constitutional Council

httpwwwconseil-constitutionnelfrconseil-

constitutionnelrootbank_mmanglaisconstiution_anglais_juillet2008pdf 29

See also the Swiss constitution of 18 March 1999 Title 2 Art 7-36 30

Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil of 5 October 1988 Title 2 Fundamental rights and

guarantees 31

laquo In Suits at common law where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars the right of trial

by jury shall be preserved and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the

United States than according to the rules of the common law raquo 32

The due process clause encompasses procedural due process and substantive due process Procedural

due process is the guarantee of a fair legal process when the government seeks to burden a persons

protected interests in life liberty or property Substantive due process is the guarantee that the

fundamental rights of citizens will not be encroached on by government



century most but not all of its clauses were repealed33

Magna Carta was described by

Lord Denning as the greatest constitutional document of all times ldquo In 2005 Lord

Woolf called it the first of a series of instruments that now are recognised as having a

special constitutional status34

Magna Carta was the first constitutional Act and it has

been asserted that it influenced parts of the American constitution35

Unlike many other

countries the United Kingdom has no single constitutional document sometimes it is

for this reason said to have an unwritten constitution (unwritten because not

originating in a single document although many written laws have been instrumental in

its creation) At the end of the 18th

century the American and the French Revolutions

led to the first written constitutions The constitution can be a sole document as in

Germany (Grundgesetz) or a set of several constitutional Acts It can refer - this is eg

the case in France ndash to other written documents thus giving them constitutional value

In the French preamble the reference to the ldquoDeclaration of 178936

confirmed and

complemented by the Preamble to the Constitution of 1946rdquo leads to the inclusion of the

human rights guaranteed in these instruments in the so-called ldquobloc de

constitutionnaliteacuterdquo37

Some of these rights and liberties will prove very important for

criminal and civil proceedings

Values are at Stake in Proceedings - Criminal or civil procedure is no longer seen as a

mere technical matter Procedural law is often built upon values that a State wishes to

promote One is for example the equal treatment between all citizens or individuals and

therefore also between litigants

With regard to civil procedure several issues may have a close relationship with

individual rights guaranteed by a national constitution The first one is access to court

(II) which can then be divided between access to a court of first instance and possible

right to a mean if recourse Constitutional values may also play an important rule during

the course of civil proceedings in this respect the key words are fair trial (procegraves

33

Three clauses currently remain part of the law of England and Wales in particular Clause 29 (ldquoNo

Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or be disseised of his Freehold or Liberties or free Customs or

be outlawed or exiled or any other wise destroyed nor will We not pass upon him nor condemn him but

by lawful judgment of his Peers or by the Law of the Land We will sell to no man we will not deny or

defer to any man either Justice or Right raquo) The last sentence of this clause was invoked in 2009 by an

English Member of Parliament to oppose a planned change in the statutory regulation of court fees 34

Other important English instruments having constitutional status are for example the Habeas Corpus

Act (1679) the Petition of Right (1628) the Bill of Rights (1689) and the Act of Settlement (1701) 35

The United States Supreme Court has eg in its decision Klopfer v North Carolina 386 US 213

(1967) mentioned Magna Carta as an antecedent of the Sixth Amendementrsquos right to a speeding trial

(laquo We hold here that the right to a speedy trial is as fundamental as any of the rights secured by the Sixth

Amendment That right has its roots at the very foundation of our English law heritage Its first

articulation in modern jurisprudence appears to have been made in Magna Carta (1215) wherein it was

written lsquoWe will sell to no man we will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right lsquo raquo) see

httpcaselawlpfindlawcomscriptsgetcaseplcourt=USampvol=386ampinvol=213 36

Deacuteclaration des droits de lrsquohomme et du citoyen (Declaration of Human and Civic Rights) which has

become the written basis of many decisions rendered by the French Constitutional Council relating to

criminal civil and administrative proceedings see Reacutegis FRAISSE ldquoLrsquoarticle 16 de la Deacuteclaration cleacute de

voucircte des droits et liberteacutesrdquo Les nouveaux cahiers du Conseil constitutionnel ndeg44 July 2014 pp 9 et seq 37

See Bernard CHANTEBOUT Droit constitutionnel 29th ed 2012 Paris Sirey p 599


Procedure


eacutequitable faires Verfahren due process of law derecho a un proceso equitativo) which

encompasses many features of the proceedings such as the right to be heard the

independence and impartiality of the court and also the issue of publicity of the

proceedings (III) These two main aspects of constitutional procedural rights (access to

court and fair trial) are to be examined not only in the light of constitutional provisions

since in many States the Constitutional court andor the civil courts have taken action in

order to promote those rights through judicial interpretation At a final stage (IV) this

presentation will deal with a topic which has become of central importance in the last

decades due to the increase of international instruments aiming to protect human rights

(such as the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950 ratified by 47 European

States38

or the American Convention on Human Rights of 1969 applying in 23 States of

Central and South America39

) and to create regional economic political and legal

organisations such as the European Union What is nowadays the interplay between

national constitutions and regional or even international instruments What are the

respective roles of domestic regional and international courts in the protection of

procedural rights Is there a transnational dialogue between the actors of that protection

What about possible conflicting provisions andor case law These difficult issues have

become essential in judicial practice


Rights would remain purely theoretical if the individual (or legal entities) were not in a

position to defend them before an institution (normally a court) The concept of access

to justice has been developed by scholars (especially by the great Italian professor

Mauro Cappelletti40

whose name has been chosen for the IAPL-prize rewarding the best

work published on a procedural law subject) but also in the extensive case law of the

European Court of Human Rights as a prerequisite to a fair trial followed from Article 6

ECHR Access to justice refers to the ability of people to seek and obtain a remedy

through formal or informal institutions of justice and in conformity with the standards

of human rights When this access is provided before courts or tribunals it is more

precisely called access to court It is a fundamental human right as set out in Article 8 of

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (ldquoEveryone has the right to an effective

remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights

granted him by the constitution or by lawrdquo) it is also a means of protection of other

rights Therefore it is not surprising to find in many national constitutions a provision

guaranteeing in a more or less general way access to a court In the United Kingdom

fundamental norms have been injected which laquo regulate the entire practice of civil

38

See httpwwwStrasbourg-europeeupays-membres44987frhtml 39

See the state of ratifications under httpwwwoasorgdiltreaties_B-

32_American_Convention_on_Human_Rights_signhtm 40

See eg Mauro CAPPELLETTI (ed) Access to Justice and Welfare State Florence European Univ

Institute 1981



justice raquo41

Thus the Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates the European Convention of

Human Rights (especially art 6 para 1 which concerns the basic aspects of access to

court and fair procedure) Access to court requires a fair and efficient system for

providing justice equal access is also crucial to the proper functioning of society and

raises the issue of the availability of legal aid in favour of the most disadvantaged (A)

By contrast few constitutions provide for a right to a mean of recourse and this issue is

then left to the legislator (B) In Europe as we will see this is in line with the case law

of the European Court of Human Rights with regard to the guarantees enshrined in

Article 6 ECHR


Lady Brenda Hale Supreme Court Justice emphasised in her 2011 Sir Henry Hodge

Memorial Lecture the need to maintain effective access to court laquo Courts are and

should be a last resort but they should be a last resort which is accessible to all rich

and poor alike raquo42

This quotation underlines two major aspects of the right to access to

court the legal possibility to seize a civil court and the effective accessibility without

regard to the financial resources of the litigants

Some Examples in National Constitutions ndash Many national constitutions do indeed

guarantee a right to access to court Article 29a of the Swiss constitution of 18 March

1999 (Guarantee of access to the courts) states for instance that ldquoIn a legal dispute

every person has the right to have their case determined by a judicial authorityrdquo

However ldquoThe Confederation and the Cantons may by law preclude the determination

by the courts of certain exceptional categories of caserdquo Article 24 of the Spanish

constitution of 1978 provides that ldquo1 Every person has the right to obtain the effective

protection of the Judges and the Courts in the exercise of his or her legitimate rights

and interests and in no case may he go undefended 2 Likewise all persons have the

right of access to the ordinary judge predetermined by law [hellip]rdquo According to the

Italian constitution (Article 24) ldquoEveryone can take judicial action to protect individual

rights and legitimate interestsrdquo43

In Germany the Grundgesetz does not expressly

guarantee the right to access to court However the German constitutional court

(Bundesverfassungsgericht)44

has constantly ruled that a constitutional right to effective

legal protection (Recht auf Gewaumlhrung effektiven Rechtsschutzes

Justizgewaumlhrungsanspruch45

) follows from Article 2 para 1 in connection with Article

41

N Andrews laquo Nurturing Civil Justice raquo in Festschrift Rolf Stuumlrner Band 2 Tuumlbungen Mohr Siebeck

2013 p 1402 42

Equal Access to Justice in the Big Society 27 June 2011 quoted by N ANDREWS laquo Nurturing Civil

Justice raquo p 1396 43

Comp Art 5 XXXV Brazilian constitution 44

The Bundesverfassungsgericht ist the highest institution in the judicial branch bdquoco-equal with the

legislative and executive branches of the German governmentldquo see Peter L MURRAYRolf STUumlRNER

German Civil Justice Carolina Academic Press Durham 2004 p 62 45

On the dimension of Justizgewaumlhrleistung in German civil proceedings see Alexander BRUNS bdquoDie

zivilprozessuale Dimension des Justizgewaumlhrleistungldquo in Festschrift Rolf Stuumlrner Vol I Tuumlbingen Mohr

Siebeck ed 2013 pp 257-271


Procedure


20 para 3 of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz)46

According to Article 2 para 1 ldquoEvery

person has the right to free development of his personality insofar as he does not violate

the rights of others or offend against the constitutional order of the moral lawrdquo Article

20 para 3 guarantees the rule-of-law principle47

(Rechtsstaatsprinzip) According to the

German constitutional court the fundamental rights secured by the Basic Law can only

perform their function in the constitutional order if they can be effectively realised

through judicial proceedings that will be guaranteed (Rechtsverwirklichung durch

Verfahren) The influence of the German Federal constitutional court on criminal and

civil procedure is huge By means of the Verfassungsbeschwerde (constitutional

complaint) any person may allege that their constitutional rights have been violated48

Although only a small fraction of these complaints are actually successful (about 2)49

they allow the German constitutional court to develop the protection of fundamental

procedural rights It has even been asserted by a German scholar50

that ldquoconstitutional

case law is probably the most current procedural legislationrdquo The French constitution

of 1958 does not expressly guarantee the right to access to court The Constitutional

council however has made use of Article 16 of the Declaration of Human and Civic

Rights of 1789 (which reads ldquoAny society in which no provision is made for

guaranteeing rights or for the separation of powers has no Constitutionrdquo) to give

constitutional value to the right to an effective legal remedy before court (droit agrave un

recours juridictionnel effectifrdquo)51

and to several other procedural rights52

so that Article

46

See eg German Fed Const court(BVerfG) 2 March 1993 1 BvR 24992 Neue Juristische

Wochenschrift (NJW) 1993 p 1635 For more recent decisions see German Fed Const court (BVerfG)

18 July 2013 1 BvR 162311 NJW 42014 p 205 3 March 2014 1 BvR 253410 NJW 252014 p

1796 47

Art 20 para 3 laquo The legislature shall be bound by the constitutional order the executive and the

judiciary by law and justice raquo 48

When all other remedies are exhausted the plaintiff can file a constitutional complaint with the

Bundesverfassungsgericht and allege for instance that a court judgment is in violation of the

Constitution 1deg by virtue of the procedure with which the court decision was reached 2deg by reason of the

law on which the judgment is based or 3deg by reason of some finding or reasoning of the judges see Peter

L MURRAYRolf STUuml RNER German Civil Justice Carolina Academic Press Durham 2004 p 64 49

The workload of the Federal Constitutional court had increased considerably so that in 1993 panels of

three judges (Dreierkammern) were established within both senates of eight judges The panels of three

judges acting unanimously may summarily dismiss a constitutional complaint as unfounded or may grant

the relief requested see sectsect 83b and 93c of the law relating to the Federal Constitutional court

(Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz BVerfGG) and Peter L MURRAYRolf STUuml RNER German Civil

Justice p 65 50

Peter GILLES laquo Zum Bedeutungszuwachs und Funktionswandel des Prozessrechts raquo Juristische

Schulung (JUS) 1981 p405 51

See eg Const Council (CC) 23 July 1999 no 99-416 DC Loi portant creacuteation dune couverture

maladie universelle 27 July 2006 No 2006-540 DC Loi relative au droit drsquoauteur et aux droits voisins

dans la socieacuteteacute de lrsquoinformation sect 11 29 September 2010 No 2010-38 QPC M Jean-Yves G (Amende

forfaitaire et droit au recours) sect 3 30 July 2010 No 2010-1927 QPC Eacutepoux P et autres (Perquisitions

fiscales) 26 November 2010 No 2010-71 QPC Mlle Danielle S (Hospitalisation sans consentement)

13 May 2011 No 2011-129 QPC sect 4 17 June 2011 No 2011-138 QPC sect 4 52

Const Council (CC) 27 July 2006 No 2006-540 DC Loi relative au droit drsquoauteur et aux droits

voisins dans la socieacuteteacute de lrsquoinformation sect 11 This required first the Constitutional Council to incorporate

the Preamble of the Constitution of 1958 and therefore the Preamble of 1946 as well as the Declaration of

Human and Civic Rights of 1789 to which the Preamble of 1958 refers into the so called laquo bloc de

constitutionnaliteacute raquo which was done by decision 71-44 DC 16 July 1971 Liberteacute drsquoassociation



16 has been described as the ldquocornerstonerdquo of rights and liberties in France53

More

precisely between March 1959 and March 2010 Article 16 was relied upon 70 times

and led to 2 reacuteserves drsquointerpreacutetation (reservations with regard to the constitutional

interpretation of a statutory provision)54

and to the repealing of 17 statutory provisions

On the 1st of March 2010 the reform act creating the application for a priority

preliminary ruling on the issue of constitutionality (so-called Question prioritaire de

constitutionnaliteacute QPC priority question of constitutionality) came into force The

QPC is the right for any person who is involved in legal proceedings before a court to

argue that a statutory provision infringes rights and freedoms as guaranteed by the

Constitution From the 1st of March 2010 until the 1st of March 2014 Article 16 was

invoked more than 150 times and led to 18 reacuteserves drsquointerpreacutetation to the seizing of

the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling (question preacutejudicielle)55

and to

the repealing of 38 statutory provisions56

Therefore the absence of an express

constitutional provision concerning access to court does not prevent national judges

from recognizing this fundamental procedural right since it is a condition for the

exercise of all other procedural rights This has been clearly and repeatedly ruled by the

European Court of Human Rights

Article 6 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 8 (1) of the

American Convention on Human Rights ndash The American Convention on Human

Rights signed in San Josi Costa Rica 22nd November 1969 contains an Article 8

securing the right to a fair trial57

and more precisely to a hearing with due guarantees58

53

Reacutegis FRAISSE laquo Lrsquoarticle 16 de la Deacuteclaration clef de voucircte des droits et liberteacutes raquo Les nouveaux

cahiers du Conseil constitutionnel No 44 2014 pp 9-21 Article 16 of the Declaration appears as a

laquo guarantee of rights raquo in the decision given by the Constitutional Council (CC) 21 January 1994 No 93-

335 DC Loi portant diverses dispositions en matiegravere drsquourbanisme et de construction 54

Reacuteserves dinterpreacutetation aim to give an orientation compatible with the Constitution with regard to an

application of the statutory provision without repealing the challenged norm 55

Const Council (CC) 4 April 2013 No 2013-314 QPC M Jeremy F 56

R FRAISSE prec p 14 The laquo success story raquo of the QPC is described in Olivier DUTHEILLET

DE LAMOTTE ldquoA french legal success story the lsquoQuestion prioritaire de constitutionnaliteacutersquordquo available

on the website of the Constitutional Council httpwwwconseil-constitutionnelfrconseil-

constitutionnelfrancaisdocumentationcontributions-et-discours2012a-french-legal-success-story-the-

question-prioritaire-de-constitutionnalite115542html According to the author laquo Concrete review is

based on real life It is based on real cases on the actual implementation of the law It rules on the

constitutionality of a statute as it is applied and not as it could or should be appliedraquo 57

Art 81 laquo Every person has the right to a hearing with due guarantees and within a reasonable

time by a competent independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law in the

substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his

rights and obligations of a civil labor fiscal or any other naturerdquo 58

The American Convention on Human Rights which has never been ratified by the United States and

Canada also contains an Article 25 (Right to judicial protection) stating that ldquo1 Everyone has the right to

simple and prompt recourse or any other effective recourse to a competent court or tribunal for

protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the

state concerned or by this Convention even though such violation may have been committed by persons

acting in the course of their official duties 2 The States Parties undertake a to ensure that any person

claiming such remedy shall have his rights determined by the competent authority provided for by the

legal system of the state b to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy and c to ensure that the

competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted raquo This provision has almost the same

content as Art 13 ECHR (Right to an effective remedy) ldquoEveryone whose rights and freedoms as set


Procedure


One of its strongest advocates the former President of the Inter-American Court of

Human rights Canccedilado Trindade has several times insisted upon the need to ldquoenlarge

further the material content of jus cogens so as to encompass likewise the right of

access to justice and thus fulfil the pressing needs of protection of the human personrdquo 59

One of the most important provisions in the European Convention is its Article 6 para 1

that guarantees a right to a fair trial This provision has been interpreted by the

European Court of Human Rights in an extensive and pragmatic manner the right to a

fair trial cannot be granted if the access to court is not secured Therefore in the

landmark case Golder v The United Kingdom of 197560

(and repeatedly in many other

decisions) the Strasburg Court held that ldquoThe principle whereby a civil claim must be

capable of being submitted to a judge ranks as one of the universally recognised

fundamental principles of law the same is true of the principle of international law

which forbids the denial of justice Article 6 para 1 (art 6-1) must be read in the light

of these principles raquo (sect 35 of the judgment)61

laquo It would be inconceivable in the

opinion of the Court that Article 6 para 1 should describe in detail the procedural

guarantees afforded to parties in a pending lawsuit and should not first protect that

which alone makes it in fact possible to benefit from such guarantees that is access to

a court The fair public and expeditious characteristics of judicial proceedings are of

no value at all if there are no judicial proceedings raquo ldquoIt follows that the right of access

constitutes an element which is inherent in the right stated by Article 6 para 1raquo (sect 36)

Many other judgments followed62

insisting again and again on the necessary guarantee

of effective access to court However the right to access to a court is not absolute

According to the Strasburg Court it may be ldquosubject to limitations since the right of

access by its very nature calls for regulation by the State In this respect the

Contracting States enjoy a certain margin of appreciation although the final decision

as to the observance of the Conventionrsquos requirements rests with the Court It must be

satisfied that the limitations applied do not restrict or reduce the access left to the

individual in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right is

impaired Furthermore a limitation will not be compatible with Article 6 sect 1 if it does

forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority

notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity raquo 59

Antonio Augusto CANCADO TRINDADE laquo The Expansion of the Material Content of Jus Cogens

The Contribution of the Inter-American Court of Human Rightsrdquo in Dean SPIELMANN Marialena

TSIRLI and Panayotis VOYATZIS La Convention europeacuteenne des droits de lrsquohomme un instrument

vivant Meacutelanges en lrsquohonneur de Christos L Rozakis Bruxelles Bruylant 2011 pp 37 et seq 60

ECtHR 21 February 1975 applic No 445170 61

According to the ECtHR laquo Were Article 6 para 1 (art 6-1) to be understood as concerning

exclusively the conduct of an action which had already been initiated before a court a Contracting State

could without acting in breach of that text do away with its courts or take away their jurisdiction to

determine certain classes of civil actions and entrust it to organs dependent on the Government Such

assumptions indissociable from a danger of arbitrary power would have serious consequences which are

repugnant to the aforementioned principles and which the Court cannot overlook raquo 62

For a very recent decision see ECtHR 14 January 2014 Jones and Others v the United Kingdom

applic Nos 3435606 and 4052806 ldquosect 186 Article 6 sect 1 secures to everyone the right to have any legal

dispute (ldquocontestationrdquo in the French text of Article 6 sect 1) relating to his civil rights and obligations

brought before a courtrdquo



not pursue a legitimate aim and if there is no reasonable relationship of proportionality

between the means employed and the aim sought to be achievedrdquo63

What is the effect of such a judgment on the Contracting States Article 46 of the

Convention provides that Contracting States undertake to abide by the Courts final

decision64

To date the Court has decided consistently that under the Convention it has

no jurisdiction to annul domestic laws or administrative practices which violate the

Convention The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe is charged with

supervising the execution of the Courts judgments and oversees the Contracting States

changes to their national law in order that it is compatible with the Convention or

individual measures taken by the contracting state to redress violations Judgments by

the Court are binding on the respondent state concerned65

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union ndash In the context of

Europe there is a profusion of provisions guaranteeing the litigants procedural rights

Even before the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union became legally

binding when the Treaty of Lisbon came into force in December 2009 the European

Court of Justice regularly referred to this Charter Since 1974 it also regularly refers66

to the European Convention on Human Rights as well as to the constitutional traditions

common to the Member States To date Article 63 of the Treaty on European Union

63

Ibid See also eg ECtHR 29 June 2011 Sabeh El Leil v France [GC] applic No 3486905 sectsect 46-47

3 March 2005 (dec) Manoilescu and Dobrescu v Romania and Russia applic No 6086100 sectsect 66 and

68 64

On the other hand advisory opinions of the European Court of Human Rights are non-binding 65

See Art 46 ECHR on the binding force and execution of judgments given by the Strasburg Court

especially paras 1 and 2 laquo 1 The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of

the Court in any case to which they are parties 2 The final judgment of the Court shall be transmitted to

the Committee of Ministers which shall supervise its execution raquo If the Committee of Ministers considers

that a High Contracting Party refuses to abide by a final judgment in a case to which it is a party it may

after serving formal notice on that Party and by decision adopted by a majority vote of two thirds of the

representatives entitled to sit on the committee refer to the Court the question whether that Party has

failed to fulfil its obligation under paragraph 1 (para 4) and if the Court finds a violation laquo it shall refer

the case to the Committee of Ministers for consideration of the measures to be taken raquo (para 5) 66

ECJ 14 May 1974 Nold KG v Commission case 473 ECR p 491 was a first step laquo sect 13 As the

court has already stated fundamental rights form an integral part of the general principles of law the

observance of which it ensures In safeguarding these rights the court is bound to draw inspiration from

constitutional traditions common to the Member States and it cannot therefore uphold measures which

are incompatible with fundamental rights recognized and protected by the constitutions of those states

Similarly international treaties for the protection of human rights on which the Member States have

collaborated or of which they are signatories can supply guidelines which should be followed within the

framework of community law raquo Then the ECJ made direct reference to the ECHR (ECJ 28 October 1975

Rutili v Ministre de lrsquoInteacuterieur case 3675 21 September 1989 Hoechst AG v Commission cases 4687

and 22788 Only later in the 1990s the ECJ has directly quoted the ECtHRrsquo case law (see eg ECJ 17

December 1998 Baustahlgewebe GmbH v Commission case C-18595 in this decision following the

case law of the Strasburg Court the ECJ rules that the reasonableness of the duration of the procedure

before the court of first instance must be appraised in the light of the circumstances specific to each case

and in particular the importance of the case for the person concerned its complexity and the conduct of

the applicant and the competent authorities A procedural irregularity of that kind justifies as an

immediate and effective remedy first annulment of the judgment of the court of first instance in so far as

it set the amount of the fine imposed for the infringement found and second determination of that

amount by the Court of Justice at a level which takes account of the need to give the applicant reasonable

satisfaction


Procedure


(TEU) stresses that ldquo3 Fundamental rights as guaranteed by the European Convention

for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as they result from

the constitutional traditions common to the Member States shall constitute general

principles of the Unions law raquo Article 61 TEU also provides that the Charter of

Fundamental Rights of the European Union has the laquo same legal value as the Treaties raquo

The European Union must also accede to the European Convention of Human Rights

(Article 62) The Charter contains an Article 47 on the laquo Right to an effective remedy

and to a fair trial raquo67

stating guarantees very similar to those provided in Article 6 para 1

ECHR The Charter thus goes even further by requiring that ldquoLegal aid be made

available to those who lack sufficient resources in so far as such aid is necessary to

ensure effective access to justice raquo (Article 473)

Is There a Constitutional Right to Legal Aid ndash Some national constitutions68

do

indeed guarantee legal aid For example Article 24 para 3 of the Italian constitution is

generous and provides that ldquothe indigent are assured through appropriate institutions

the means for action and defence before all levels of jurisdictionrdquo The Federal

Constitution of the Swiss Confederation contains a similar provision (Article 29 para

369

) Nothing of this kind is mentioned in many other constitutions such as in France70

or Germany However the German Federal Constitutional court has constantly71

held

that Article 20 para 1 of the Basic Law (defining the Federal Republic of Germany as a

ldquodemocratic and social federal staterdquo demokratischer und sozialer Bundesstaat)

requires that the financially disadvantaged enjoy a judicial protection more or less

identical to the better-off72

sometimes the Courtrsquos decisions also use other provisions

67

Art 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union laquo 1 Everyone whose rights and

freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a

tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Article 2 Everyone is entitled to a fair and

public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal previously established

by law Everyone shall have the possibility of being advised defended and represented raquo 68

Comp Art 24 para 2 of the Spanish Constitution all persons have the right laquo to the defence and

assistance of a lawyer raquo 69

Art 29 para 3 laquo Any person who does not have sufficient means has the right to free legal advice and

assistance unless their case appears to have no prospect of success If it is necessary in order to

safeguard their rights they also have the right to free legal representation in court raquo 70

In France the principle according to which justice if free of charge (principe de gratuiteacute de la justice)

is enshrined in Law Act No 77-1468 of 30 December 1977 However this does not apply to lawyersrsquo fees

(except where the law provides for legal aid) The Constitutional council has nevertheless admitted that

statutes could impose on the litigants ndash even on those benefiting from legal aid ndash some very low fees

(droits de plaidoirie less than 10 euros) see CC 25 November 2011 No 2011-198 QPC M Albin R)

Also the so-called contribution pour lrsquoaide juridique (35 euros) and the contribution of 150 euros to pay

in appellate proceedings do not infringe the right to effective access to court (CC 13 April 2012 No

2012-231234 QPC M Steacutephane C et autres) Those two contributions which were time-limited have

been abolished 71

See already German Fed Const court (BVerfG) 22 January 1959 1 BvR 15455 BVerfGE 9 pp 124

et seq [130 et seq] 12 January 1960 1 BvL 1759 BVerfGE 10 p 264 [p 270] 6 June 1967 1 BvR

28265 BVerfGE 22 pp 83 et seq [p 86] 72

German Fed Const court (BVerfG) 7 April 2000 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 2000 p

1937 10 March 1990 2 BvR 94 802 887 997 1094 1158 1247 1274 1439 15138NJW 1991 p 413

See also German Federal Court of Justice 3rd civil chamber 26 October 1989 Entscheidungen des

Bundesgerichtshofes in Zivilsachen (BGHZ) 109 p 168 This does not only apply to legal aid in



of the Basic Law such as Article 3 (equality before the law)73

or Article 19 para 4 (right

to recourse to the courts) to support its reasoning and to refuse any laquo Rechtswegsperre raquo

(court access barriers)74

This case law has a great impact on civil proceedings In most

states however the existence of legal aid and the requirements to be met are subject to

statute and not secured by the constitution In France for example the Constitutional

Council does not give constitutional value to the right to legal aid as such75

However it

held that legal aid and right to effective access to court are connected and that the costs

of judicial proceedings may prevent citizens from bringing a law suit76

and therefore

concluded that legal aid is an important feature of the right to effective access to court77

Moreover for the states that are members of the Council of Europe78

a duty to provide

legal aid in civil proceedings is imposed in some circumstances by the case law of the

Strasburg Court according to which (as stated in the famous case Airey v Ireland

dealing with a judicial separation proceeding79

) in complex litigation it is ldquomost

improbable that a person in Mrs Aireyrsquos position [hellip] can effectively present his or her

proceedings (Prozesskostenhilfe) but also to legal aid before any proceeding (Beratungshilfe) see

German Fed Const court(BVerfG) 30 June 2009 1 BvR 47009 Zeitschrift fuumlr das Gesamte

Familienrecht (FamRZ) 2009 p 1655 73

Eg German Fed Const court (BVerfG) 14 April 2003 1 BvR 199802 NJW 2003 p 2976 74

German Fed Const court (BVerfG) 4 February 1997 NJW 1997 p 2103 Ordinary courts shall not

overextend the legal conditions required to enjoy legal aid see eg German Fed Const court (BVerfG)

14 April 2003 NJW 2003 p 2976 The German constitution allows legal aid to depend on the sufficient

prospect of success of the case (hinreichende Aussicht auf Erfolg) and on the absence of abuse of process

however the requirement of prospect of success should not be overextended see German Fed Const

court (BVerfG) 14 April 2003 1 BvR 199802 NJW 2003 p 2976 For other examples see German Fed

Const court(BVerfG) 11 March 2010 1 BvR 36509 NJW 2010 p 1657 (sect 17 laquo Die Pruumlfung der

Erfolgsaussicht soll allerdings nicht dazu dienen die Rechtsverfolgung beziehungsweise

Rechtsverteidigung selbst in das summarische Prozesskostenhilfeverfahren zu verlagern und dieses an die

Stelle des Hauptsacheverfahrens treten zu lassen (vgl BVerfGE 81 347 lt357gt) Prozesskostenhilfe darf

insbesondere dann nicht versagt werden wenn die Entscheidung in der Hauptsache von der Beantwortung

einer schwierigen bislang ungeklaumlrten Rechtsfrage abhaumlngt (vgl BVerfGE 81 347 lt359gt BVerfGE 2

279 lt281gt) raquo German Fed Const court (BVerfG) 11 March 2010 1 BvR 303108 NJW 2010 p 1658

29 December 2009 1 BvR 178109 NJW 2010 p 987 75

Const Council (CC) 9 June 2011 No 2011-631 DC Loi relative agrave lrsquoimmigration sect 88 25

November 2011 No 2011-198 QPC M Albin R (Droits de plaidoirie) laquo Le Conseil nrsquoa pas reconnu de

valeur constitutionnelle au droit agrave lrsquoaide juridictionnelle en tant que tel Mais en srsquoassurant que ce droit

nrsquoa pas eacuteteacute meacuteconnu pour juger qursquoil nrsquoest pas porteacute drsquoatteinte substantielle aux droits de personnes agrave un

recours effectif il eacutetablit implicitement mais neacutecessairement un lien entre les deux raquo 76

Const Council (CC) 25 November 2011 No 2011-198 QPC M Albin R (Droits de plaidoirie) 77

Ibid The new statutes of 29 December 2010 had stated that litigants enjoying legal aid should pay the

ldquodroits de plaidoiriesrdquo (about 9 euros) The Constitutional Council held that this amount is ldquorelatively

modestrdquo and that therefore the new provision is not unconstitutional 78

In the European Union see the rights provided by Art 473 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights

(laquo Legal aid shall be made available to those who lack sufficient resources in so far as such aid is

necessary to ensure effective access to justice raquo) and with regard to legal aid to be granted to legal

entities ECJ 22 December 2010 DEB Deutsche Energiehandels- und Beratungsgesellschaft mbH case

C-27909 ldquothe principle of effective judicial protection as enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter hellip must be interpreted as meaning that it is not impossible for legal persons to rely on that principle and that

aid granted pursuant to that principle may cover inter alia dispensation from advance payment of the

costs of proceedings andor the assistance of a lawyerrdquo 79

ECtHR 9 October 1979 Airey v Ireland applic No 628973


Procedure


own caserdquo so that ldquothe possibility to appear in person before the High Court does not

provide the applicant with an effective right of access and hence that it also does not

constitute a domestic remedy whose use is demanded by Article 26rdquo sect 24) Since the

Convention ldquo is designed to safeguard the individual in a real and practical way as

regards those areas with which it deals rdquo and despite the absence of any provision on

legal aid in civil proceedings80

in the Convention the Strasburg Court held that Article

6 para 1 laquo may sometimes compel the State to provide for the assistance of a lawyer

when such assistance proves indispensable for an effective access to court either

because legal representation is rendered compulsory as is done by the domestic law of

certain Contracting States for various types of litigation or by reason of the complexity

of the procedure or of the case raquo (sect 26)81

The Convention or ndash more precisely the

Strasburg Court ndash supplements through its creative and far reaching interpretation the

national constitutions andor statutes

Access to Justice versus Access to Court - Nowadays many governments tend to

promote access to ldquojusticerdquo rather than direct access to court The ADR-groundswell

that started in the United States of America in the 1970s and has now reached Europe is

based on the assumption that justice can be rendered by other means than state civil

proceedings and that ADR can enhance the access to justice for citizens ADR-

mechanisms belong to a contractual justice82

to a horizontal justice This tendency has

been analysed in France by a sociologist (Michel Maffeacutesoli83

) who underlines the

changing relationships between people and the institutions People tend to refuse the

hierarchical link to an institution located above (such as a court) and to prefer a

horizontal relationship to solve their conflicts A kind of private contractual

management of conflict tends to be preferred Although the ADR-mechanisms should

not generally be criticised it is nevertheless necessary to be conscious of some possible

dangerous excesses that could lead to a ldquovanishing trialrdquo84

already asserted in the

80

For criminal proceedings see Art 6 para 3 (c) ECHR 81

In a cautious manner the Strasburg Court adds however that laquo It would be erroneous to generalize

the conclusion that the possibility to appear in person before the High Court does not provide Mrs Airey

with an effective right of access that conclusion does not hold good for all cases concerning lsquocivil rights

and obligationsrsquo or for everyone involved therein In certain eventualities the possibility of appearing

before a court in person even without a lawyerrsquos assistance will meet the requirements of Article 6 para

1 (art 6-1) there may be occasions when such a possibility secures adequate access even to the High

Court Indeed much must depend on the particular circumstances raquo (sect 26) 82

See eg Loiumlc CADIET laquo laquo Les conventions relatives au procegraves en droit franccedilais - Sur la

contractualisation du regraveglement des litiges raquo in Accordi di parte e processo Quaderni della Rivista

trimestrale di diritto e procedura civile Milan Giuffregrave ed 2008 p 7-35 83

Michel MAFFESOLI Le temps revient Formes eacuteleacutementaires de la postmoderniteacute Paris Descleacutee de

Brouwer ed 2010 p 39 et seq (laquo Le remplacement de la verticaliteacute par lrsquohorizontaliteacute est le

deacutenominateur commun de tous les pheacutenomegravenes socieacutetaux contemporains raquo p 39) 84

See Marc GALANTER laquo The Vanishing Trial An examination of Trials and Related Matters in

Federal and State Courts raquo Journal of Empirical Studies Vol 1 No 3 November 2004 p 459-570 (p

460 laquo Plausible causes for this decline include a shift in ideology and practice among litigants lawyers

and judges Another manifestation of this shift is the diversion of cases to alternative dispute resolution

forums raquo) Thomas STIPANOWITCH laquo ADR and the Vanishing Trial The Growth and Impact of

Alternative Dispute Resolution raquo Journal of Empirical Legal Studies Vol 1 No 3 2004 p 843-912



United States (the trial as an laquo endangered species in our courts raquo85

) This phenomenon

often occurs to the detriment of the weakest parties such as consumers which has

however not prevented the European Union from enacting a directive and a regulation

on consumer ADR86

because laquo Ensuring access to simple efficient fast and low-cost

ways of resolving domestic and cross-border disputes which arise from sales or service

contracts should benefit consumers and therefore boost their confidence in the

market raquo (Recital 4 of the Directive) ldquoAlternative dispute resolution (ADR) offers a

simple fast and low-cost out-of-court solution to disputes between consumers and

traders raquo (Recital 5) However the European legislator is well aware of the danger of

the ldquovanishing trialrdquo since Recital 45 of the Directive on Consumer ADR adds that ldquoThe

right to an effective remedy and the right to a fair trial are fundamental rights laid

down in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Therefore ADR procedures should not be designed to replace court procedures and

should not deprive consumers or traders of their rights to seek redress before the courts

This Directive should not prevent parties from exercising their right of access to the

judicial system In cases where a dispute could not be resolved through a given ADR

procedure whose outcome is not binding the parties should subsequently not be

prevented from initiating judicial proceedings in relation to that dispute raquo One should

also as the European Directive requires make sure that the fundamental (in some

countries constitutional) procedural principles (fair trial) are not ignored in ADR-

processes87

B Is There a Constitutional Right to a Means of Recourse

Most of the national constitutions as interpreted by the national constitutional or

ordinary courts do not guarantee a right to a means of recourse but only the right to

access to court for one hearing The issue of means of recourse is then left to the

85

Patricia LEE REFO laquo The Vanishing Trial raquo Journal of the Section of Litigation American Bar

Association Vol 3deg No 2 Winter 2004 p 2-4 ldquoAlternative dispute resolution in all of its permutations

also contributes to the declining trial rates The trend toward privatization of dispute resolution is well

documented though anything approaching meaningful statistics is hard to come by Virtually every

consumer contract now requires that the consumer waive her rights to adjudicate any dispute in court

and courts have enforced such arbitration clauses raquo She concludes in the following manner laquo The

vanishing trial may be the most important issue facing our civil justice system today It deserves our

continued attention raquo 86

Directive 201311EU of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and

amending Regulation (EC) No 20062004 and Directive 200922EC (Directive on Consumer ADR)

Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) L 16563 18 June 2013 Regulation (EU) No 5242013

of 21 May 2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No

20062004 and Directive 200922EC (Regulation on Consumer ADR) Official Journal of the European

Union (OJEU) L 1651 18 June 2013 87

On this topic see Loiumlc CADIET laquo Procegraves eacutequitable et modes alternatifs de regraveglement des conflits raquo in

Mireille DELMAS-MARTYHoratia MUIR-WATTHeacutelegravene RUIZ-FABRI (eds) Variations autour drsquoun

droit commun ndash Premiegraveres rencontres de lrsquoUMR de droit compareacute de Paris Socieacuteteacute de leacutegislation

compareacutee 2002 pp 89-109


Procedure


legislator This is for example the position taken in France and in Germany In France

the Constitutional council denies any constitutional value to the right to (a first) appeal

which is not a ldquoprincipe geacuteneacuteral du droitrdquo88

However the constitutional principle of

equality before justice would be infringed if the right to appeal would depend on one of

the parties to the proceedings89

or on the delay of the court in rendering their

judgment90

The German Bundesverfassungsgericht has also ruled that where the

legislator provides for a means of recourse the access to the review proceedings must

abide by the general principle of equality91

In Germany in fact the Federal Constitutional court held that the constitutional right to

access to justice in Germany does not entail a general right to appeal92

A right to appeal

does not follow either from Article 103 para 1 (right to be heard) or from Article 19 para

4 (right to recourse to court in case of violation of a personrsquos right by public authority)

of the Basic Law Nevertheless in an important ruling of 200393

the Karlsruhe

Constitutional court held that a procedural legislation which does not provide for a

means of recourse where a court seriously infringes the right to be heard (rechtliches

Gehoumlr) enshrined in Article 103 para 1 of the Basic Law violates the rule-of-law

principle as well as Article 103 This ruling means a considerable change in the

constitutional case law and admits that the German constitution grants protection

against the judge94

The German legislator had to create a specific legal redress which

is contained in sect 321a95

of the Code of civil procedure (Zivilprozessordnung ZPO) for

civil proceedings (Anhoumlrungsruumlge) and was then extended to all other kinds of

proceedings by Law Act of 9 December 200496

It is still disputed whether this legal

88

Const Council (CC) 19-20 January 1981 No 80-127 DC Loi renforccedilant la seacutecuriteacute et proteacutegeant la

liberteacute des personnes 89



Const Council (CC) 18 January 1985 No 84-183 DC Loi relative au redressement et agrave la liquidation

judiciaires Recueil Dalloz (D) 1986 pp 427 et seq with obs Renoux 91

German Fed Const court (BVerfG) 11 June 1980 1 PBvU 179 BVerfGE 54 p 277 (293) 92

See eg German Fed Const court(BVerfG) 18 September 1952 BVerfGE 1 p 433 (p 437) 30

October 1990 2 BvR 56288 BVerfGE 83 p 24 30 April 2003 1 PBvU 102 BVerfGE 107 pp 395 et

seq (especially pp 401 et seq) Looking forward to the future of means of recourse in Germany see

Christoph Althammer laquo Die Zukunft des Rechtsmittelsystems raquo in Alexander BRUNSJoachim

MUuml NCHAstrid STADLER Die Zukunft des Zivilprozesses Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck 2014 pp 87-10 93

German Fed Const court (BVerfG) Plen Ass 30 April 2003 NJW 2003 p 1924 Monatsschrift fuumlr

Deutsches Recht (MDR) 2003 p 886 See Konrad REDEKER laquo Verfahrensgrundrechte und

Justizgewaumlhrungsanspruch raquo NJW 2003 p 2956 Hans-Friedrich MUuml LLER Abhilfemoumlglichkeiten bei

der Verletzung des Anspruchs auf rechtliches Gehoumlr nach der ZPO-Reform NJW 2002 p 2743 Tanja

POLEP et Hartmut RENSEN Die Gehoumlrsruumlge (sect 321a ZPO) Berlin de Gruyter ed 2004 Egon

SCHNEIDER laquo Gehoumlrsruumlge des sect 321a ZPO ndash Anhoumlrungsruumlge Ausnahmeberufung

Ausnahmebeschwerde Willkuumlrverbot raquo MDR 2006 p 969 94

See Andreas VOszligKUHLE laquo Bruch mit einem Dogma Die Verfassung garantiert Rechtsschutz gegen

den Richter raquo NJW 2003 p 2193 The caseload of the Constitutional court is very high with the ruling

of 2003 the Court requires the ordinary courts to first correct their own mistakes see Micha

BLOCHINGAlexander KETTINGER laquo Verfahrensgrundrechte im Zivilprozess ndash Nun endlich das

Comeback der auβerordentlichen Beschwerde raquo NJW 2005 p 860 95

This provision was introduced in the ZPO by the important Reform Act of 27 July 2001 96

Anhoumlrungsruumlgengesetz BGBl 2004 I p 3320 See Juumlrgen TREBER ldquoNeuerungen durch das

Anhoumlrungsruumlgengesetzrdquo NJW 2005 p 97 Hartmut RENSEN ldquoDie Gehoumlrsruumlge nach In-Kraft-Treten

des Anhoumlrungsruumlgengesetzesrdquo MDR 2005 p 181



redress may also cover violations of other procedural rights An alleged violation of the

constitutional right to access to justice ndash or of any other procedural right guaranteed by

the Grundgesetz - may be asserted by a constitutional complaint

(Verfassungsbeschwerde) with the Bundesverfassungsgericht once all ordinary appeals

have been exhausted The Spanish constitution also provides ndashldquowhen appropriaterdquo97

-

for a constitutional complaint (recurso des amparo) in order to assert a citizenrsquos claim to

protect the liberties and rights recognised in certain provisions of the Constitution98

Due to the great attraction of the constitutional complaint Spain - just as Germany did

in 1993 - however reformed and restricted in 2007 the conditions to be met to make a

recurso de amparo admissible99

England is another country which does not guarantee a right to a means of recourse in

civil proceedings The central idea is that the first instance judgment should be final and

that access to appeal requires a permission (CPR 523) which is not often granted100

The same applies to a final appeal and the Strasburg Court has ruled in 2000101

that

Article 6 para 1 ECHR is not infringed when the decision granting or denying this

permission does not contain reasons

Nor is there in Europe any formal human rights obligation to create an appeal system102

The European Court of Human Rights has held in several decisions that in civil

proceedings Article 6 para 1 of the Convention (ECHR) does not guarantee a right to a

mean of recourse against the first instance ruling103

The laquo right to a court of which the

97

Art 532 Spanish constitution laquo Any Citizen may assert his or her claim to protect the liberties and

rights recognised in Article 14 and in Section 1 of Chapter Two by means of a preferential and summary

procedure in the ordinary courts and when appropriate by submitting an individual appeal for

protection to the Constitutional court raquo See also Art 162 para 1 (b) stating who is eligible to lodge a

recurso de amparo (individual corporate bodyhellip) 98

Art 14 (equality before the law) and Section 1 of Chapter (Fundamental rights and public liberties) 99

Ley orgaacutenica no 62007 of 24 May 2007 (Ley Orgaacutenica 62007 de 24 de mayo por la que se modifica

la Ley Orgaacutenica 21979 de 3 de octubre del Tribunal Constitucional LOTC) Art 50 para 1 (point b

added by the new Ley 62007) of the LOTC ldquolaquo El recurso de amparo debe ser objeto de una decisioacuten de

admisioacuten a traacutemite La Seccioacuten por unanimidad de sus miembros acordaraacute mediante providencia la

admisioacuten en todo o en parte del recurso solamente cuando concurran todos los siguientes requisitos a)

Que la demanda cumpla con lo dispuesto en los artiacuteculos 41 a 46 y 49 b) Que el contenido del recurso

justifique una decisioacuten sobre el fondo por parte del Tribunal Constitucional en razoacuten de su especial

trascendencia constitucional que se apreciaraacute atendiendo a su importancia para la interpretacioacuten de la

Constitucioacuten para su aplicacioacuten o para su general eficacia y para la determinacioacuten del contenido y

alcance de los derechos fundamentalesrdquo This reform aims to reduce the caseload of the Tribunal

constitucional and leads to an objectification of the recourse It gives the Constitutional court more

discretion to evaluate the ldquoespecial transcendencia constitucionalrdquo of the recurso de amparo lodged by a

person (see decision 1552009 of 25 June 2009 in which the Court defines the concept of ldquoespecial

transcendencia constitucionalrdquo) In 2012 only 209 recursos de amparo were admitted and 7 341 were

refused by orders that did not contain any reasoning see Marc CARILLO ldquoLa reacuteforme de lrsquoamparo en

Espagne un nouveau certiorari Constitutions Jan March 2014 pp 60-63 100

Neil ANDREWS On Civil Processes I Cambridge Intersentia ed 2013 No 1513 et seq

(ldquobenefits of restricting appealsrdquo) and No 1515 ldquothe civil trial is already a luxury a fortiori an appeal

should be regarded as exceptional a fortissimo a second appeal is quite exceptionalrdquo 101

ECtHR 11 July 2000 Nerva v United Kingdom applic No 4229598 102

For an English decision quoting case law of the ECtHR see Ebert v Official Receiver [2001] 3 All

ER 942 946 at [12] CA 103

ECtHR 17 January 1970 Delcourt v Belgium applic No 268965 Seacuterie A no 11 p 14 (sect 25-26

laquo Lrsquoarticle 6 de la Convention nrsquoastreint pas les Eacutetats contractants agrave creacuteer des cours drsquoappel ou de


Procedure


right of access is one aspect is not absolute it is subject to limitations permitted by

implication in particular where the conditions of admissibility of an appeal are

concerned since by its very nature it calls for regulation by the State104

which enjoys a

certain margin of appreciation in this regard raquo However if the national legislations do

provide for means of recourse but lay down limitations ldquothese limitations must not

restrict or reduce a personrsquos access in such a way or to such an extent that the very

essence of the right is impaired lastly such limitations will not be compatible with

Article 6 sect 1 if they do not pursue a legitimate aim or if there is not a reasonable

relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim pursuedrdquo105

With regard to final appeals the Strasburg Court takes the same position and holds that

the specific features of Supreme Courts may justify restrictions to the access to final

appeal106

and more specifically filter procedures107

as far as the restrictions do not

cassation Neacuteanmoins un Eacute tat qui se dote de juridictions de cette nature a lrsquoobligation de veiller agrave ce que

les justiciables jouissent aupregraves drsquoelles des garanties fondamentales de lrsquoarticle 6 raquo ECtHR 24 May

2006 Liakopoulou v Greece applic No 2062704 sect 18 104

See eg ECtHR 23 October 2006 Levages Prestations Services v France applic No 2192093

Given the special nature of Court of Cassations role the ECtHR accepts that the procedure followed in

Court of Cassation could be more formal especially as in proceedings with compulsory representation the

parties would be represented by a member of the Conseil dEacute tat and Court of Cassation Bar Moreover

final appeal to Court of Cassation had been made after the applicant companys claims had been heard by

both a commercial court and a court of appeal each of which had had full jurisdiction 105

ECtHR 17 January 2006 Barbier v France applic No 7609301 Recueil Dalloz (D) 2006 1208

obs Deferrard and Durtette ECHR 15 February 2000 applic No 3869597 Garcia Manibardo v Spain

31 July 2001 Mortier v France applic No 4219598 See also ECtHR 24 April 2008 Kemp v

Luxemburg applic No 1714005 in this case the ECtHR has held that ldquola limitation imposeacutee au droit

drsquoaccegraves des requeacuterants agrave un tribunal nrsquoa pas eacuteteacute proportionnelle au but de garantir la seacutecuriteacute juridique et

la bonne administration de la justice raquo (No 60) 21 January 2014 Valchev and others v Bulgaria applic

Nos 4745011 2665912 and 5396612 As a result of the pre-selection procedure introduced by the 2007

Code in the period 2010-12 only some 20 of appeals on points of law to the Supreme Court of

Cassation in civil and commercial cases had been admitted for examination relieving that court of the

task of dealing with the merits of a considerable number of cases with a view to allowing it to concentrate

on its core task of giving judgments elucidating and making uniform the application of the law Similar

rules governing access to the highest appeal courts existed in other Contracting States such as Albania

Armenia Finland France Hungary Poland Sweden Ukraine and the United Kingdom In those

circumstances the Court was satisfied that the limitation on the admissibility of appeals on points of law

in civil cases to the Bulgarian Supreme Court of Cassation had pursued a legitimate aim The manner in

which that limitation was set out in the 2007 Code was within the Statersquos margin of appreciation The

relevant provision of the Bulgarian 2007 Code had been challenged before the Constitutional Court

which had held that although somewhat vague it was as a whole not unconstitutional and that the

manner of its application would be a question of case-law and judicial practice In an apparent response to

that ruling the Supreme Court of Cassation had issued a binding interpretative decision in which it had

sought to clarify as much as possible the intended manner of application of that provision In the cases of

each of the applicants the respective panels of the Supreme Court of Cassation had found in fully

reasoned decisions that the appeals on points of law had not met the criteria set out in the 2007 Code

Given that before reaching the Supreme Court of Cassation the applicantsrsquo cases had been examined by

two levels of court with full jurisdiction the restriction on the applicantsrsquo right of access to a court had

not been disproportionate and had not impaired the very essence of that right 106

See eg ECtHR 10 February 1998 Higgins v France applic No 2012492 107

See eg ECtHR 28 January 2003 Burg v France applic No 3476302



infringe the right to a court in its substance108

and the Supreme Court has not obviously

wrongly appreciated the situation109

Some national constitutions however do guarantee a right to a review of the first

instance judgment Article 15 of the Macedonian constitution provides for example for a

right to appeal110

In Italy the right to lodge a final appeal before the Corte di

cassazione is formulated in Article 111 para 7 of the Constitution (ldquoAppeals to the Court

of cassation in cases of violation of the law are always allowed against sentences and

against measures on personal freedom pronounced by ordinary and special courtsrdquo)111

On the other hand the right to a first appeal has no constitutional value in civil

procedure112

Article 111 is the reason for the very high number of final appeals in Italy

which have brought the Corte di cassazione into a dramatic situation due to the

overwhelming caseload the Court is unable to process in spite of several new statutory

provisions such as Article 360bis of the Code of civil procedure which aims to facilitate

the dismissal of the ldquoricorsordquo Recomendation No R(95) 5 of the Council of Europe

concerning the introduction and improvement of the functioning of appeal systems and

procedures in civil and commercial cases113

also promotes in Article 1 a) ldquoin principlerdquo

the right for ldquoany decision of a lower court to be subject to the control of a higher

courtrdquo

Ⅲ Constitution and Course of Civil Proceedings

When the access to court is provided civil proceedings can start The fundamental

constitutional principles to be respected during the course of the proceedings are of two

kinds institutional (A) and functional (B) guarantees

108

ECtHR 24 May 2006 Liakopoulou v Greece applic No 2062704 109

ECtHR 21 March 2000 Dulaurans v France applic No 3455397 110

See T ZOROSKA-KAMILOVSKA ldquoReforms of civil enforcement systems in the countries of

Southeastern Europe From common traditions to different conceptsrdquo Zeitschrift fuumlr Zivilprozess

International (ZZPInt) 17 (2012) p 315 et seq and more specifically p 340 For the Czech Republic see

Paul MARTENS laquo Les principes constitutionnels du procegraves dans la jurisprudence reacutecente des juridictions

constitutionnelles europeacuteennes raquo Cahiers du Conseil constitutionnel No 14 May 2003 111

See Roberta TISCINI Il recorso straordinario in cassazione Turin Giappichelli ed 2005 See also

Serge GUINCHARD et alii Droit processuel Droits fondamentaux du procegraves Paris Dalloz 7th ed 2011

ndeg331-2 112

The same applies in French law According to the French Constitutional council laquo le principe du

double degreacute de juridiction nrsquoa pas en lui-mecircme valeur constitutionnelle raquo (CC 12 February 2004 No

2004-491 DC Loi compleacutetant le statut dautonomie de la Polyneacutesie franccedilaise 14 May 2012 No 2012-

243244245246 QPC Socieacuteteacute Yonne reacutepublicaine et autre) By contrast it has ruled in some cases that

the interdiction of any final appeal (pourvoi en cassation) is not in compliance with the Constitution CC

14 June 2013 No 2013-314 QPC M Jeremy F (decision related to criminal proceedings) The right to a

final appeal is however not absolute and proper administration of justice can justify restrictions (CC 17

December 2010 No 2010-62 QPC CGT-FO et autres) which shall be stated by the legislator and not by

governmental decree 113

See httpwwwlegislationlineorgdocumentsactionpopupid8290


Procedure



Right to a ldquoLawfulrdquo Judge - The first institutional guarantee often provided by

national constitutions is the right to a ldquolawful judgerdquo (juge naturel gesetzlicher Richter)

According to Article 101 para 1 of the German Grundgesetz ldquoExtraordinary courts

shall not be allowed No one may be removed from the jurisdiction of his lawful judgerdquo

This requires that the court having jurisdiction and the judge be determined in advance

according to abstract criteria114

German case law is very strict in this respect and there

is no doubt that the practice of many other jurisdictions in this respect would not meet

the requirements laid down by the Karlsruhe Constitutional court115

Article 24 para 2 of

the Spanish constitution secures for all persons the ldquoright of access to the ordinary

judge predetermined by lawrdquo The Italian constitution also provides that ldquono one may

be moved from the normal judge pre-established by lawrdquo116

In Switzerland ldquoany person

whose case falls to be judicially decided has the right to have their case heard by a

legally constituted competent independent and impartial courtrdquo117

By contrast in

France as in many other procedural matters the Constitution does not explicitly

mention this right118

According to the Constitutional Council it can only be indirectly

protected by the principle of equality before the law enshrined in the Declaration of

Human and Civil Rights119

It is clearly noticeable that countries which have suffered

114

See Thomas ROTH Das Grundrecht auf den gesetzlichen Richter Berlin Duncker et Humblot

2000 Mirko MOumlLLER bdquoDer gesetzliche Richter im Zivilprozess ndash Anwaltliche Wahl- und

Gestaltungsmoumlglichkeitenldquo NJW 2009 pp 3632 et seq See also Serge GUINCHARD et alii Droit

processuel Droits fondamentaux du procegraves 7th ed 2012 Paris Dalloz ed No 314 ALL 115

The principle of gesetzlicher Richter shall apply to any national court German Fed Const

court(BVerfG) 20 March 1956 1 BvR 47955 BVerfGE 4 p 412 (417 et seq) 8 February 1967 2 BvR

23564 BVerfGE 21 p 139 (144) 21 January 1971 2 BvR 50769 BVerfGE 30 p 165 (168) 10 July

1990 1 BvR 98487 1 BvR 98587 BVerfGE 82 p 286 The lawful-judge-principle is infringed when a

case is ldquoarbitrarilyrdquo (willkuumlrlich) allocated to a single judge of the court and not to a bench German Fed

Const court (BVerfG) 18 September 2003 MDR 2004 p 43 With regard to the predetermination of the

case-reporter within a court bench see also the less demanding position of the German Fed Const court

(BVerfG) Plen Ass 8 April 1997 1 PBvU 195 BVerfGE 95 p 322 (330 et seq) which has prompted

criticism (Thomas ROTH Das Grundrecht auf den gesetzlichen Richter op cit pp 35 et seq) More

flexible with regard to a specific procedural issue (36 para 1 no 3 ZPO) see German Fed Const

court(BVerfG) 12 November 2008 1 BvR 278808 NJW 2009 p 907 the requirement of a general and

clear provision predetermining the competent court does not exclude some margin of appreciation in a

specific situation (begrenzter Spielraum) as far as an independent judge designates the competent court 116

Art 25 para 1 Italian Constitution (ldquoNessuno puograve essere distolto dal giudice naturale precostituito

per legge raquo 117

Art 30 para 1 of the Swiss Constitution Ad hoc courts are prohibited 118

The droit au juge naturel was stated by Art 16 and 17 of Law Act of 16 and 24 August 1790 during

the French Revolution It was then enshrined in several constitutions (1791 1795 1848hellip) but not in the

current one of 1958 119

Constitutional council (CC) 23 July 1975 No 75-56 DC Loi modifiant et compleacutetant certaines

dispositions de proceacutedure peacutenale laquo sect 4 [hellip] laquo le principe deacutegaliteacute devant la justice qui est inclus dans

le principe deacutegaliteacute devant la loi proclameacute dans la Deacuteclaration des Droits de lhomme de 1789 et

solennellement reacuteaffirmeacute par le preacuteambule de la Constitution raquo sect 5 laquo Consideacuterant en effet que le

respect de ce principe fait obstacle agrave ce que des citoyens se trouvant dans des conditions semblables et

poursuivis pour les mecircmes infractions soient jugeacutes par des juridictions composeacutees selon des regravegles

diffeacuterentes raquo See also Constitutional council (CC) 29 August 2002 No 2002-461 DC Loi drsquoorientation



from a fascist political regime such as Germany Italy Portugal of Spain have anchored

the lawful-judge-principle in their new constitutions whereas in France the allocation

of the cases within a court are still an issue of judicial organization leaving great

discretion to the president of the court as long as equality before justice and impartiality

of the court are not infringed120

It can be argued that a national highest court not referring a disputed issue of Union law

to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for preliminary ruling concerning would infringe

the right to a lawful judge121

Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the

European Union (TFEU) requires namely that ldquowhere any such question [of Union law]

is raised in a case pending before a court or tribunal of a Member State against whose

decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law that court or tribunal shall

bring the matter before the courtrdquo The same could be asserted where national law

requires a bench of a court (such as a highest court) to forward the case to another bench

(eg to the Chambre mixte122

or the Assembleacutee pleacuteniegravere123

before the French Court of

cassation of before the Groszliger Zivilsenat124

for the German Bundesgerichtshof)125

The

et de programmation pour la justice sect 23 laquo Consideacuterant que si le leacutegislateur peut preacutevoir des regravegles de

proceacutedure diffeacuterentes selon les faits les situations et les personnes auxquelles elles sappliquent cest agrave la

condition que ces diffeacuterences ne procegravedent pas de discriminations injustifieacutees et que soient assureacutees aux

justiciables des garanties eacutegales notamment quant au respect du principe des droits de la deacutefense qui

implique en particulier lexistence dune proceacutedure juste et eacutequitable raquo 120

See Emmanuel JEULAND ldquoLe droit au juge naturel et lrsquoorganisation judiciairerdquo Revue franccedilaise

drsquoadministration publique 20081 no 125 pp 33-42 According to this scholar in France the laquo droit au

juge naturel raquo is laquo incertain raquo and laquo relegraveve du lsquobricolagersquo textuel et jurisprudentiel raquo 121

See ECtHR 8 April 2014 applic 1712009 Dhabi v Italy violation of Art 6 ECHR because the

Italian Corte di cassazione had refused to refer a question to the ECJ for preliminary ruling without

giving reasons National courts whose decisions are not amenable to appeal under domestic law are

required to provide reasons based on the exceptions laid down in the case-law of the ECJ for their refusal

to refer a preliminary question to that court on the interpretation of EU law They should therefore set out

their reasons for considering that the question was not relevant or that the provision of EU law in

question had already been interpreted by the ECJ or that the correct application of EU law was so

obvious as to leave no room for reasonable doubt See also German Fed Const court(BVerfG) 8 April

1987 2 BvR 68785 9 November 1987 2 BvR 44087 Europaumlische GrundRechte-Zeitschrift 1988 p

109 122

See Art L 431-5 of the Code on judicial organisation (Code de lrsquoorganisation judiciaire COJ) the

case shall be submitted to the Chambre mixte if the vote of the judges of the bench is equally divided or if

the General prosecutor requests the case be decided by the Chambre mixte 123

See Art L 431-6 and L 431-7 COJ 124

The Groszliger Zivilsenat shall rule on the contested legal issue if a civil bench wants to deviate from a

decision of another civil bench of the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) see sect 132 para 2

GVG laquo (2) Will ein Senat in einer Rechtsfrage von der Entscheidung eines anderen Senats abweichen

so entscheiden der Groszlige Senat fuumlr Zivilsachen wenn ein Zivilsenat von einem anderen Zivilsenat oder

von dem Groszligen Zivilsenat der Groszlige Senat fuumlr Strafsachen wenn ein Strafsenat von einem anderen

Strafsenat oder von dem Groszligen Senat fuumlr Strafsachen die Vereinigten Groszligen Senate wenn ein

Zivilsenat von einem Strafsenat oder von dem Groszligen Senat fuumlr Strafsachen oder ein Strafsenat von

einem Zivilsenat oder von dem Groszligen Senat fuumlr Zivilsachen oder ein Senat von den Vereinigten Groszligen

Senaten abweichen willldquo 125

See Egon SCHNEIDER laquo Verletzung der Vorlagepflicht raquo MDR 2000 pp 10 et seq Comp German

Fed Const court (BverfG) 3 March 2014 1 BvR 253410 NJW 252014 p 1796 (the appellate court

should not have refused to examine the appeal in a case relating to a complex issue of EU law The

existence of such complex issue would even justify the permission to further appeal brought before the

Federal Court of Justice)


Procedure


German Federal Constitutional court as a Huumlter der Verfassung (protector of the

constitution) has ruled on this issue several times126

and holds that the lawful-judge-

principle is infringed only when the courtrsquos behaviour cannot merely be seen as having

been a simple mistake but constitutes a real ldquoarbitrary measurerdquo127

Independence and Impartiality of the Court ndash Independence and impartiality are

essential for a fair trial They are enshrined in numerous international instruments such

as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10th December 1948 (Art10) the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 10 December 1966 (Art 14 para

1) the American Convention on Human Rights of 1969 (Art 8)128

the European

Convention on Human Rights (Art 6 para 1) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of

the European Union (Art 47) These concepts have given rise to extensive case law by

the European Court of Human Rights129

Whereas independence relates to other powers

than the judicial (eg with regard to the government the legislator or the parties)

impartiality is linked with the internal organization and functioning of the court and the

judgersquos personal qualities Independence is therefore a ldquostatusrdquo whereas impartiality is a

ldquovirtuerdquo130

However as the two concepts are difficult to dissociate they are often

scrutinized together131

Independence and impartiality are also often constitutional guarantees either directly

enshrined in the national constitution132

or imposed by the interpretation of the

constitutional courts133

In France in a rather odd way Article 64 of the constitution

provides that ldquoThe President of the Republic shall be the guarantor of the independence

of the Judicial Authorityrdquo134

The Constitutional council makes sure that judges (juges

du siegravege not public prosecutors) are irremovable135

According to Article 97 para 1 of

126

See eg German Fed Const court (BVerfG) 26 February 1954 1 BvR 53753 BVerfGE 3 p 363

11 May 1965 2 BvR 25963 BVerfGE 19 p 43 127

German Fed Const court (BVerfG) 30 June 1970 BVerfGE 29 p 49 128

See Art 81 ldquo1 Every person has the right to a hearing with due guarantees and within a

reasonable time by a competent independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law in

the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his


See eg ECtHR 18 June 1971 De Wilde et allii v Belgium No 283266 283566 289966 22

October 1984 Sramek v Austria No 879079 24 November 1994 Beaumartin v France No 1528789 130

See Serge GUINCHARD et alii Droit processuel Droits fondamentaux du procegraves 7th ed 2012

Paris Dalloz ed No 340 131

See the recent decision given by the ECtHR 9 January 2013 Volkov v Ukraine No 2172211

violation of Art 6 para 1 (impartial and independent tribunal fair hearing and tribunal established by law)

and Art 8 para 1 (respect for private life) 132

See eg Art 30 of the Swiss constitution ldquoJudicial proceedings 1 Any person whose case falls to

be judicially decided has the right to have their case heard by a legally constituted competent

independent and impartial court Ad hoc courts are prohibitedrdquo 133

See eg German Fed Const court (BVerfG) 9 May 1962 2 BvL 1360 BVerfGE 14 p 56 (69) 27

March 1974 2 BvR 3874 BVerfGE 37 p 57 (65) 134

The independence of the judicial authority is also secured by Art 65 of the French constitution which

establishes a Conseil supeacuterieur de la magistrature (High Judicial Council) 135

Const council (CC) 26 January 1967 No 67-31 DC Loi organique modifiant et compleacutetant

lordonnance ndeg 58-1270 du 22 deacutecembre 1958 portant loi organique relative au statut de la magistrature

21 February 1992 No 92-305 DC See also the decision stating the independence of commercial courts

CC 4 May 2012 No 2012-241 QPC EURL David Ramirez D 2012 p 1626 with obs Fricero



the German Grundgesetz ldquoJudges shall be independent and subject only to the

lawrdquo136

The same applies in Italy Article 104 of the constitution states that ldquoThe

Judiciary is a branch that is autonomous and independent of all other powersrdquo This

independence is guaranteed by the High Council of the Judiciary (Art 104 and 105)137

According to the French Constitutional Council impartiality of the court138

should

normally prevent a court from acting on its own motion (ldquosrsquoauto-saisirrdquo)139

ie ldquoto start

spontaneously proceedings at the end of which the court renders a decision having res

judicata effectrdquo However this prohibition is not absolute which means that except in

criminal matters the legislator can provide for exceptions on condition that they are

justified by reasons of general interest and that specific guarantees are established in

order to ensure compliance with the principle of impartiality140

Publicity ndash Publicity of proceedings provides a twofold guarantee first the guarantee

to the parties that the judge will be neutral and the proceedings objective and second a

guarantee to the public that they can be informed141

and see how justice is done The

principle of publicity is not enshrined in all national constitutions it is often regulated

by statutes Several constitutions do contain this guarantee aiming to make the exercise

of judicial power verifiable by any citizen and to strengthen the impartiality of the court

This is for instance the case in Article 90-1 of the Austrian constitution Article 120 of

the Spanish constitution Articles 88 and 89 of the constitution of Luxembourg Article

121 of the Dutch constitution Article 206 of the Portuguese or Article 30 of the Swiss

constitution By contrast publicity of proceedings is in France solely a so-called

laquo principe geacuteneacuteral du droit raquo142

136

Para 2 states that judges appointed permanently to full-time positions may be involuntarily dismissed

permanently or temporarily suspended transferred or retired before the expiration of their term of office

only by virtue of judicial decision and only for the reasons and in the manner specified by the laws 137

The law also ensures the independence of judges of special courts of state prosecutors of those

courts and of other persons participating in the administration of justice (Art 108 para 2 Italian

constitution) According to Art 107 para 1 ldquojudges may not be removed from office they may not be

dismissed or suspended from office or assigned to other courts or functions unless by a decision of the

High Council of the Judiciary [hellip]rdquo 138

According to the Constitutional council (see eg CC 7 December 2012 No 2012-286 QPC Pyreacuteneacutees

services et autres) laquo le principe drsquoimpartialiteacute est indissociable de lrsquoexercice de fonctions

juridictionnelles raquo 139

Const council (CC) 7 December 2012 No 2012-286 QPC Socieacuteteacute Pyreacuteneacutees services et autres

(Saisine drsquooffice du tribunal pour lrsquoouverture de la proceacutedure de redressement judiciaire Art L 631-5

Commercial Code) 7 March 2014 No 2013-368 QPC Socieacuteteacute Nouvelle drsquoexploitation Sthrau hocirctel

(Saisine drsquooffice du tribunal pour lrsquoouverture de la proceacutedure de liquidation judiciaire Art L 640-5

Commercial Code) Those decisions are based on Art 16 of Declaration of Human and Civic Rights 140

Const council (CC) 7 December 2012 No 2012-286 QPC Socieacuteteacute Pyreacuteneacutees services et autres Rec

4 141

See Karel KLIMA laquo The Phenomenon of the European Court of Human Rightsrsquo Influence on the

Constitutional Systems of the Council of Europe Member States raquo Czech Yearbook of International Law

vol V 2014 p 202 142

Reacutegis de GOUTTES laquo La recherche de principes de proceacutedure communs aux Eacute tats membres de

lrsquoUnion europeacuteenne lrsquoapplication de lrsquoarticle 6 de la Convention europeacuteenne des droits de lrsquohomme raquo II

Le procegraves Systegraveme continental pp 121-140 in Les principes communs drsquoune justice des Eacutetats de

lrsquoUnion europeacuteenne Conf 4-5 Dec 2000 Cour de cassation Paris Doc franccedilaise 2001 p 125


Procedure


The right to a ldquofair trialrdquo (droit au procegraves eacutequitable143

Recht auf faires Verfahren diritta

a un equo processo derecho a un proceso equitativo)144

features institutional and

functional aspects In the United States it is well known as due process of law145

The

institutional aspects relate to independence and impartiality of the court having

jurisdiction the court must be established by law The functional aspects encompass the

right to take part in the hearing to be informed to receive notice of the procedural

documents and disclosure of the evidence presented to the court and equality of arms

The right to a fair trial is expressly enshrined in some national constitutions146

If not it

has often been regarded as a constitutional right by the national constitutional courts147


The Right to Take Part in the Hearing to Have Access to Relevant Information

and Evidence and to Receive Notice of Procedural Documents ndash The writ of

summons and the statement of claim must be served on the defendant to ensure an

adversarial trial and to give him the opportunity to take part in the hearing148

The

competent authorities must take the requisite steps to inform the defendant of the

existence of the trial149

In civil proceedings each party defends their claims and

143

See Const Council (CC) 30 September 2011 No 2011-168 QPC M Samir A Art 16 of the

Declaration of Human and Civic Rights 1789 secures laquo le droit des personnes inteacuteresseacutees agrave exercer un

recours juridictionnel effectif le droit agrave un procegraves eacutequitable ainsi que le principe du contradictoire raquo 144

See eg ECtHR 27 April 2010 applic No 1631807 Moretti ad Benedetti v Italy Proceacutedures June

2010 Comm No 231 with obs Fricero (requirement that the adoption proceedings be fair and that the

judgment contain reasons) 145

For differences between ldquoprocegraves eacutequitablerdquo (fair trial) and ldquodue process of lawrdquo see Elisabeth

ZOLLER ldquoProcegraves eacutequitable et due process of lawrdquo D 2007 pp 517-523 See also Abdelkrim

MAAMOURI Droit au procegraves eacutequitable et Due Process of Law Eacute tude compareacutee Eacute tats-Unis France et

Convention europeacuteenne des droits de lrsquohomme Eacuted universitaires europeacuteennes 2011 Fair trial and due

process of law are both concepts of fundamental fairness In 1934 the United States Supreme Court

held that due process is violated if a practice or rule offends some principle of justice so rooted in the

traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental Snyder v Massachusetts 291

US 97 105 (1934) It includes an individuals right to be adequately notified of charges or proceedings

the opportunity to be heard at these proceedings and that the person or panel making the final decision

over the proceedings be impartial in regards to the matter before them see Goldberg v Kelly 397 US

254 267 (1970) 146

See eg Art 20-4 of the Portuguese constitution Art 8 20-1 26 and 87 of the Greek constitution

Art 111 of the Italian constitution and Art 24-2 of the Spanish constitution 147


according to the Constitutional court the right to an impartial court follows from Art 101 para 1

Grundgesetz (right to a lawful judge) 14 May 1985 1 BvR 37084 BVerfGE 69 p 381 (385 et seq) 18

January 2000 1 BvR 32196 BVerfGE 101 p 397 (404) 18 July 2013 1 BvR 162311 NJW 42014 p

205 ldquoAus Art 2 I iVm Art 20 III GG wird als lsquoallgemeines Prozessgrundrechtrsquo der Anspruch auf ein

faires Verfahren abgeleitetrdquo See also Leo ROSENBERGKarl Heinz SCHWABPeter GOTTWALD

Zivilprozessrecht 17th ed 2010 Munich Beck ed sect 1 No 30 Also in England and Wales the principle

of impartiality has been stated by case law For France see Const council (CC) 27 July 2006 No 2006-

640 DC Loi relative aux droits drsquoauteur et aux droits voisins dans la socieacuteteacute de lrsquoinformation xsect 11 148

See German Fed Const court (BVerfG) 21 March 2006 2 BvR 110405 FamRZ 2006 p 763 149

ECtHR 4 March 2014 Dilipak and Karakaya v Turkey No 794205 and 2483805 failure to take

sufficient steps to identify address for service in civil proceedings (violation of Art 6 para 1 ECHR

because the requisite steps had not been taken to inform the applicants of the proceedings against them



allegations and disputes the claims and allegations of the other Therefore they must

have access to all procedural documents and to the evidence produced by the other party

they must also be granted the opportunity to express themselves before court and the

court must take into account the partiesrsquo submissions150

In France these guarantees are

provided for in the Code of civil procedure however the Constitutional Council has

given constitutional value to the ldquoright of defenserdquo (droits de la defense)151

which

necessarily implies the so-called ldquoprincipe contradictoirerdquo152

In Germany according to

Article 103 para 1 of the Grundgesetz every party shall be entitled to a hearing in

accordance with the law (rechtliches Gehoumlr)153

The Bundesverfassungsgericht has

interpreted very extensively this provision which enshrines a ldquoprozessuales Urrecht des

Menschenrdquo154

The court must clear in clearly state in advance which factual and legal

aspects are relevant for its decision (prohibition of so-called surprise decisions

Uuml berraschungsentscheidungen) The duty of the court to structure the proceedings

follows from the constitutional principles of material equality in legal protection (Art 3

para 1 of the Basic Law) and from the social state principle (Art 20 para 1)155

In

and the latter had not had the opportunity to appear at a new trial despite the fact they had not waived

their corresponding right) 150

This is very clear in the constitutional case law of Germany and Switzerland see Alfred KOLLER

laquo Der Gehoumlrsanspruch im erstinstanzlichen Zivilprozeszlig verfassungsrechtliche Minimalanforderungen raquo

p 230 httpswwwalexandriaunisgchexportDL57392pdf For Germany see Wolfram WALDNER

Aktuelle Probleme des rechtlichen Gehoumlrs im Zivilprozeβ Erlangen 1983 Der Anspruch auf rechtliches

Gehoumlr Koumlln O Schmidt ed 2000 Rudolf WASSERMANN laquo Zur Bedeutung zum Inhalt und zum

Umfang des Rechts auf Gehoumlr raquo DRiZ 1984 pp 425 et seq R WIMMER laquo Die Wahrung des

Grundsatzes des rechtlichen Gehoumlrs ndash Dauerauftrag fuumlr das Bundesverfassungsgericht raquo DVBl 1985 pp

773 et seq See also the PhD recently published by Peter Philipp GERMELMANN Das rechtliche Gehoumlr

vor Gericht im europaumlischen Recht Baden-Baden Nomos ed 2014 151

See also Art 241 of the Spanish constitution Art 20 of the Swiss constitution ldquoGeneral procedural

guarantees 1 Every person has the right to equal and fair treatment in judicial and administrative

proceedings and to have their case decided within a reasonable time 2 Each party to a case has the right

to be heardrdquo 152

See Const Council (CC) 29 December 1984 No 84-184 DC Loi de finances pour 1985 sect 36 29

December 1989 No 89-268 DC Loi de finances pour 1990 laquo le principe du caractegravere contradictoire de

la proceacutedure est le corollaire du principe des droits de la deacutefense raquo The principe contradictoire follows

from Art 16 of the deacuteclaration of Human and Civic Rights 1789 CC 30 March 2006 No 2006-535 DC

Loi pour lrsquoeacutegaliteacute des chances 153

See German Fed Const court (BVerfG) 26 February 1954 1 BvR 53753 BVerfGE 3 p 359 (365)

7 October 1980 1 BvL 50 8979 1 BvR 24079 BVerfGE 55 p 72 (94) the parties have a Recht auf

Auumlszligerung 2 BvR 9660 BVerfGE 11 p 218 (220) 14 July 1998 1 BvR 164097

BVerfGE 98 p 218 (263) the court has the Pflicht zur Beruumlcksichtigung 154

German Fed Const court (BVerfG) 9 July 1980 2 BvR 70180 BVerfGE 55 p 1 (6) According to

the Karlsruhe court the ldquorechtliches Gehoumlrrdquo is strongly connected with Art 1 para 1 GG (human dignity)

and with the rule-of-law principle (Rechtsstaatsprinzip) For a comparison with Austria see Peter Philipp

GERMELMANN Das rechtliche Gehoumlr vor Gericht im europaumlischen Recht pp 117 et seq In Austria

the right to be heard is not enshrined in the constitution however the ECHR has the same rank as the

constitution and the constitutional court may scrutinize the compliance with the ECHR (Art 144

Bundesverfassungsgesetz) The same applies to the EU-Charter of Fundamental Rights see Austrian

Const court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) 14 March 2012 EuGRZ 2012 pp 331 et seq 155

According to German Fed Const Court (BVerfG) 18 July 2013 1 BvR 162311 NJW 42014 p

205 ldquodas Verfahren muss so gestaltet werden wie die Parteien des Zivilprozesses es vom Gericht

erwarten duumlrfen Das Gericht darf sich nicht widerspruumlchlich verhalten darf aus eigenen oder ihm

zuzurechnenden Fehlern oder Versaumlumnissen keine Verfahrensnachteile ableitenrdquo


Procedure


England the right to be heard follows from several principles such as natural justice156

audi alteram partem157

duty to act fairly or procedural fairness To some extent their

contents can be compared with the German constitutional case law related to the

ldquorechtliches Gehoumlrrdquo158

A comparative study reveals that national courts ndash especially

constitutional courts ndash have made an extensive interpretation of the constitution in order

to protect essential procedural principles159

The ldquoright to be heardrdquo is closely linked

with equality of arms in proceedings

Equality of Arms ndash The European Court of Human Rights has imposed an ldquoequality of

armsrdquo (eacutegaliteacute des armes Waffengleichheit) in civil proceedings160

on the ground of

Article 6 para 1 ECHR ldquo It is clear that the requirement of lsquoequality of armsrsquo in the

sense of a lsquofair balancersquo between the parties applies in principle to such cases [civil

proceedings] as well as to criminal cases [hellip] as regards litigation involving opposing

private interests lsquoequality of armsrsquo implies that each party must be afforded a

reasonable opportunity to present hisher case - including his evidence - under

conditions that do not place himher at a substantial disadvantage vis-agrave-vis hisher

opponentrdquo161

Numerous national constitutional courts162

also require the parties be put

on an equal footing and often infer the equality of arms from a general constitutional

156

See eg Axa General Insurance Ltd amp Lord Advocate amp Ors (Scotland) [2011] USSC 46 (12 October

2011) [2011] 3 WLR 871 sect 61 157

See Principal Reporter v K amp Ors (Scotland) [2010] UKSC 56 (15 December 2010) [2011] 1 WLR

18 sect 14 158

Peter Philipp GERMELMANN Das rechtliche Gehoumlr vor Gericht im europaumlischen Recht pp 138 et

seq 159

See Paul MARTENS laquo Les principes constitutionnels du procegraves dans la jurisprudence reacutecente des

juridictions constitutionnelles europeacuteennes raquo Cahiers du Conseil constitutionnel No 14 May 2003 For

Switzerland see Alfred KOLLER laquo Der Gehoumlrsanspruch im erstinstanzlichen Zivilprozeszlig

verfassungsrechtliche Minimalanforderungen raquo prec pp 229-242 see eg for an arbitrary interpretation

of a procedural act German Fed Const court (BVerfG) 8 August 2013 1 BvR 131413 NJW 52014 p

291 160

ECtHR 23 October 1996 Ankerl v Switzerland No 1774891 38 laquo La Cour a pour tacircche de

rechercher si la proceacutedure envisageacutee dans son ensemble a revecirctu un caractegravere lsquoeacutequitablersquo au sens de

lrsquoarticle 6 par 1 (art 6-1) Elle rappelle agrave ce titre que lrsquoexigence de lsquolrsquoeacutegaliteacute des armesrsquo crsquoest-agrave-dire drsquoun

lsquojuste eacutequilibrersquo entre les parties vaut aussi dans les litiges opposant des inteacuterecircts priveacutes lsquolrsquoeacutegaliteacute des

armesrsquo implique alors lrsquoobligation drsquooffrir agrave chaque partie une possibiliteacute raisonnable de preacutesenter sa

cause - y compris ses preuves - dans des conditions qui ne la placent pas dans une situation de net

deacutesavantage par rapport agrave son adversaire (voir lrsquoarrecirct Dombo Beheer BV preacuteciteacute p 19 paras 32-33)

Une diffeacuterence de traitement quant agrave lrsquoaudition des teacutemoins des parties peut donc ecirctre de nature agrave

enfreindre ledit principe raquo The court had heard under oath a witness presented by the other party and

refused to hear the applicantrsquos wife as a witness See also ECtHR 27 October 1983 Dombo Beheer v

The Netherlands No 1444888 161

ECtHR 27 October 1983 Dombo Beheer v The Netherlands No 1444888 No 33 In that case it

was incumbent upon the applicant company to prove that there was an oral agreement between it and the

Bank to extend certain credit facilities Only two persons had been present at the meeting at which this

agreement had allegedly been reached namely Mr van Reijendam representing the applicant company

and Mr van W representing the Bank Yet only the person who had represented the Bank was permitted to

be heard The applicant company was denied the possibility of calling the person who had represented it

because the Court of Appeal identified him with the applicant company itself 162

See eg French Const Council (CC) 23 July 2010 No 2010-1523 QPC Reacutegion Languedoc-

Roussillon et autres laquo le principe des droits de la deacutefense qui implique en particulier lexistence dune

proceacutedure juste et eacutequitable garantissant leacutequilibre des droits des parties raquo



provision on equality In France for instance Article 6 of the Declaration of Human and

Civic Rights 1789 states that the law ldquoshall be the same for all whether it protects or

punishesrdquo163

This provision combined with the general guarantee contained in Article

16 (ldquoAny society in which no provision is made for guaranteeing rights or for the

separation of powers has no Constitutionrdquo) is interpreted by the Constitutional Council

as ensuring not only the right to a ldquorecours juridictionnel effectifrdquo but also the ldquoprincipe

drsquoeacutegaliteacute devant la justicerdquo164

This trend towards the expansion of the constitutional

principle of equality165

regarded as a fundamental right can also be observed in Austria

Belgium Germany and Italy166

and is probably due to the fact that the principle of

equality has a special place within the fundamental rights since it is at the same time a

fundamental right and a necessary condition for the exercise of other fundamental rights

In Italy the Constitution provides for detailed procedural rights ldquoJurisdiction is

implemented through due process regulated by law All court trials are conducted with

adversary proceedings and the parties are entitled to equal conditions before an

impartial judge in third party position The law provides for the reasonable duration of

trialsrdquo (Art 111 paras 1 and 2)167

ldquoDefense is an inviolable right at every stage and

instance of legal proceedingsrdquo (Art 24 para 2) In Germany the principle of equality is

enshrined in Article 3 of the Basic Law According to the German

Bundesverfassungsgericht the principle of equality of arms (Waffengleichheit) between

the parties is a constitutional procedural requirement168

Equality of arms may in some

cases lead to a ldquoright to evidencerdquo or to a right to produce before court evidence

infringing the right of the other party to privacy169

163

See also Art 14 of the Spanish Constitution 164

See eg Const Council 14 May 2012 No 2012-243244245246 QPC Socieacuteteacute Yonne Reacutepublicaine

et autre 165

See eg French Const Council (CC) 14 October 2010 No 2010-54 QPC Union syndicale des

magistrats administratifs (juge unique) According to the Constitutional Council some differences in

treatment between litigants might be justified by the goal of proper administration of justice (objectif de

valeur constitutionnelle de bonne administration de la justice) which has constitutional value CC 3

December 2009 No 2009-595 DC Loi organique relative agrave lapplication de larticle 61-1 de la

Constitution For an analysis of what laquo bonne administration de la justice raquo encompasses see Justice amp

Cassation 2013 pp 13-94 166

Ferdinand MELIN-SOUCRAMANIEN laquo Le principe drsquoeacutegaliteacute dans la jurisprudence du Conseil

constitutionnel Quelles perspectives pour la question prioritaire de constitutionnaliteacute raquo Cahiers du

Conseil constitutionnel No 29 Oct 2010 according to whom laquo Pour bon nombre de juridictions

constitutionnelles le principe deacutegaliteacute en raison de sa plasticiteacute de sa double nature particuliegravere de

droit fondamental en soi et de condition dexercice des autres droits fondamentaux joue indeacuteniablement

le rocircle de principe lsquoagrave tout fairersquo raquo 167

According to Article 111 the law shall provide for the reasonable duration of trials and all judicial

decisions shall include a statement of reasons The reasonable duration of civil proceedings is also

required by case law of the German Constitutional court see eg Const court (BVerfG) 16 December

1981 1 BvR 89879 1 BvR 113279 etc BVerfGE 88 p 128 (124) 20 June 1995 1 BvR 16693

BVerfGE 93 p 99 (197 et seq) 168

Fed Const court (BVerfG) 19061973 1 BvL 3969 1 BvL 1472 BVerfGE 35 p 263 (279) 15

March 2004 1 BvR 159103 NJW 2004 p 2079 169

See eg ECtHR 10 October 2006 LL v France applic No 750802 13 May 2008 NN and TA v

Belgium applic No 6509701 D 2009 p 2714 obs Vasseur RTD civ 2008 p 650 obs Margueacutenaud

JCP 2008 I 167 No 13 obs Sudre See also Art 242 of the Spanish constitution (right to the ldquouse of

evidence appropriate to their defenserdquo) German Fed Const court (BVerfG) 9 October2002 1 BvR

161196 NJW 2002 p 3618 (3624)


Procedure


Reasonable Duration of Trials ndash Only a few national constitutions do indeed secure

the right to a reasonable duration of trials This is the case in the Italian constitution

(Art 111 para 2) as well as in the Spanish one (Art 242)170

The ECHR also provides

that ldquoeveryone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable timerdquo Many

of the complaints to the Strasburg Court relate to excessively slow proceedings On this

legal ground the Strasburg Court has frequently condemned many states especially

Italy Between 1959 and 2012 the Court has delivered 5 037 judgments holding that the

right to a reasonable duration of trial had been infringed by national courts171

All these fundamental procedural rights which have been touched upon would not be so

flourishing had there not been national courts to assert them (ordinary or constitutional

courts172

) to extend them by way of a creative interpretation that has gone in some

cases so far that the question was raised whether one could speak of a ldquogouvernement

des jugesrdquo (government by the judges)173

Judicial review of the constitutionality of

statutes introduces an institutionalized dialogue between the ordinary courts and the

constitutional court174

As a matter of fact in some countries175

this dynamic creative

and expanding interpretation of the fundamental procedural rights has been seen to be

necessary in order to strengthen the national constitution and avoid its decay especially

with regard to the growing competition between national procedural guarantees and

international or European instruments of protection of human rights such as the

European Convention on Human Rights and its Article 6 para 1 which enjoys a very

extensive and evolutive interpretation by the Strasburg Court176

Here we are of course

170

ldquo2 Likewise all have the right to the ordinary judge predetermined by law to defense and

assistance by a lawyer to be informed of the charges brought against them to a public trial without

undue delays and with full guarantees to the use of evidence appropriate to their defense [hellip]rdquo 171

Annual Report 2012 European Court of Human Rights p 159 Italy was condemned in 1 171 cases

followed by Turkey (531) Greece (437) Poland (418) Ukraine (286) France (281) and Slovenia (229)

In 2012 Italy was condemned in only 16 cases (Greece in 34 Turkey in 38 Ukraine in 27) see Annual

Report 2012 pp 154 et seq In several states such as Germany specific legislation has been induced by

the judicature of the ECtHR on legal protection within reasonable time (for Germany see the new sectsect 198-

202 of the Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz GVG introduced by Gesetz uumlber den Rechtsschutz bei uumlberlangen

Gerichtsverfahren und strafrechtlichen Ermittlungsverfahren of 24 November 2011 after the Strasburg

Courtrsquos decision of 2 September 2010 Rumpf v Germany applic No 4634406) 172

The decisions given by the Constitutional Council (Conseil constitutionnel) are binding on public

authorities and all administrative and judicial bodies They are not subject to appeal The authority of res

judicata is not vested solely in the operative part but also in the reasons which constitute the necessary

support for the operative part The same applies to the judgments rendered by the German Federal

Constitutional court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) On the creation of constitutional courts see Tom

GINSBURG ldquoConstitutional Law and Courtsrdquo in David S CLARK (ed) Comparative Law and Society

Edward Elgar ed 2012 pp 290-309 173

See for a critical view of such laquo gouvernement des juges raquo Georges VEDEL laquo Excegraves de pouvoir

administratif et excegraves de pouvoir leacutegislatif raquo (I) Cahiers du Conseil constitutionnel No 1 Dec

1996 laquo Le gouvernement des juges commence quand ceux-ci ne se contentent pas drsquoappliquer ou

drsquointerpreacuteter les textes mais imposent des normes qui sont en reacutealiteacute des produits de leur propre esprit raquo 174

Regarding the new French situation since the coming into force of the QPC (question prioritaire de

constitutionaliteacute) see P Deumier laquo La question prioritaire de constitutionnaliteacute et le dialogue primordial

des juges franccedilais raquo Revue internationale de droit processuel 2012 ndeg1 pp 127-144 175

This is eg the case in France see Reacutegis FRAISSE prec pp 15 et seq 176

See Lord Leonard HOFFMANN ldquoThe Universality of Human Rightsrdquo LQR 125 (2009) pp 416-

432 (p 428) rdquothe proposition that the Convention is a lsquoliving instrumentrsquo is the banner under which the



touching upon the delicate issue of the relationships between constitution and

international instruments and of transnational dialogue between courts

Ⅳ Constitution and Transnational Dialogue or

Conversation177 Between Courts178

This presentation has tried to describe the profusion of instruments of constitutional or

para-constitutional nature that secure fundamental procedural rights Fundamental rights

are a favourable ground for the circulation of legal models in a vertical as well as

horizontal way Especially in Europe there are several strata national constitutions

national statutes EU law179

with the Charter of Fundamental Rights being legally

binding with the same value as the European Treaties and the ECHR The drawback is

that this creates not only a possible competition between norms but also possible

cacophony180

in case law since there are numerous actors181

in the field of human rights

which include several procedural rights Admittedly states have to abide by ldquothe

constitutional principles enshrined in the ECHRrdquo182

by final judgment of the ECtHR in

the cases to which they are parties183

and by case law of the ECJ However the actors

Strasburg Court has assumed power to legislate what they consider to be required by lsquoEuropean public

orderrsquordquo 177

See Monica CLAES Maartje DE VISSER Patricia POPELIER and Catherine VAN DE HEYNING

(eds) Constitutional Conversations in Europe CambridgeAntwerpPortlandj Intersentia 2012 The

authors prefer the use of the term laquo conversation raquo instead of dialogue because the number of actors is

usually greater than two and because the term laquo conversation raquo encompasses also communications which

have a more informal character (see p 4) 178

See Laurent SCHEECK laquo Le dialogue des droits fondamentaux en Europe feacutedeacuterateur de loyauteacutes

dissolvant de reacutesistancesldquo in Emmanuelle BRIBOSIALaurent SCHEECKAmaya UBEDA DE

TORRES (eds) LrsquoEurope des cours loyauteacutes et reacutesistances Brussels Bruylant ed 2010 pp 19-63 179

Originally the Treaties did not mention fundamental rights The Single European Act (1986)

affirmed for the first time that Member States were ldquodetermined to work together to promote democracy

on the basis of fundamental rights recognized in the constitutions and laws of the Member States in the

[ECHR] and the European Social Charter notably freedom equality and social justicerdquo The Treaty on

the European Union included the respect of fundamental rights in its Art F para 2 Today Art 6 TEU

gives the Charter legally binding force states that the EU shall access to the ECHR and that

laquo fundamental rights as guaranteed by the ECHR and as they result from the constitutional traditions

common to the Member States shall constitute general principles of EU lawrdquo 180

See eg the divergence between the ruling of the German Constitutional court and the decision given

by the ECtHR in the case Elsholz v Germany (ECtHR 13 July 2000 applic No 2573594) 181

See Laurent SCHEECK prec p 19 laquo espace multi-acteurs des droits de lrsquohomme en Europe raquo 182

Karel KLIMA laquo The Phenomenon of the European Court of Human Rightsrsquo Influence on the


vol V 2014 p 185 ldquoCase law of the ECtHR contributes to the juridization and constitutionalisation of

the Conventionrdquo 183

The main difference between the ECtHR and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is that the

ECtHR can be seized by an individual complaint of a natural or legal entity whereas before the Inter-


Procedure


on the European stage are numerous so that consistency must be a crucial concern Also

the ldquoturn to constitutional pluralismrdquo184

presented as a ldquothird way between the absolute

primacy od EU law and the unconditional supremacy of national constitutionsrdquo

necessitates conversations between the judicial guardians of the different legal orders185

A dialogue186

and a cooperation between not only national and European courts but

also between the EJC and the ECtHR is needed in order to ensure that the Member

States are not put in an untenable situation of being bound by conflicting decisions This

is why the President of the German Constitutional court Andreas Voszligkuhle has used

the formula bdquoEuropaumlischer Verfassungsgerichtsverbundrdquo (European constitutional

courtsrsquo compound)187

Does this ldquodialoguerdquo which takes place unify the different

loyalties at stake and ldquodissolve resistancerdquo188

Is it possible to go from ldquochaotic

pluralismrdquo to ldquoorderly pluralismrdquo189

The situation of national constitutional courts is

indeed complicated They are all concerned with their legitimacy just as the European

American Court of Human Rights only the Commission and the States Parties to the Convention are

empowered to submit cases concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention In addition

in order for a case against a State Party to be brought before the Court the State Party must recognise the

jurisdiction of the Court Individual citizens of the OAS Member States are not allowed to take cases

directly to the Court The African Court on Human and Peoples Rights was established by virtue of

Article 1 of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights on the Establishment of an

African Court on Human and Peoplesrsquo Rights which was adopted by Member States of the then

Organization of African Unity (OAU) in 1998 The Protocol came into force on 25 January 2004 after it

was ratified by more than 15 countries The Court has jurisdiction over all cases and disputes submitted to

it concerning the interpretation and application of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights the

Protocol and any other relevant human rights instrument ratified by the States concerned The Court may

receive complaints andor applications submitted either by the African Commission of Human and

Peoplesrsquo Rights or State parties to the Protocol or African Intergovernmental Organizations Non-

Governmental Organizations with observer status before the African Commission on Human and Peoplesrsquo

Rights and individuals from States which have made a Declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the Court

can also institute cases directly before the Court As 2014 only seven countries had made such a

Declaration The Court delivered its first judgment in 2009 184

See also D THYM laquo Attack or retreat Evolving themes and strategies of the judicial dialogue

between the German Constitutional court and the European Court of Justice raquo in Monica CLAES

Maartje DE VISSER Patricia POPELIER and Catherine VAN DE HEYNING (eds) Constitutional

Conversations in Europe CambridgeAntwerpPortlandj Intersentia 2012 p 246 who uses the formula

laquo pluralist multi-level constitutionalism raquo 185

Monica CLAES Maartje DE VISSER Patricia POPELIER and Catherine VAN DE HEYNING (eds)

Constitutional Conversations in Europe CambridgeAntwerpPortland Intersentia 2012 p 3 186

One of the modalities that have been used for a few years by the ECtHR to engage conversations

with national courts and states is the pilot judgment procedure 187

Andreas VOszligKUHLE bdquoDer europaumlische Verfassungsgerichtsverbundldquo Neue Zeitschrift fuumlr

Verwaltungsrecht 29 (2010) pp 1-8 188




See Olivier DE FROUVILLE laquo Le paradigme de la constitutionnalisation vu du droit international raquo

in Steacutephanie HENNETTE-VAUCHEZJean-Marc SOREL Les droits de lrsquohomme ont-ils

constitutionnaliseacute le monde Bruxelles Bruylant 2011 p 193-215 laquo comment deacutevelopper davantage

notamment les pratiques de lsquocoordinationrsquo drsquoharmonisationrsquo voire mecircme drsquorsquounificationrsquo par lsquohybridationrsquo

qui permettent sans preacutetendre faire preacutevaloir un ordre juridique sur un autre de passer drsquoun pluralisme

chaotique agrave un lsquopluralisme ordonneacutersquo raquo Mireille DELMAS-MARTY Les forces imaginantes du droit

(II) Le pluralisme ordonneacute Paris Seuil ed 2006



and International Courts are Their legal argumentation is coupled with political

rhetoric190

The ECJ and the ECtHR have sometimes been called ldquojudicial activistsrdquo191

Both have

played an essential part in the ldquoconstitutionalisationrdquo of fundamental rights in Europe

Little by little the ECJ has made reference in its rulings to the ECHR and to the

Strasburg case law which has even in some instances led to a change of the ECJrsquos case

law192

The Strasburg court especially has contributed to the ldquoimperialismrdquo193

of Article

6 ECHR194

by developing a teleologic interpretation method leading to ldquoconstructive

dynamismrdquo195

and to a certain ius commune196

It uses two techniques to extend the

scope of the Convention first the theory of the ldquoelements that are necessarily

inherentrdquo197

in the rights protected by the Convention and second the theory of the

ldquopositive obligations of the contracting statesrdquo198

With regard to the interplay between

national courts and the European Convention on Human Rights it has been

ascertained199

that the difficulties have arisen more in the field of procedure than in

substantial law and that procedure is subject to an incredible promotion However it

cannot be doubted that even if the national Constitutional courts and the ECtHR carry a

different control200

the case law of the second has a significant influence201

on the

190

Constance GREWE ldquoLes droits de lrsquohomme ont-ils constitutionnaliseacute le monde Conclusions

geacuteneacuteralesrdquo raquo in Steacutephanie HENNETTE-VAUCHEZ and Jean-Marc SOREL Les droits de lrsquohomme ont-

ils constitutionnaliseacute le monde Bruxelles Bruylant 2011 p 280 191

See the criticism expressed by the President of the Belgian Constitutional court Marc BOSSUYT

ldquoRechterlijk activisme in Straatsburgrdquo Rechtskundig Weekblad 2013-2014 No 19 pp 723-733 192

See eg ECJ 18 October 1989 37487 Orkem v Commission See also Laurent SCHEECK prec

according to whom both European courts are bound by a laquo strategic interdependence raquo leading to laquo cross-

fertlisation raquo laquo Les droits de lrsquohomme participent agrave la dynamique de constitutionnalisation par petits pas

du reacutegime politique europeacuteen raquo 193

Freacutedeacuteric SUDRE laquo La recherche de principes de proceacutedure communs aux Eacute tats membres de lrsquoUnion

europeacuteenne Lrsquoapplication de lrsquoarticle 6 de la Convention europeacuteenne des droits de lrsquohomme Rapport

introductif raquo in Les principes communs drsquoune justice des Eacutetats de lrsquoUnion europeacuteenne Conference of 4-5

December 2000 Cour de cassation Paris Documentation franccedilaise 2001 p 29 laquo on a pu deacutenoncer

lrsquorsquoimpeacuterialismersquo de lrsquoarticle 6 et dire de cette disposition qursquoelle eacutetait une convention dans la Convention

ndash et se preacutesente sous une lsquoondoyante diversiteacutersquo raquo 194

According to F Sudre (prec p 49) ldquolaquo En mettant lrsquoaccent sur lrsquoeffectiviteacute du droit agrave un procegraves

eacutequitable et sur son importance dans une socieacuteteacute deacutemocratique le juge europeacuteen invite agrave deacutepasser la

distinction entre droit formel et droit substantiel entre droits de proceacutedure et droits fondamentaux pour

concevoir le droit du procegraves comme un veacuteritable droit fondamental qui assure lrsquoeffectiviteacute des autres

droits substantiels comme un veacuteritable lsquodroit de sauvegardersquo des droits de lrsquohomme raquo 195

Freacutedeacuteric SUDRE prec p 30 196


See eg ECtHR 26 May 2011 Legrand v France applic No 2322808 sect 35 By using this

technique the ECtHR could secure the right to effective access to court (which is not expressly enshrined

in Art 6 para 1 ECHR) and the right to enforcement of judgments 198

See eg ECtHR 6 November 2008 Leela Foumlrderkreis eV and others v Germany applic No

5891100 199

Constance GREWE prec p 282 200

Patrick SPINOSI ldquoQuel regard sur la jurisprudence du Conseil constitutionnel sur le procegraves

eacutequitablerdquo Les nouveaux cahiers du Conseil constitutionnel No 44 2014 pp 24-34 who describes a

laquo dialogue sans paroles raquo between the French Constitutional council and the ECtHR


Procedure


decisions rendered by the first202

The emergence of European legal orders has for

instance led the French Constitutional council to an expanding interpretation of the

Constitution Had it kept a literal interpretation the French Constitution would have

been enfeebled203

In Switzerland when the constitution was amended in 1999

numerous procedural guarantees that the Bundesgericht had followed from Article 4

(principle of equality) in a creative interpretation were expressly formulated in Articles

29 et seq of the new constitution204

The Spanish Tribunal constitucional that is bound

by Article 10 para 2 of the constitution (according to which ldquoProvisions relating to the

fundamental rights and liberties recognised by the Constitution shall be construed in

conformity with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international treaties

and agreements thereon ratified by Spain raquo205

) is probably the constitutional court that

is most influenced by the ECJrsquos and ECtHRrsquos case law206

201

For an interesting decision of the German Fed Const court relating to the influence of the judgments

given by the ECtHR on the interpretation of the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz) see Fed Const court

(BVerfG) 14 October 2004 2 BvR 148104 Goumlrguumlluuml the binding to law and justice (Art 20 para 3 GG)

includes consideration of the guarantees provided by the ECHR and of the decisions of the ECtHR in the

context of methodologically justifiable interpretation of the law The failure to consider a decision of the

Court may violate fundamental rights in connection with the rule of law When considering decisions of

the ECtHR the state bodies must include the impact on the national legal system in their application of

the law Comp BVerfG 26 March 1987 2 BvR 58979 2 BvR 75081 2 BvR 28485 BVerfGE 74 pp

358 et seq 202

See eg the reaction of the German Fed Const court to a ECtHRrsquos decision (17 December 2009

applic No 1935904 M v Germany) against the German law of ldquoSicherungsverwahrungrdquo (BVerfG) 4

May 2011 2 BvR 236509 2 BvR 74010 2 BvR 233308 2 BvR 115210 2 BvR 57110 NJW 2011 p

1931 see also ECtHR 15 July 1982 Eckle v Germany applic No 813078 (right to trial within

reasonable time) and the explicit reference to this decision by BVerfG 24 November 1983 2 BvR 12183

For France see Olivier DUTHEILLET DE LAMOTTE ldquoLrsquoinfluence de la Cour europeacuteenne des droits de

lrsquohomme sur le Conseil constitutionnelrdquo wwwconseil-

constitutionnelfrconseilcedh_130209_odutheilletpdf The French Constitutional council refuses to

control whether a French statute complies with the ECHR In France the ECtHRrsquos case law has had an

influence on the consecration of the right to fair trial by the Constitutional council see P SPINOSI prec

p 24 (ldquoconseacutecration tardive raquo) In 2005 the Constitutional council has established an autonomous

constitutional principle of fair trial (procegraves eacutequitable) which follows from Art 16 Declaration of Human

and Civic Rights 1789 203

See Reacutegis FRAISSE prec p 15 The Constitutional council could not laquo se recroqueviller sur une

interpreacutetation litteacuterale de son bloc de constitutionnaliteacute sans affaiblir la Constitution qursquoil a pour mission

de faire respecter raquo 204

See Peter Philipp GERMELMANN Das rechtliche Gehoumlr vor Gericht im europaumlischen Recht pp

119 et seq 205

Comp Art 162 of the Portuguese constitution laquo The provisions of this Constitution and of laws

concerning fundamental rights shall be interpreted and construed in accordance with the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights raquo 206

See Jean-Franccedilois FLAUSS laquo Principes geacuteneacuteraux du droit communautaire dans la jurisprudence des

juridictions constitutionnelles des Eacute tats membres raquo in Jacques BOURRINET (ed) Droits nationaux

droit communautaire Hommage agrave L Dubouis Doc Franccedilaise 2000 p 54 See also the declaration

12004 of 1 December 2004 of the Tribunal constitucional in which the role of the EU Charter of

Fundamental Rights is highlighted as a source of interpretation of the Spanish constitutional rights



In 2012207

the President of the ECtHR Sir Nicolas Bratza aware of the ldquoincreasing

number of binding legal instruments laying down fundamental rights within the

European Union legal system ndash and the risk of confusion which goes with itrdquo expressed

ldquothe need for an external mechanism capable of providing legal certainty as to the

minimum protection standard applicable in the fieldrdquo and supported the accession of the

European Union to the ECHR208

which is now required by Article 62 TEU209

Will the

accession of the European Union to the Convention enhance the coherent application of

human rights ndash and more precisely procedural rights - in Europe Probably210

because

this will mean that EU law could be submitted to external scrutiny and that the Court of

Justice would be bound by the judicial precedents of the Court of Human Rightss case

law avoiding issues of conflicting case law between these two courts211

However it

will be a long time before the accession of the European Union to the ECHR comes into

force212

since it will require the signatures of all 47 Member States of the Council of

Europe and the ratification by their national parliaments213

Constitutional courts that used to be reluctant214

to refer some questions to the ECJ for

preliminary rulings215

are now changing their behaviour216

which proves their

207

Annual Report 2012 European Court of Human Rights p 36 208

On this issue see Vassilios SKOURIS ldquoFirst thoughts on the forthcoming accession of the European

union to the European Convention on human rightsrdquo in La Convention europeacuteenne des droits de lrsquohomme

un instrument vivant Essays in Honour of Christos L Rozakis Brussels Bruylant ed 2011 pp 555-569

the establishment of an external mechanism of control of the protection of fundamental rights in the EU

by the ECtHR will ldquoundoubtedly enhance the protection of fundamental rights in the EUrdquo but ldquoraises

several issues on both a procedural and substantive levelrdquo See also Martin KUIJER ldquoThe accession of

the European Union to the ECHR A gift for the ECHRrsquos 60th anniversary or an unwelcome intruder at

the party Amsterdam Law Forum Vol 34 pp 17-32 available at

amsterdamlawforumorgarticledownload240428 209

However such accession shall not affect the EUrsquos competences as defined in the Treaties 210

For a positive answer see Gil Carlos RODRIGUEZ IGLESIAS quoted by M KUIJER prec p 23

(the accession of the EU to the ECHR laquo would reinforce the uniformity of the system for the protection of

fundamental rights in Europe raquo) 211

For examples of such conflicting case law see ECJ 8 February 2000 C-1798 Emesa Sugar (Free

Zone) v Aruba In the absence of accession of the EU to the ECHR the frequency of diverging

interpretations might well increase since the EU has its own human rights instruments (especially the

Charter) 212

In April 2013 negotiators of the 47 Council of Europe Member States and the European Union have

finalised the draft accession agreement of the European Union to the European Convention on Human

rights The EU Court of Justice in Luxembourg has to give its opinion on the text 213

In the EU the Council shall unanimously adopt the accession agreement after receiving the

European Parliamentrsquos consent The Council decision has then to be approved by each EU-member state

according to their constitutional rules 214

Except the Belgian Constitutional court see C C VAN DE HEYNING bdquoThe European perspective

from lingua franca to a common languageldquo in Monica CLAES Maartje DE VISSER Patricia

POPELIER and Catherine VAN DE HEYNING (eds) Constitutional Conversations in Europe

CambridgeAntwerpPortlandj Intersentia 2012 p 193 215

See for Spain M GONZALEZ PASCUAL laquo Mutual recognition and fundamental constitutional

rights The first preliminary reference of the Spanish Constitutional court raquo in Monica CLAES Maartje

DE VISSER Patricia POPELIER and Catherine VAN DE HEYNING (eds) Constitutional Conversations

in Europe CambridgeAntwerpPortlandj Intersentia 2012 pp 161 et seq Commenting the first referral

of the Tribunal constitucional for preliminary ruling to the ECJ in the case Malloni this author

acknowledges that theTribunal laquo sets aside its usual autism and opens up a direct complex and structured


Procedure


willingness to dialogue with the European court Now and again there has however

been some resistance coming from national constitutional courts to the EU-law and the

ECJrsquos case law217

On certain issues some Member States such as Germany218

have

threatened to partially stop the application of Union law which would endanger their

ldquonational constitutional identityrdquo219

and argued that the core of constitutional provisions

poses an ultimate limit to the primacy of EU law in the domestic legal order220

Since

the entry into force of the treaty of Lisbon Article 42 TEU requires namely that the

Union ldquorespect the equality of Member States before the Treaties as well as their

national identities inherent in their fundamental structures political and constitutional

inclusive of regional and local self-governmentrdquo What does this precisely mean221

Of

dialogue raquo with the ECJ (p 163) See also M CLAES laquo Negotiating constitutional identity or whose

identity is it anyway raquo in Monica CLAES Maartje DE VISSER Patricia POPELIER and Catherine

VAN DE HEYNING (eds) Constitutional Conversations in Europe CambridgeAntwerpPortlandj

Intersentia 2012 p 211 216

See eg for the Spanish Tribunal constitucional ECJ 26 February 2013 C-39911 Malloni for the

French Conseil constitutionnel see CC 4 April 2013 No 2013-314P QPC D 2013 p 1479 and ECJ 30

May 2013 Jeremy F v Premier Ministre C-16813 (European arrest warrant referral for preliminary

ruling to be dealt with under the urgent procedure) Also the Austrian Belgian and Italian constitutional

courts as well as the court of Luxemburg have referred to the ECJ for preliminary ruling see Christope de

ARANJO Justices constitutionnelles et justices europeacuteennes des droits de lrsquohomme Eacutetude compareacutee

France-Allemagne Brussels Bruylant ed 2009 p 205 217

See Antonio TIZZANO laquo La protection des droits fondamentaux en Europe la Cour de Justice et les

juridictions constitutionnelles nationales raquo Revue du droit de lrsquoUnion europeacuteenne No 1 2006 pp 14 et

seq 218

See D THYM laquo Attack or retreat Evolving thegravemes and strateacutegies of the judicial dialogue between

the German Constitutional court and the European Court of Justice raquo in Monica CLAES Maartje DE

VISSER Patricia POPELIER and Catherine VAN DE HEYNING (eds) Constitutional Conversations in

Europe CambridgeAntwerpPortlandj Intersentia 2012 pp 235-249 219

German Fed Const court (BVerfG) 30 June 2009 2 BvE 208 (decision relating to the Treaty of

Lisbon) The inviolable core content of the German constitutional identity relates to Article 23 paras 1 and

3 in conjunction with Article 79 para 3 of the Basic Law (GG) According to Art 79 para 3 GG (eternity

clause) constitutional amendments may not infringe the core guarantees of humpan dignity democracy

the rule of law republicanism and the welfare state as well as the basic features of intra-German

federalism Traditionnally issues related to the protection of fundamental rights were the core of many

conversations between national constitutional courts and the ECJ Yet more recently constitutional

identity of the Member States has become an emerging topic See also Polish Const court K 2309 24

September 2010 Czech Const court Pl US 1908 26 November 2008 The European warrant arrest has

led to decisions of several national constitutional courts in this respect See also the decision issued by the

French Constitutional council CC 27 July 2006 No 2006-540 DC Loi relative au droit drsquoauteur et aux

droits voisins dans la socieacuteteacute de linformation see F-X MILLET laquo The French Constitutional Council

and the CJEU Between splendid isolation communication and forced dialogue raquo in Monica CLAES


Conversations in Europe CambridgeAntwerpPortlandj Intersentia 2012 pp 255 et seq In France the

core of constitutional identity certainly encompasses indivisibility of the Republic laiumlciteacute and the right to

asylum see F-X MILLET prec p 257 220

See howver the laquo softer raquo decision rendered by the German Federal Constitutional court in the

Honeywell case BVerfG 6 July 2010 2 BvR 266106 BVerfGE 126 p 286 see also D THYM prec p

240 221

For suggestions see Leonard FM BESSELINK laquo National and constitutional identity before and

after Lisbon raquo Utrecht Law Review Vol 6 Issue 3 Nov 2010 pp 36-49 who compares (pp 43 et seq)

the former Art 63 TEU in the Maastricht version and the new Art 42 after the Lisbon treaty ldquovery

wordy formulation in the Lisbon versionrdquo



course substantively the ECJ is not in position to determine ldquowhat is or what is not part

of the constitutional identity of a Member Staterdquo222

Article 42 probably urges a

ldquorelationship of cooperationrdquo223

between national courts and the ECJ the constitutional

court would determine what belongs to the national constitutional identity224

whereas

the ECJ would assess the meaning of the EU law in the specific case225

The resistances

mentioned did however not relate to civil procedural issues

Ⅴ Conclusion

In our world of ever-growing complexity fundamental procedural principles and rights

ndash often of constitutional origin and nature ndash have gained a leading role since they are

such an essential and necessary condition for the exercise of other fundamental rights

Their growing constitutional andor fundamental nature can be acknowledged with

satisfaction Procedure has become a ldquonoble subject matterrdquo In this regard the crucial

influence of international instruments cannot be overlooked or denied One can even

talk about a ldquoconstitutionalism compoundrdquo (constitutionalisme composeacute226

) which

encompasses in Europe national constitutions EU-law and the ECHR In numerous

jurisdictions a dynamic and expanding interpretation of constitutional procedural rights

has been undertaken by constitutional or even ordinary courts in order to strengthen the

national constitution and avoid its decline especially because of the growing

competition227

between national procedural guarantees and international or European

instruments of protection of human rights If the winners of the competition are

effective access to court and fair trial placed equal first who can complain

222

Ibidem p 45 223

The German Federal Constitutional court (BVerfG) expressly used this expression in its important

Maastricht decision of 12 October 1993 2 BvR 2134 215992 BVerfGE 89 pp 155 et seq See also

Spanish Tribunal constitucional Decl 12004 13 December 2004 ldquoconstant dialogue with the authorised

jurisdictional instances [hellip] for the authentic interpretation of the international agreements that contain

declarations of rightsrdquo 224

Comp D THYM prec p 244 according to whom the switch of the Bundesverfassungsgericht

towards the protection of constitutional identity represents a laquo change of strategy raquo 225

Ibidem Comp C VAN DE HEYNING bdquoThe European perspective from lingua franca to a

common languageldquo prec pp 201 et seq Where a constitutional issue is at stake the ECJ mostly does

not consider its constitutional status and translates the debate into EU language see C VAN DE

HEYNING p 193 For a case in which the ECJ relied on Art 42 TEU to accept constitutional arguments

as legitimate derogations from EU law see ECJ 22 December 2010 C-20808 Sayn-Wittgenstein v

Landeshauptmann von Wien 226

See Christophe de ARANJO Justices constitutionnelles et justices europeacuteennes des droits de

lrsquohomme Eacutetude compareacutee France-Allemagne Brussels Bruylant ed 2009 p 373 227

According to Christophe de ARANJO Justices constitutionnelles et justices europeacuteennes des droits de

lrsquohomme Eacutetude compareacutee France-Allemagne p 379 the relationship between constitutional and

european law shoud not be of hierarchical nature laquo Ces droits ne cohabitent pas en vertu drsquoun principe

hieacuterarchique mais dans une relations drsquointerdeacutependance et de compleacutementariteacute raquo


Procedure


List of Abreviations

ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution

BGH Bundegerichtshof German Federal Court of Justice

BVerfG Bundesverfassungsgericht German Constitutional Court

CC Conseil constitutionnel French Constitutional Council

CPC Code of civil procedure

D Recueil Dalloz

ECHR European Convention on Human Rights

ECtHR European Court of Human Rights

EuGRZ Europaumlische Grundrechte-Zeitschrift

EU European Union

JCP Jurisclasseur Peacuteriodique (Semaine Juridique)

MDR Monatsschrift fuumlr Deutsches Recht

NJW Neue Juristische Wochenschrift

Reacutep Dalloz Proceacutedure civile Reacutepertoire Dalloz de Proceacutedure civile

RTDCiv Revue trimestrielle de droit civil

ZEuP Zeitschrift fuumlr Europaumlisches Privatrecht

ZZPInt Zeitschrift fuumlr Zivilprozess International



Bibliography

- Christoph ALTHAMMER laquo Die Zukunft des Rechtsmittelsystems raquo in Alexander BRUNS

Joachim MUuml NCH und Astrid STADLER Die Zukunft des Zivilprozesses Tuumlbingen Mohr

Siebeck 2014 p 87-10

- Neil ANDREWS On Civil Processes I Cambridge Intersentia ed 2013

- Neil ANDREWS laquo Nurturing Civil Justice raquo in Festschrift Rolf Stuumlrner Band 2 Tuumlbingen

Mohr Siebeck 2013 p 1393-1405

- Christophe de ARANJO Justices constitutionnelles et justices europeacuteennes des droits de

lrsquohomme Eacutetude compareacutee France-Allemagne Brussels Bruylant ed 2009

- Christophe de ARANJO laquo Sur le constitutionalisme europeacuteen raquo RDP 62006

- Marie-Elisabeth BAUDOIN laquo Consonances et dissonances dans le discours europeacuteen des

droits de lrsquohomme violationnistes et eacutetatistes la deacutefinition du rocircle du juge europeacuteen raquo in

Steacutephanie HENNETTE-VAUCHEZ and Jean-Marc SOREL Les droits de lrsquohomme ont-ils

constitutionnaliseacute le monde Bruxelles Bruylant 2011 p 65-92

- Leonard FM BESSELINK laquo National and constitutional identity before and after Lisbon raquo

Utrecht Law Review Vol 6 Issue 3 Nov 2010 pp 36-49

- Leonard FM BESSELINK et alii (eds) Constitutional Primacy ndash The Rank of EU law and

the Adoption of EU Treaties in the 27 Member States Groningen Europea Law Publishing

2010

- Micha BLOCHING Alexander KETTINGER laquo Verfahrensgrundrechte im Zivilprozess ndash

Nun endlich das Comeback der auβerordentlichen Beschwerde raquo NJW 2005 p 860 et

seq

- Armin VON BOGDANDY and Juumlrgen BAST (eds) Principles of European Constitutional

Law 2nd

ed 2010 Oxford Hart Publishing

- Marc BOSSUYT bdquoRechterlijk activisme in Straatsburgldquo Rechtskundig Weekblad 2013-

2014 No 19 pp 723-733

- Allan R BREWER-CARIAS Constitutional Protection of Human Rights in Latin America

A Comparative Study of the Amparo Proceedings Cambridge Cambridge Univ Press

2009

- Alexander BRUNS ldquoDie zivilprozessuale Dimension der Justizgewaumlhrleistungldquo in

Festschrift Rolf Stuumlrner Band I Tuumlbingen Mohr Siebeck p 257-271

- Reacutemy CABRILLAC Liberteacutes et droit fondamentaux 20th ed 2014 Paris Dalloz

- Antonio Augusto CANCADO TRINDADE laquo The Expansion of the Material Content of

Jus Cogens The Contribution of the Inter-American Court of Human Rightsrdquo in Dean

SPIELMANN Marialena TSIRLI and Panayotis VOYATZIS La Convention europeacuteenne

des droits de lrsquohomme un instrument vivant Meacutelanges en lrsquohonneur de Christos L Rozakis

Bruxelles Bruylant 2011 p 27-46

- Mauro CAPPELLETTI ldquoThe Judicial Process in Comparative Perspectiverdquo Oxford

Claredon Press 1989

- Mauro CAPPELLETTI (ed) Accegraves agrave la justice et Etat-providence Paris Economica 1984

- Mauro CAPPELLETTI (ed) Access to Justice and Welfare State Florence European Univ

Institute 1981

- Mauro CAPPELLETTI Fundamental Guarantees of the Parties in Civil Litigation

Comparative Constitutional International and Social Trends Stanford Univ 1973

- Marc CARILLO ldquoLa reacuteforme de lrsquoamparo en espagne un nouveau certiorari raquo

Constitutions January-March 2014 p 60-63

- Monica CLAES Maartje DE VISSER Patricia POPELIER and Catherine VAN DE

HEYNING (eds) Constitutional Conversations in Europe CambridgeAntwerpPortlandj

Intersentia 2012


Procedure


- Monica CLAES laquo Negotiating constitutional identity or whose identity is it anyway raquo in

Monica CLAES Maartje DE VISSER Patricia POPELIER and Catherine VAN DE


Intersentia 2012 p 205-233

- Ninon COLNERIC laquo European Constitution raquo in Juumlrgen BASEDOWKlaus

HOPTReinhard ZIMMERMANNAndreas STIER The Max Planck Encylopedia of

European Private Law VoL 1 Oxford Oxford Univ Press 2012 p 572-577

- Mireille DELMAS-MARTY Les forces imaginantes du droit (II) Le pluralisme ordonneacute

Paris Seuil ed 2006

- Pascale DEUMIER laquo La question prioritaire de constitutionnaliteacute et le dialogue primordial

des juges franccedilais raquo Revue internationale de droit processuel 2012 ndeg1 p 127-144

- Arthur DYEVRE laquo The Melki way The Melki case and everything you always wanted to

know about French judicial politics (but were afraid to ask) in Monica CLAES Maartje DE

VISSER Patricia POPELIER and Catherine VAN DE HEYNING (eds) Constitutional

Conversations in Europe CambridgeAntwerpPortlandj Intersentia 2012 p 309-322

- Olivier DUTHEILLET DE LAMOTTE ldquoA french legal success story the lsquoQuestion

prioritaire de constitutionnaliteacutersquordquo availbale on the website of the Constitutional Council


constitutionnelfrancaisdocumentationcontributions-et-discours2012a-french-legal-

success-story-the-question-prioritaire-de-constitutionnalite115542html

- Jean-Philippe FELDMANN laquo Le constitutionnalisme selon Benjamin Constant raquo Revue

franccedilaise de droit constitutionnel 20084 p 675-702

- Jean-Franccedilois FLAUSS laquo La Cour EDH est-elle une Cour constitutionnelle raquo Revue

franccedilaise de droit constitutionnel 36 (1998) 711-728

- Jean-Franccedilois FLAUSS laquo Principes geacuteneacuteraux du droit communautaire dans la jurisprudence

des juridictions constitutionnelles des Etats membres raquo in Jacques BOURRINET (ed)

Droits nationaux droit communautaire Hommage agrave L Dubouis Doc Franccedilaise 2000 p

54

- Reacutegis FRAISSE laquo Lrsquoarticle 16 de la Deacuteclaration clef de voucircte des droits et liberteacutes raquo Les

Nouveaux Cahiers du Conseil constitutionnel no 44 June 2014 pp 9-21

- Natalie FRICERO laquo Le droit au juge devant les juridictions civiles raquo in Joeumll RIDEAU

(dir) Le droit au juge dans lrsquoUnion europeacuteenne Paris LGDJ 1998 p 11 et seq

- Olivier DE FROUVILLE laquo Le paradigme de la constitutionnalisation vu du droit

international raquo in Steacutephanie HENNETTE-VAUCHEZJean-Marc SOREL Les droits de

lrsquohomme ont-ils constitutionnaliseacute le monde Bruxelles Bruylant 2011 p 193-215

- Lech GARLICKI ldquoConstitutional Courts versus Supreme Courtrdquo 5 International Journal

of Constitutional Law 44-68

- Peter Philipp GERMELMANN Das rechtliche Gehoumlr vor Gericht im europaumlischen Recht

Baden-Baden Nomos ed 2014

- Peter GILLES laquo Zum Bedeutungszuwachs und Funktionswandel des Prozessrechts raquo

Juristische Schulung (JUS) 1981 p405

- Tom GINSBURG ldquoConstitutional Law and Courtsrdquo in David S CLARK (ed)

Comparative Law and Society Edward Elgar ed 2012 p 290-309

- Charlotte GIRARD laquo Ce qursquoappliquer la Convention en droit interne veut dire ndash Le rocircle des

doctrines nationales raquo in Steacutephanie HENNETTE-VAUCHEZJean-Marc SOREL Les

droits de lrsquohomme ont-ils constitutionnaliseacute le monde Bruxelles Bruylant 2011 p 125-

158

- Maribel GONZALEZ PASCUAL laquo Mutual recognition and fundamental constitutional

rights The first preliminary reference of the Spanish Constitutional court raquo in Monica

CLAES Maartje DE VISSER Patricia POPELIER and Catherine VAN DE HEYNING



(eds) Constitutional Conversations in Europe CambridgeAntwerpPortlandj Intersentia

2012 p 161-178

- Steven GREERAndrew WILLIAMS ldquoHuman Rights in the Council of Europe and the EU

Towards lsquoIndividualrsquo lsquoConstitutionalrsquo or lsquoInstitutionalrsquo Justicerdquo European law Journal

15 (2009) 462-481

- Constance GREWE ldquoLes droits de lrsquohomme ont-ils constitutionnaliseacute le monde

Conclusions geacuteneacuteralesrdquo raquo in Steacutephanie HENNETTE-VAUCHEZ and Jean-Marc SOREL

Les droits de lrsquohomme ont-ils constitutionnaliseacute le monde Bruxelles Bruylant 2011 p

277-287

- Serge GUINCHARD et alii Droit processuel Droits fondamentaux du procegraves 7th ed 2013

Paris Dalloz no 155 et seq pp 321 et seq

- Serge GUINCHARD laquo Le procegraves eacutequitable droit fondamental raquo Actualiteacute Juridique de

Droit Administratif (AJDA) 1998 p 191 et seq

- Serge GUINCHARDGuillaume DRAGO laquo Droit constitutionnel et proceacutedure civile raquo Reacutep

Dalloz Proceacutedure civile Sept 2013

- Juumlrgen HABERMAS Entre naturalisme et religion Les deacutefis de la deacutemocratie Paris coll

Nrf Essais Gallimard 2008

- Robert HARMSEN laquo The ECtHR as a lsquoConstitutional Courtrsquo Definitional Debates and the

Dynamics of Reform raquo in J MORISONK Mc EVOY G ANTHONY (eds) Judges

Transition and Human Rights 2007 p 33-53

- Steacutephanie HENNETTE-VAUCHEZ and Jean-Marc SOREL Les droits de lrsquohomme ont-ils

constitutionnaliseacute le monde Bruxelles Bruylant 2011

- Steacutephanie HENNETTE-VAUCHEZ laquo La mise en place drsquoun lsquomonde de la Conventionrsquo et

lrsquoaffirmation drsquoune doctrine maison raquo in Steacutephanie HENNETTE-VAUCHEZ and Jean-

Marc SOREL Les droits de lrsquohomme ont-ils constitutionnaliseacute le monde Bruxelles

Bruylant 2011 p1-10

- Nathalie JACQUINOTAlexandre MANGIAVILLANO laquo Droit constitutionnel raquo D 2013

pp 1584-1593

- Hans D JARASS EU-Grundrechte Munich Beck 2005

- Carsten HERRESTHAL laquo Grundrechtecharta und Privatrecht raquo Zeitschrift fuumlr

Europaumlisches Privatrecht (ZEuP) 2014 p 241-279

- Emmanuel JEULAND ldquoLe droit au juge naturel et lrsquoorganisation judiciairerdquo Revue

franccedilaise drsquoadministration publique 20081 no 125 p 33-42

- Karel KLIMA laquo The Phenomenon of the European Court of Human Rightsrsquo Influence on

the Constitutional Systems of the Council of Europe Member States raquo Czech Yearbook of

International Law vol V 2014 pp 183-207

- Martin KUIJER ldquoThe accession of the European Union to the ECHR A gift for the

ECHRrsquos 60th anniversary or an unwelcome intruder at the party Amsterdam Law Forum

pp 17-32 available at amsterdamlawforumorgarticledownload240428

- Alfred KOLLER laquo Der Gehoumlrsanspruch im erstinstanzlichen Zivilprozeszlig

verfassungsrechtliche Minimalanforderungen raquo pp 230-242

httpswwwalexandriaunisgchexportDL57392pdf

- Donald KOMMERS The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany

Durham Duke Univ Press 2nd

ed 2001

- Koen LENAERTS Piet VAN NUFFEL and Robert BRAY Constitutional Law of the

European Union 3rd

ed 2011 Sweet amp Maxwell

- Les principes communs drsquoune justice des Eacutetats de lrsquoUnion europeacuteenne Conference of 4-5

December 2000 Cour de cassation Paris Documentation franccedilaise 2001

- Abdelkrim MAAMOURI Droit au procegraves eacutequitable et Due Process of Law Eacute tude

compareacutee Eacute tats-Unis France et Convention europeacuteenne des droits de lrsquohomme Ed

universitaires europeacuteennes 2011


Procedure


- Paul MARTENS laquo Les principes constitutionnels du procegraves dans la jurisprudence reacutecente

des juridictions constitutionnelles europeacuteennes raquo Cahiers du Conseil constitutionnel No 14

May 2003

- Franccedilois-Xavier MILLET laquo The French Constitutional Council and the CJEU Between

splendid isolation communication and forced dialogue raquo in Monica CLAES Maartje DE



- Nicolas MOUSSIS ldquoLe Traiteacute de Lisbonne une Constitution sans en avoir le titrerdquo Revue

du Marcheacute Commun et de lrsquoUnion europeacuteenne (RMC) 2008 p 161

- Peter L MURRAYRolf STUuml RNER German Civil Justice Carolina Academic Press

Durham 2004

- Jean-Claude PIRIS The Constitution for Europe ndash A Legal Analysis 2006 Cambridge Univ

Press

- Thierry RENOUX Le droit au recours juridictionnel JCP 1993 I 3675

- Thierry RENOUX laquo La constitutionnalisation du droit au juge en France raquo in Joeumll

RIDEAU (dir) Le droit au juge dans lrsquoUnion europeacuteenne Paris LGDJ 1998 p 109 et seq

- Hartmut RENSEN ldquoDie Gehoumlrsruumlge nach In-Kraft-Treten des Anhoumlrungsruumlgengesetzesrdquo

MDR 2005 p 181 et seq

- Laurent SCHEECK bdquoLe dialogue des droits fondamentaux en Europe feacutedeacuterateur de

loyauteacutes dissolvant de reacutesistancesldquo in Emmanuelle BRIBOSIALaurent

SCHEECKAmaya UBEDA DE TORRES (eds) LrsquoEurope des cours loyauteacutes et

reacutesistances Brussels Bruylant ed 2010 pp 19-63

- Egon SCHNEIDER laquo Gehoumlrsruumlge des sect 321a ZPO ndash Anhoumlrungsruumlge Ausnahmeberufung

Ausnahmebeschwerde Willkuumlrverbot raquo MDR 2006 p 969 et seq

- Egon SCHNEIDER laquo Verletzung der Vorlagepflicht raquo MDR 2000 p 10 et seq

- Herman SCHWARTZ The Struggle for Constitutional Justice in Post-Communist Europe

Chicago Univ of Chicago Press 2000

- Vassilios SKOURIS ldquoFirst thoughts on the forthcoming accession of the European union to

the European Convention on human rightsrdquo in La Convention europeacuteenne des droits de

lrsquohomme un instrument vivant Essays in Honour of Christos L Rozakis Brussels Bruylant

ed 2011 pp 555-569

- Anne-Marie SLAUGHTERWalter MATTLI laquo Revisiting the European Court of Justice raquo

International Organization vol 52 No 1 Winter 1998 p 177-209

- Jean-Marc SOREL laquo Le paradigme de la constitutionnalisatin vu du droit international (2)

le cocircteacute obscur de la force raquo in Steacutephanie HENNETTE-VAUCHEZJean-Marc SOREL Les


238

- Patrick SPINOSI laquo Quel regard sur la jurisprudence du Conseil constitutionnel sur le

procegraves eacutequitable raquo Les Nouveaux Cahiers du Conseil constitutionnel no 44 June 2014 pp

23-34

- Roberta TISCINI Il ricorso straordinario in cassazione Turin Giappichelli 2005

- Georg VANBERG The Politics of Constitutional Review in Germany New York

Cambridge Univ Press 2005

- Antoine VAUCHEZ laquo LrsquoEurope et son nom de code ndash Paradigme constitutionnel et

formation drsquoun nouveau centre politique raquo in Steacutephanie HENNETTE-VAUCHEZJean-


Bruylant 2011 p 239-256

- Eric STEIN laquo Lawyers Judges and the Making of a Transnational Constitution raquo

American Journal of International Law vol 75 No 1 p 1981

- Alec STONE The Judicial Construction of Europe Oxford Oxford Univ Press 2004



- Daniel THYM laquo Attack or retreat Evolving thegravemes and strateacutegies of the judicial dialogue

between the German Constitutional court and the European Court of Justice raquo in Monica



2012 p 235-249

- Antonio TIZZANO laquo La protection des droits fondamentaux en Europe la Cour de Justice

et les juridictions constitutionnelles nationales raquo Revue du droit de lrsquoUnion europeacuteenne No

1 2006 pp 14 et seq

- Juumlrgen TREBER ldquoNeuerungen durch das Anhoumlrungsruumlgengesetzrdquo NJW 2005 p 97 et seq

- Catherine VAN DE HEYNING bdquoThe European perspective from lingua franca to a

common languageldquo in Monica CLAES Maartje DE VISSER Patricia POPELIER and

Catherine VAN DE HEYNING (eds) Constitutional Conversations in Europe

CambridgeAntwerpPortlandj Intersentia 2012 p 181-204

- Andreas VOszligKUHLE laquo Bruch mit einem Dogma Die Verfassung garantiert Rechtsschutz

gegen den Richter raquo NJW 2003 p 2193 et seq

- Andreas VOszligKUHLE bdquoDer europaumlische Verfassungsgerichtsverbundldquo Neue Zeitschrift fuumlr

Verwaltungsrecht 29 (2010) p 1-8

- Wolfram WALDNER Aktuelle Problme des rechtlichen Gehoumlrs im Zivilprozeβ Erlangen

1983

- Wolfram WALDNER Der Anspruch auf rechtliches Gehoumlr Koumlln O Schmidt ed 2000

- Rudolf WASSERMANN laquo Zur Bedeutung zum Inhalt und zum Umfang des Rechts auf

Gehoumlr raquo DRiZ 1984 pp 425 et seq

- Luzius WILDHABER ldquorsquoConstitutionnalisationrsquo et lsquojuridiction constitutionnellersquo ndash Le point

de vue de Strasbourgrdquo in Steacutephanie HENNETTE-VAUCHEZ and Jean-Marc SOREL Les


103

- Luzius WILDHABER ldquoUn avenir constitutionnel pour la Cour EDH raquo RUDH 14 (2002)

p 1-6

- Luzius WILDHABER ldquoEin Uumlberdenken des Zustands und der Zukunft des EGMRldquo

EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553

- Elisabeth ZOLLER bdquoProcegraves aquitable et due process of lawldquo D 2007 pp 517-523

- Elisabeth ZOLLER bdquoProcegraves eacutequitable et Due Processldquo D 2007 p 517-523

- T ZOROSKA-KAMILOVSKA ldquoReforms of civil enforcement systems in the countries of

Southeastern Europe From common traditions to different conceptsrdquo Zeitschrift fuumlr

Zivilprozess International (ZZPInt) 17 (2012) p 315 et seq


Procedure


Freacutedeacuterique Ferrand

Keynote Speech

Constitution and Civil Proceedings

Summary

I Introduction



B Is There a Constitutional Right to a Mean of Recourse

III Constitution and Course of Civil Proceedings



IV Constitution and Transnational Dialogue or Conversation Between Courts

V Conclusion

I Introduction

laquo Une bonne Constitution ne peut suffire agrave faire le bonheur drsquoune nation Une mauvaise

peut suffire agrave faire son malheur raquo1 A good constitution is not enough to make the

happiness of a nation A bad one can be enough to make its misfortune This sensible

statement made by a famous French professor of constitutional law (Guy Carcassonne)

shows what important role the basic fundamental law of a country often plays

Concept of Constitution - What is a constitution What are its form aims and contents

The concept of a constitution goes back to ancient Greece Aristotle (384-322 BC) in

his work of political philosophy Politics2 defines the constitution in the following way

ldquolaquo one citizen differs from another but the salvation of the community is the common

buiness of them all This community is the constitution3 the virtue of the citizen must

therefore be relative to the constitution of which he is a member raquo A constitution can be

described as the supreme law of the land It is mostly located at the top of the legal

system and all laws decrees and orders must be consistent with its principles However

this highest ranking may be challenged with regard to international treaties4 especially

1 Guy CARCASSONNE La Constitution Paris Seuil coll Points 1996 p 33

2 ARITOTLE Politics transl by Benjamin JOWETT Univ of Adelaide webedition published by

eBooksAdelaide 3 The first sentence of Aritotlersquos book Politics contains the following statement laquo Each state is a

community of some kind raquo (book 1 first sentence p 1) 4 With regard to the ranking of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in Italy and Spain

see Charlotte GIRARD laquo Ce qursquoappliquer la Convention en droit interne veut dire ndash Le rocircle des doctrines

nationales raquo in Steacutephanie HENNETTE-VAUCHEZJean-Marc SOREL Les droits de lrsquohomme ont-ils

constitutionnaliseacute le monde Bruxelles Bruylant 2011 pp 125 et seq On the ranking of EU law and of

the ECHR in France Germany and Austria see Christophe de ARANJO Justices constitutionnelles et





















































identityrdquo


Procedure























If we





on Human Rights12






2008 p 275 10


































As we will




There could








According













2014 Comm No 190 16














Procedure



status18









(its







Wildhaber21


one






























generis raquo)


















Courtrsquos members






voluntad popular








23



2002 p 5 24















Congreso


es_0pdf


Procedure


























Amendment)31

The 14th



Amendment had







28









guarantees 31

















Unlike many other










confirmed and















33






















Procedure












States38














Mauro Cappelletti40














38





Institute 1981



justice raquo41









Article 6 ECHR




























41


2013 p 1402 42











Procedure


























so that Article

46




1796 47













Justice p 65 50

















More













and to












53






























Procedure

























































decision64















63



68 64





























satisfaction


Procedure















do





369



held






67



















been abolished 71





1937 10 March 1990 2 BvR 94 802 887 997 1094 1158 1247 1274 1439 15138NJW 1991 p 413













However it



and therefore



a duty to provide










































Procedure

































80
























) This phenomenon



on consumer ADR86


















processes87





85




















Procedure









judgment90






A right to appeal




the Karlsruhe






against the judge94







88




































-










that








97




























ER 942 946 at [12] CA 103




Procedure





which enjoys a









appeal106















































right to appeal110






procedure112










courtrdquo





108










ndeg331-2 112












Procedure



















By contrast in







114



















per legge raquo 117

































The


















109 122




















Procedure












the European








ldquovirtuerdquo130













126


11 May 1965 2 BvR 25963 BVerfGE 19 p 43 127



























lawrdquo136





should


ie ldquoto start


















136


















4 141



vol V 2014 p 202 142






Procedure







The






If not it







The




143

















254 267 (1970) 146

























which







Menschenrdquo154






In






































Procedure














on the ground of







opponentrdquo161




156


2011) [2011] 3 WLR 871 sect 61 157


18 sect 14 158


seq 159






291 160


























punishesrdquo163


























163



et autre 165




















March 2004 1 BvR 159103 NJW 2004 p 2079 169





161196 NJW 2002 p 3618 (3624)


Procedure













courts172
















170











































cacophony180









orderrsquordquo 177



























Procedure







A dialogue186






















































rhetoric190


Both have




law192


of Article

6 ECHR194


dynamismrdquo195




inherentrdquo197





ascertained199






on the

190



























5891100 199






Procedure






been enfeebled203












201









358 et seq 202


















119 et seq 205











In 2012207








Will the



because




However it


force212







which proves their

207


















Charter) 212


















Procedure






have





Since





Of














seq 218
























240 221













whereas


The resistances


Ⅴ Conclusion








) which





competition227




222

Ibidem p 45 223





















Procedure








D Recueil Dalloz




EU European Union










Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553


























































identityrdquo


Procedure























If we





on Human Rights12






2008 p 275 10


































As we will




There could








According













2014 Comm No 190 16














Procedure



status18









(its







Wildhaber21


one






























generis raquo)


















Courtrsquos members






voluntad popular








23



2002 p 5 24















Congreso


es_0pdf


Procedure


























Amendment)31

The 14th



Amendment had







28









guarantees 31

















Unlike many other










confirmed and















33






















Procedure












States38














Mauro Cappelletti40














38





Institute 1981



justice raquo41









Article 6 ECHR




























41


2013 p 1402 42











Procedure


























so that Article

46




1796 47













Justice p 65 50

















More













and to












53






























Procedure

























































decision64















63



68 64





























satisfaction


Procedure















do





369



held






67



















been abolished 71





1937 10 March 1990 2 BvR 94 802 887 997 1094 1158 1247 1274 1439 15138NJW 1991 p 413













However it



and therefore



a duty to provide










































Procedure

































80
























) This phenomenon



on consumer ADR86


















processes87





85




















Procedure









judgment90






A right to appeal




the Karlsruhe






against the judge94







88




































-










that








97




























ER 942 946 at [12] CA 103




Procedure





which enjoys a









appeal106















































right to appeal110






procedure112










courtrdquo





108










ndeg331-2 112












Procedure



















By contrast in







114



















per legge raquo 117

































The


















109 122




















Procedure












the European








ldquovirtuerdquo130













126


11 May 1965 2 BvR 25963 BVerfGE 19 p 43 127



























lawrdquo136





should


ie ldquoto start


















136


















4 141



vol V 2014 p 202 142






Procedure







The






If not it







The




143

















254 267 (1970) 146

























which







Menschenrdquo154






In






































Procedure














on the ground of







opponentrdquo161




156


2011) [2011] 3 WLR 871 sect 61 157


18 sect 14 158


seq 159






291 160


























punishesrdquo163


























163



et autre 165




















March 2004 1 BvR 159103 NJW 2004 p 2079 169





161196 NJW 2002 p 3618 (3624)


Procedure













courts172
















170











































cacophony180









orderrsquordquo 177



























Procedure







A dialogue186






















































rhetoric190


Both have




law192


of Article

6 ECHR194


dynamismrdquo195




inherentrdquo197





ascertained199






on the

190



























5891100 199






Procedure






been enfeebled203












201









358 et seq 202


















119 et seq 205











In 2012207








Will the



because




However it


force212







which proves their

207


















Charter) 212


















Procedure






have





Since





Of














seq 218
























240 221













whereas


The resistances


Ⅴ Conclusion








) which





competition227




222

Ibidem p 45 223





















Procedure








D Recueil Dalloz




EU European Union










Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553







Procedure























If we





on Human Rights12






2008 p 275 10


































As we will




There could








According













2014 Comm No 190 16














Procedure



status18









(its







Wildhaber21


one






























generis raquo)


















Courtrsquos members






voluntad popular








23



2002 p 5 24















Congreso


es_0pdf


Procedure


























Amendment)31

The 14th



Amendment had







28









guarantees 31

















Unlike many other










confirmed and















33






















Procedure












States38














Mauro Cappelletti40














38





Institute 1981



justice raquo41









Article 6 ECHR




























41


2013 p 1402 42











Procedure


























so that Article

46




1796 47













Justice p 65 50

















More













and to












53






























Procedure

























































decision64















63



68 64





























satisfaction


Procedure















do





369



held






67



















been abolished 71





1937 10 March 1990 2 BvR 94 802 887 997 1094 1158 1247 1274 1439 15138NJW 1991 p 413













However it



and therefore



a duty to provide










































Procedure

































80
























) This phenomenon



on consumer ADR86


















processes87





85




















Procedure









judgment90






A right to appeal




the Karlsruhe






against the judge94







88




































-










that








97




























ER 942 946 at [12] CA 103




Procedure





which enjoys a









appeal106















































right to appeal110






procedure112










courtrdquo





108










ndeg331-2 112












Procedure



















By contrast in







114



















per legge raquo 117

































The


















109 122




















Procedure












the European








ldquovirtuerdquo130













126


11 May 1965 2 BvR 25963 BVerfGE 19 p 43 127



























lawrdquo136





should


ie ldquoto start


















136


















4 141



vol V 2014 p 202 142






Procedure







The






If not it







The




143

















254 267 (1970) 146

























which







Menschenrdquo154






In






































Procedure














on the ground of







opponentrdquo161




156


2011) [2011] 3 WLR 871 sect 61 157


18 sect 14 158


seq 159






291 160


























punishesrdquo163


























163



et autre 165




















March 2004 1 BvR 159103 NJW 2004 p 2079 169





161196 NJW 2002 p 3618 (3624)


Procedure













courts172
















170











































cacophony180









orderrsquordquo 177



























Procedure







A dialogue186






















































rhetoric190


Both have




law192


of Article

6 ECHR194


dynamismrdquo195




inherentrdquo197





ascertained199






on the

190



























5891100 199






Procedure






been enfeebled203












201









358 et seq 202


















119 et seq 205











In 2012207








Will the



because




However it


force212







which proves their

207


















Charter) 212


















Procedure






have





Since





Of














seq 218
























240 221













whereas


The resistances


Ⅴ Conclusion








) which





competition227




222

Ibidem p 45 223





















Procedure








D Recueil Dalloz




EU European Union










Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553

























As we will




There could








According













2014 Comm No 190 16














Procedure



status18









(its







Wildhaber21


one






























generis raquo)


















Courtrsquos members






voluntad popular








23



2002 p 5 24















Congreso


es_0pdf


Procedure


























Amendment)31

The 14th



Amendment had







28









guarantees 31

















Unlike many other










confirmed and















33






















Procedure












States38














Mauro Cappelletti40














38





Institute 1981



justice raquo41









Article 6 ECHR




























41


2013 p 1402 42











Procedure


























so that Article

46




1796 47













Justice p 65 50

















More













and to












53






























Procedure

























































decision64















63



68 64





























satisfaction


Procedure















do





369



held






67



















been abolished 71





1937 10 March 1990 2 BvR 94 802 887 997 1094 1158 1247 1274 1439 15138NJW 1991 p 413













However it



and therefore



a duty to provide










































Procedure

































80
























) This phenomenon



on consumer ADR86


















processes87





85




















Procedure









judgment90






A right to appeal




the Karlsruhe






against the judge94







88




































-










that








97




























ER 942 946 at [12] CA 103




Procedure





which enjoys a









appeal106















































right to appeal110






procedure112










courtrdquo





108










ndeg331-2 112












Procedure



















By contrast in







114



















per legge raquo 117

































The


















109 122




















Procedure












the European








ldquovirtuerdquo130













126


11 May 1965 2 BvR 25963 BVerfGE 19 p 43 127



























lawrdquo136





should


ie ldquoto start


















136


















4 141



vol V 2014 p 202 142






Procedure







The






If not it







The




143

















254 267 (1970) 146

























which







Menschenrdquo154






In






































Procedure














on the ground of







opponentrdquo161




156


2011) [2011] 3 WLR 871 sect 61 157


18 sect 14 158


seq 159






291 160


























punishesrdquo163


























163



et autre 165




















March 2004 1 BvR 159103 NJW 2004 p 2079 169





161196 NJW 2002 p 3618 (3624)


Procedure













courts172
















170











































cacophony180









orderrsquordquo 177



























Procedure







A dialogue186






















































rhetoric190


Both have




law192


of Article

6 ECHR194


dynamismrdquo195




inherentrdquo197





ascertained199






on the

190



























5891100 199






Procedure






been enfeebled203












201









358 et seq 202


















119 et seq 205











In 2012207








Will the



because




However it


force212







which proves their

207


















Charter) 212


















Procedure






have





Since





Of














seq 218
























240 221













whereas


The resistances


Ⅴ Conclusion








) which





competition227




222

Ibidem p 45 223





















Procedure








D Recueil Dalloz




EU European Union










Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553







Procedure



status18









(its







Wildhaber21


one






























generis raquo)


















Courtrsquos members






voluntad popular








23



2002 p 5 24















Congreso


es_0pdf


Procedure


























Amendment)31

The 14th



Amendment had







28









guarantees 31

















Unlike many other










confirmed and















33






















Procedure












States38














Mauro Cappelletti40














38





Institute 1981



justice raquo41









Article 6 ECHR




























41


2013 p 1402 42











Procedure


























so that Article

46




1796 47













Justice p 65 50

















More













and to












53






























Procedure

























































decision64















63



68 64





























satisfaction


Procedure















do





369



held






67



















been abolished 71





1937 10 March 1990 2 BvR 94 802 887 997 1094 1158 1247 1274 1439 15138NJW 1991 p 413













However it



and therefore



a duty to provide










































Procedure

































80
























) This phenomenon



on consumer ADR86


















processes87





85




















Procedure









judgment90






A right to appeal




the Karlsruhe






against the judge94







88




































-










that








97




























ER 942 946 at [12] CA 103




Procedure





which enjoys a









appeal106















































right to appeal110






procedure112










courtrdquo





108










ndeg331-2 112












Procedure



















By contrast in







114



















per legge raquo 117

































The


















109 122




















Procedure












the European








ldquovirtuerdquo130













126


11 May 1965 2 BvR 25963 BVerfGE 19 p 43 127



























lawrdquo136





should


ie ldquoto start


















136


















4 141



vol V 2014 p 202 142






Procedure







The






If not it







The




143

















254 267 (1970) 146

























which







Menschenrdquo154






In






































Procedure














on the ground of







opponentrdquo161




156


2011) [2011] 3 WLR 871 sect 61 157


18 sect 14 158


seq 159






291 160


























punishesrdquo163


























163



et autre 165




















March 2004 1 BvR 159103 NJW 2004 p 2079 169





161196 NJW 2002 p 3618 (3624)


Procedure













courts172
















170











































cacophony180









orderrsquordquo 177



























Procedure







A dialogue186






















































rhetoric190


Both have




law192


of Article

6 ECHR194


dynamismrdquo195




inherentrdquo197





ascertained199






on the

190



























5891100 199






Procedure






been enfeebled203












201









358 et seq 202


















119 et seq 205











In 2012207








Will the



because




However it


force212







which proves their

207


















Charter) 212


















Procedure






have





Since





Of














seq 218
























240 221













whereas


The resistances


Ⅴ Conclusion








) which





competition227




222

Ibidem p 45 223





















Procedure








D Recueil Dalloz




EU European Union










Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553























Courtrsquos members






voluntad popular








23



2002 p 5 24















Congreso


es_0pdf


Procedure


























Amendment)31

The 14th



Amendment had







28









guarantees 31

















Unlike many other










confirmed and















33






















Procedure












States38














Mauro Cappelletti40














38





Institute 1981



justice raquo41









Article 6 ECHR




























41


2013 p 1402 42











Procedure


























so that Article

46




1796 47













Justice p 65 50

















More













and to












53






























Procedure

























































decision64















63



68 64





























satisfaction


Procedure















do





369



held






67



















been abolished 71





1937 10 March 1990 2 BvR 94 802 887 997 1094 1158 1247 1274 1439 15138NJW 1991 p 413













However it



and therefore



a duty to provide










































Procedure

































80
























) This phenomenon



on consumer ADR86


















processes87





85




















Procedure









judgment90






A right to appeal




the Karlsruhe






against the judge94







88




































-










that








97




























ER 942 946 at [12] CA 103




Procedure





which enjoys a









appeal106















































right to appeal110






procedure112










courtrdquo





108










ndeg331-2 112












Procedure



















By contrast in







114



















per legge raquo 117

































The


















109 122




















Procedure












the European








ldquovirtuerdquo130













126


11 May 1965 2 BvR 25963 BVerfGE 19 p 43 127



























lawrdquo136





should


ie ldquoto start


















136


















4 141



vol V 2014 p 202 142






Procedure







The






If not it







The




143

















254 267 (1970) 146

























which







Menschenrdquo154






In






































Procedure














on the ground of







opponentrdquo161




156


2011) [2011] 3 WLR 871 sect 61 157


18 sect 14 158


seq 159






291 160


























punishesrdquo163


























163



et autre 165




















March 2004 1 BvR 159103 NJW 2004 p 2079 169





161196 NJW 2002 p 3618 (3624)


Procedure













courts172
















170











































cacophony180









orderrsquordquo 177



























Procedure







A dialogue186






















































rhetoric190


Both have




law192


of Article

6 ECHR194


dynamismrdquo195




inherentrdquo197





ascertained199






on the

190



























5891100 199






Procedure






been enfeebled203












201









358 et seq 202


















119 et seq 205











In 2012207








Will the



because




However it


force212







which proves their

207


















Charter) 212


















Procedure






have





Since





Of














seq 218
























240 221













whereas


The resistances


Ⅴ Conclusion








) which





competition227




222

Ibidem p 45 223





















Procedure








D Recueil Dalloz




EU European Union










Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553







Procedure


























Amendment)31

The 14th



Amendment had







28









guarantees 31

















Unlike many other










confirmed and















33






















Procedure












States38














Mauro Cappelletti40














38





Institute 1981



justice raquo41









Article 6 ECHR




























41


2013 p 1402 42











Procedure


























so that Article

46




1796 47













Justice p 65 50

















More













and to












53






























Procedure

























































decision64















63



68 64





























satisfaction


Procedure















do





369



held






67



















been abolished 71





1937 10 March 1990 2 BvR 94 802 887 997 1094 1158 1247 1274 1439 15138NJW 1991 p 413













However it



and therefore



a duty to provide










































Procedure

































80
























) This phenomenon



on consumer ADR86


















processes87





85




















Procedure









judgment90






A right to appeal




the Karlsruhe






against the judge94







88




































-










that








97




























ER 942 946 at [12] CA 103




Procedure





which enjoys a









appeal106















































right to appeal110






procedure112










courtrdquo





108










ndeg331-2 112












Procedure



















By contrast in







114



















per legge raquo 117

































The


















109 122




















Procedure












the European








ldquovirtuerdquo130













126


11 May 1965 2 BvR 25963 BVerfGE 19 p 43 127



























lawrdquo136





should


ie ldquoto start


















136


















4 141



vol V 2014 p 202 142






Procedure







The






If not it







The




143

















254 267 (1970) 146

























which







Menschenrdquo154






In






































Procedure














on the ground of







opponentrdquo161




156


2011) [2011] 3 WLR 871 sect 61 157


18 sect 14 158


seq 159






291 160


























punishesrdquo163


























163



et autre 165




















March 2004 1 BvR 159103 NJW 2004 p 2079 169





161196 NJW 2002 p 3618 (3624)


Procedure













courts172
















170











































cacophony180









orderrsquordquo 177



























Procedure







A dialogue186






















































rhetoric190


Both have




law192


of Article

6 ECHR194


dynamismrdquo195




inherentrdquo197





ascertained199






on the

190



























5891100 199






Procedure






been enfeebled203












201









358 et seq 202


















119 et seq 205











In 2012207








Will the



because




However it


force212







which proves their

207


















Charter) 212


















Procedure






have





Since





Of














seq 218
























240 221













whereas


The resistances


Ⅴ Conclusion








) which





competition227




222

Ibidem p 45 223





















Procedure








D Recueil Dalloz




EU European Union










Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553















Unlike many other










confirmed and















33






















Procedure












States38














Mauro Cappelletti40














38





Institute 1981



justice raquo41









Article 6 ECHR




























41


2013 p 1402 42











Procedure


























so that Article

46




1796 47













Justice p 65 50

















More













and to












53






























Procedure

























































decision64















63



68 64





























satisfaction


Procedure















do





369



held






67



















been abolished 71





1937 10 March 1990 2 BvR 94 802 887 997 1094 1158 1247 1274 1439 15138NJW 1991 p 413













However it



and therefore



a duty to provide










































Procedure

































80
























) This phenomenon



on consumer ADR86


















processes87





85




















Procedure









judgment90






A right to appeal




the Karlsruhe






against the judge94







88




































-










that








97




























ER 942 946 at [12] CA 103




Procedure





which enjoys a









appeal106















































right to appeal110






procedure112










courtrdquo





108










ndeg331-2 112












Procedure



















By contrast in







114



















per legge raquo 117

































The


















109 122




















Procedure












the European








ldquovirtuerdquo130













126


11 May 1965 2 BvR 25963 BVerfGE 19 p 43 127



























lawrdquo136





should


ie ldquoto start


















136


















4 141



vol V 2014 p 202 142






Procedure







The






If not it







The




143

















254 267 (1970) 146

























which







Menschenrdquo154






In






































Procedure














on the ground of







opponentrdquo161




156


2011) [2011] 3 WLR 871 sect 61 157


18 sect 14 158


seq 159






291 160


























punishesrdquo163


























163



et autre 165




















March 2004 1 BvR 159103 NJW 2004 p 2079 169





161196 NJW 2002 p 3618 (3624)


Procedure













courts172
















170











































cacophony180









orderrsquordquo 177



























Procedure







A dialogue186






















































rhetoric190


Both have




law192


of Article

6 ECHR194


dynamismrdquo195




inherentrdquo197





ascertained199






on the

190



























5891100 199






Procedure






been enfeebled203












201









358 et seq 202


















119 et seq 205











In 2012207








Will the



because




However it


force212







which proves their

207


















Charter) 212


















Procedure






have





Since





Of














seq 218
























240 221













whereas


The resistances


Ⅴ Conclusion








) which





competition227




222

Ibidem p 45 223





















Procedure








D Recueil Dalloz




EU European Union










Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553







Procedure












States38














Mauro Cappelletti40














38





Institute 1981



justice raquo41









Article 6 ECHR




























41


2013 p 1402 42











Procedure


























so that Article

46




1796 47













Justice p 65 50

















More













and to












53






























Procedure

























































decision64















63



68 64





























satisfaction


Procedure















do





369



held






67



















been abolished 71





1937 10 March 1990 2 BvR 94 802 887 997 1094 1158 1247 1274 1439 15138NJW 1991 p 413













However it



and therefore



a duty to provide










































Procedure

































80
























) This phenomenon



on consumer ADR86


















processes87





85




















Procedure









judgment90






A right to appeal




the Karlsruhe






against the judge94







88




































-










that








97




























ER 942 946 at [12] CA 103




Procedure





which enjoys a









appeal106















































right to appeal110






procedure112










courtrdquo





108










ndeg331-2 112












Procedure



















By contrast in







114



















per legge raquo 117

































The


















109 122




















Procedure












the European








ldquovirtuerdquo130













126


11 May 1965 2 BvR 25963 BVerfGE 19 p 43 127



























lawrdquo136





should


ie ldquoto start


















136


















4 141



vol V 2014 p 202 142






Procedure







The






If not it







The




143

















254 267 (1970) 146

























which







Menschenrdquo154






In






































Procedure














on the ground of







opponentrdquo161




156


2011) [2011] 3 WLR 871 sect 61 157


18 sect 14 158


seq 159






291 160


























punishesrdquo163


























163



et autre 165




















March 2004 1 BvR 159103 NJW 2004 p 2079 169





161196 NJW 2002 p 3618 (3624)


Procedure













courts172
















170











































cacophony180









orderrsquordquo 177



























Procedure







A dialogue186






















































rhetoric190


Both have




law192


of Article

6 ECHR194


dynamismrdquo195




inherentrdquo197





ascertained199






on the

190



























5891100 199






Procedure






been enfeebled203












201









358 et seq 202


















119 et seq 205











In 2012207








Will the



because




However it


force212







which proves their

207


















Charter) 212


















Procedure






have





Since





Of














seq 218
























240 221













whereas


The resistances


Ⅴ Conclusion








) which





competition227




222

Ibidem p 45 223





















Procedure








D Recueil Dalloz




EU European Union










Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553








justice raquo41









Article 6 ECHR




























41


2013 p 1402 42











Procedure


























so that Article

46




1796 47













Justice p 65 50

















More













and to












53






























Procedure

























































decision64















63



68 64





























satisfaction


Procedure















do





369



held






67



















been abolished 71





1937 10 March 1990 2 BvR 94 802 887 997 1094 1158 1247 1274 1439 15138NJW 1991 p 413













However it



and therefore



a duty to provide










































Procedure

































80
























) This phenomenon



on consumer ADR86


















processes87





85




















Procedure









judgment90






A right to appeal




the Karlsruhe






against the judge94







88




































-










that








97




























ER 942 946 at [12] CA 103




Procedure





which enjoys a









appeal106















































right to appeal110






procedure112










courtrdquo





108










ndeg331-2 112












Procedure



















By contrast in







114



















per legge raquo 117

































The


















109 122




















Procedure












the European








ldquovirtuerdquo130













126


11 May 1965 2 BvR 25963 BVerfGE 19 p 43 127



























lawrdquo136





should


ie ldquoto start


















136


















4 141



vol V 2014 p 202 142






Procedure







The






If not it







The




143

















254 267 (1970) 146

























which







Menschenrdquo154






In






































Procedure














on the ground of







opponentrdquo161




156


2011) [2011] 3 WLR 871 sect 61 157


18 sect 14 158


seq 159






291 160


























punishesrdquo163


























163



et autre 165




















March 2004 1 BvR 159103 NJW 2004 p 2079 169





161196 NJW 2002 p 3618 (3624)


Procedure













courts172
















170











































cacophony180









orderrsquordquo 177



























Procedure







A dialogue186






















































rhetoric190


Both have




law192


of Article

6 ECHR194


dynamismrdquo195




inherentrdquo197





ascertained199






on the

190



























5891100 199






Procedure






been enfeebled203












201









358 et seq 202


















119 et seq 205











In 2012207








Will the



because




However it


force212







which proves their

207


















Charter) 212


















Procedure






have





Since





Of














seq 218
























240 221













whereas


The resistances


Ⅴ Conclusion








) which





competition227




222

Ibidem p 45 223





















Procedure








D Recueil Dalloz




EU European Union










Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553







Procedure


























so that Article

46




1796 47













Justice p 65 50

















More













and to












53






























Procedure

























































decision64















63



68 64





























satisfaction


Procedure















do





369



held






67



















been abolished 71





1937 10 March 1990 2 BvR 94 802 887 997 1094 1158 1247 1274 1439 15138NJW 1991 p 413













However it



and therefore



a duty to provide










































Procedure

































80
























) This phenomenon



on consumer ADR86


















processes87





85




















Procedure









judgment90






A right to appeal




the Karlsruhe






against the judge94







88




































-










that








97




























ER 942 946 at [12] CA 103




Procedure





which enjoys a









appeal106















































right to appeal110






procedure112










courtrdquo





108










ndeg331-2 112












Procedure



















By contrast in







114



















per legge raquo 117

































The


















109 122




















Procedure












the European








ldquovirtuerdquo130













126


11 May 1965 2 BvR 25963 BVerfGE 19 p 43 127



























lawrdquo136





should


ie ldquoto start


















136


















4 141



vol V 2014 p 202 142






Procedure







The






If not it







The




143

















254 267 (1970) 146

























which







Menschenrdquo154






In






































Procedure














on the ground of







opponentrdquo161




156


2011) [2011] 3 WLR 871 sect 61 157


18 sect 14 158


seq 159






291 160


























punishesrdquo163


























163



et autre 165




















March 2004 1 BvR 159103 NJW 2004 p 2079 169





161196 NJW 2002 p 3618 (3624)


Procedure













courts172
















170











































cacophony180









orderrsquordquo 177



























Procedure







A dialogue186






















































rhetoric190


Both have




law192


of Article

6 ECHR194


dynamismrdquo195




inherentrdquo197





ascertained199






on the

190



























5891100 199






Procedure






been enfeebled203












201









358 et seq 202


















119 et seq 205











In 2012207








Will the



because




However it


force212







which proves their

207


















Charter) 212


















Procedure






have





Since





Of














seq 218
























240 221













whereas


The resistances


Ⅴ Conclusion








) which





competition227




222

Ibidem p 45 223





















Procedure








D Recueil Dalloz




EU European Union










Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553









More













and to












53






























Procedure

























































decision64















63



68 64





























satisfaction


Procedure















do





369



held






67



















been abolished 71





1937 10 March 1990 2 BvR 94 802 887 997 1094 1158 1247 1274 1439 15138NJW 1991 p 413













However it



and therefore



a duty to provide










































Procedure

































80
























) This phenomenon



on consumer ADR86


















processes87





85




















Procedure









judgment90






A right to appeal




the Karlsruhe






against the judge94







88




































-










that








97




























ER 942 946 at [12] CA 103




Procedure





which enjoys a









appeal106















































right to appeal110






procedure112










courtrdquo





108










ndeg331-2 112












Procedure



















By contrast in







114



















per legge raquo 117

































The


















109 122




















Procedure












the European








ldquovirtuerdquo130













126


11 May 1965 2 BvR 25963 BVerfGE 19 p 43 127



























lawrdquo136





should


ie ldquoto start


















136


















4 141



vol V 2014 p 202 142






Procedure







The






If not it







The




143

















254 267 (1970) 146

























which







Menschenrdquo154






In






































Procedure














on the ground of







opponentrdquo161




156


2011) [2011] 3 WLR 871 sect 61 157


18 sect 14 158


seq 159






291 160


























punishesrdquo163


























163



et autre 165




















March 2004 1 BvR 159103 NJW 2004 p 2079 169





161196 NJW 2002 p 3618 (3624)


Procedure













courts172
















170











































cacophony180









orderrsquordquo 177



























Procedure







A dialogue186






















































rhetoric190


Both have




law192


of Article

6 ECHR194


dynamismrdquo195




inherentrdquo197





ascertained199






on the

190



























5891100 199






Procedure






been enfeebled203












201









358 et seq 202


















119 et seq 205











In 2012207








Will the



because




However it


force212







which proves their

207


















Charter) 212


















Procedure






have





Since





Of














seq 218
























240 221













whereas


The resistances


Ⅴ Conclusion








) which





competition227




222

Ibidem p 45 223





















Procedure








D Recueil Dalloz




EU European Union










Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553







Procedure

























































decision64















63



68 64





























satisfaction


Procedure















do





369



held






67



















been abolished 71





1937 10 March 1990 2 BvR 94 802 887 997 1094 1158 1247 1274 1439 15138NJW 1991 p 413













However it



and therefore



a duty to provide










































Procedure

































80
























) This phenomenon



on consumer ADR86


















processes87





85




















Procedure









judgment90






A right to appeal




the Karlsruhe






against the judge94







88




































-










that








97




























ER 942 946 at [12] CA 103




Procedure





which enjoys a









appeal106















































right to appeal110






procedure112










courtrdquo





108










ndeg331-2 112












Procedure



















By contrast in







114



















per legge raquo 117

































The


















109 122




















Procedure












the European








ldquovirtuerdquo130













126


11 May 1965 2 BvR 25963 BVerfGE 19 p 43 127



























lawrdquo136





should


ie ldquoto start


















136


















4 141



vol V 2014 p 202 142






Procedure







The






If not it







The




143

















254 267 (1970) 146

























which







Menschenrdquo154






In






































Procedure














on the ground of







opponentrdquo161




156


2011) [2011] 3 WLR 871 sect 61 157


18 sect 14 158


seq 159






291 160


























punishesrdquo163


























163



et autre 165




















March 2004 1 BvR 159103 NJW 2004 p 2079 169





161196 NJW 2002 p 3618 (3624)


Procedure













courts172
















170











































cacophony180









orderrsquordquo 177



























Procedure







A dialogue186






















































rhetoric190


Both have




law192


of Article

6 ECHR194


dynamismrdquo195




inherentrdquo197





ascertained199






on the

190



























5891100 199






Procedure






been enfeebled203












201









358 et seq 202


















119 et seq 205











In 2012207








Will the



because




However it


force212







which proves their

207


















Charter) 212


















Procedure






have





Since





Of














seq 218
























240 221













whereas


The resistances


Ⅴ Conclusion








) which





competition227




222

Ibidem p 45 223





















Procedure








D Recueil Dalloz




EU European Union










Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553












decision64















63



68 64





























satisfaction


Procedure















do





369



held






67



















been abolished 71





1937 10 March 1990 2 BvR 94 802 887 997 1094 1158 1247 1274 1439 15138NJW 1991 p 413













However it



and therefore



a duty to provide










































Procedure

































80
























) This phenomenon



on consumer ADR86


















processes87





85




















Procedure









judgment90






A right to appeal




the Karlsruhe






against the judge94







88




































-










that








97




























ER 942 946 at [12] CA 103




Procedure





which enjoys a









appeal106















































right to appeal110






procedure112










courtrdquo





108










ndeg331-2 112












Procedure



















By contrast in







114



















per legge raquo 117

































The


















109 122




















Procedure












the European








ldquovirtuerdquo130













126


11 May 1965 2 BvR 25963 BVerfGE 19 p 43 127



























lawrdquo136





should


ie ldquoto start


















136


















4 141



vol V 2014 p 202 142






Procedure







The






If not it







The




143

















254 267 (1970) 146

























which







Menschenrdquo154






In






































Procedure














on the ground of







opponentrdquo161




156


2011) [2011] 3 WLR 871 sect 61 157


18 sect 14 158


seq 159






291 160


























punishesrdquo163


























163



et autre 165




















March 2004 1 BvR 159103 NJW 2004 p 2079 169





161196 NJW 2002 p 3618 (3624)


Procedure













courts172
















170











































cacophony180









orderrsquordquo 177



























Procedure







A dialogue186






















































rhetoric190


Both have




law192


of Article

6 ECHR194


dynamismrdquo195




inherentrdquo197





ascertained199






on the

190



























5891100 199






Procedure






been enfeebled203












201









358 et seq 202


















119 et seq 205











In 2012207








Will the



because




However it


force212







which proves their

207


















Charter) 212


















Procedure






have





Since





Of














seq 218
























240 221













whereas


The resistances


Ⅴ Conclusion








) which





competition227




222

Ibidem p 45 223





















Procedure








D Recueil Dalloz




EU European Union










Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553







Procedure















do





369



held






67



















been abolished 71





1937 10 March 1990 2 BvR 94 802 887 997 1094 1158 1247 1274 1439 15138NJW 1991 p 413













However it



and therefore



a duty to provide










































Procedure

































80
























) This phenomenon



on consumer ADR86


















processes87





85




















Procedure









judgment90






A right to appeal




the Karlsruhe






against the judge94







88




































-










that








97




























ER 942 946 at [12] CA 103




Procedure





which enjoys a









appeal106















































right to appeal110






procedure112










courtrdquo





108










ndeg331-2 112












Procedure



















By contrast in







114



















per legge raquo 117

































The


















109 122




















Procedure












the European








ldquovirtuerdquo130













126


11 May 1965 2 BvR 25963 BVerfGE 19 p 43 127



























lawrdquo136





should


ie ldquoto start


















136


















4 141



vol V 2014 p 202 142






Procedure







The






If not it







The




143

















254 267 (1970) 146

























which







Menschenrdquo154






In






































Procedure














on the ground of







opponentrdquo161




156


2011) [2011] 3 WLR 871 sect 61 157


18 sect 14 158


seq 159






291 160


























punishesrdquo163


























163



et autre 165




















March 2004 1 BvR 159103 NJW 2004 p 2079 169





161196 NJW 2002 p 3618 (3624)


Procedure













courts172
















170











































cacophony180









orderrsquordquo 177



























Procedure







A dialogue186






















































rhetoric190


Both have




law192


of Article

6 ECHR194


dynamismrdquo195




inherentrdquo197





ascertained199






on the

190



























5891100 199






Procedure






been enfeebled203












201









358 et seq 202


















119 et seq 205











In 2012207








Will the



because




However it


force212







which proves their

207


















Charter) 212


















Procedure






have





Since





Of














seq 218
























240 221













whereas


The resistances


Ⅴ Conclusion








) which





competition227




222

Ibidem p 45 223





















Procedure








D Recueil Dalloz




EU European Union










Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553
















However it



and therefore



a duty to provide










































Procedure

































80
























) This phenomenon



on consumer ADR86


















processes87





85




















Procedure









judgment90






A right to appeal




the Karlsruhe






against the judge94







88




































-










that








97




























ER 942 946 at [12] CA 103




Procedure





which enjoys a









appeal106















































right to appeal110






procedure112










courtrdquo





108










ndeg331-2 112












Procedure



















By contrast in







114



















per legge raquo 117

































The


















109 122




















Procedure












the European








ldquovirtuerdquo130













126


11 May 1965 2 BvR 25963 BVerfGE 19 p 43 127



























lawrdquo136





should


ie ldquoto start


















136


















4 141



vol V 2014 p 202 142






Procedure







The






If not it







The




143

















254 267 (1970) 146

























which







Menschenrdquo154






In






































Procedure














on the ground of







opponentrdquo161




156


2011) [2011] 3 WLR 871 sect 61 157


18 sect 14 158


seq 159






291 160


























punishesrdquo163


























163



et autre 165




















March 2004 1 BvR 159103 NJW 2004 p 2079 169





161196 NJW 2002 p 3618 (3624)


Procedure













courts172
















170











































cacophony180









orderrsquordquo 177



























Procedure







A dialogue186






















































rhetoric190


Both have




law192


of Article

6 ECHR194


dynamismrdquo195




inherentrdquo197





ascertained199






on the

190



























5891100 199






Procedure






been enfeebled203












201









358 et seq 202


















119 et seq 205











In 2012207








Will the



because




However it


force212







which proves their

207


















Charter) 212


















Procedure






have





Since





Of














seq 218
























240 221













whereas


The resistances


Ⅴ Conclusion








) which





competition227




222

Ibidem p 45 223





















Procedure








D Recueil Dalloz




EU European Union










Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553







Procedure

































80
























) This phenomenon



on consumer ADR86


















processes87





85




















Procedure









judgment90






A right to appeal




the Karlsruhe






against the judge94







88




































-










that








97




























ER 942 946 at [12] CA 103




Procedure





which enjoys a









appeal106















































right to appeal110






procedure112










courtrdquo





108










ndeg331-2 112












Procedure



















By contrast in







114



















per legge raquo 117

































The


















109 122




















Procedure












the European








ldquovirtuerdquo130













126


11 May 1965 2 BvR 25963 BVerfGE 19 p 43 127



























lawrdquo136





should


ie ldquoto start


















136


















4 141



vol V 2014 p 202 142






Procedure







The






If not it







The




143

















254 267 (1970) 146

























which







Menschenrdquo154






In






































Procedure














on the ground of







opponentrdquo161




156


2011) [2011] 3 WLR 871 sect 61 157


18 sect 14 158


seq 159






291 160


























punishesrdquo163


























163



et autre 165




















March 2004 1 BvR 159103 NJW 2004 p 2079 169





161196 NJW 2002 p 3618 (3624)


Procedure













courts172
















170











































cacophony180









orderrsquordquo 177



























Procedure







A dialogue186






















































rhetoric190


Both have




law192


of Article

6 ECHR194


dynamismrdquo195




inherentrdquo197





ascertained199






on the

190



























5891100 199






Procedure






been enfeebled203












201









358 et seq 202


















119 et seq 205











In 2012207








Will the



because




However it


force212







which proves their

207


















Charter) 212


















Procedure






have





Since





Of














seq 218
























240 221













whereas


The resistances


Ⅴ Conclusion








) which





competition227




222

Ibidem p 45 223





















Procedure








D Recueil Dalloz




EU European Union










Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553









) This phenomenon



on consumer ADR86


















processes87





85




















Procedure









judgment90






A right to appeal




the Karlsruhe






against the judge94







88




































-










that








97




























ER 942 946 at [12] CA 103




Procedure





which enjoys a









appeal106















































right to appeal110






procedure112










courtrdquo





108










ndeg331-2 112












Procedure



















By contrast in







114



















per legge raquo 117

































The


















109 122




















Procedure












the European








ldquovirtuerdquo130













126


11 May 1965 2 BvR 25963 BVerfGE 19 p 43 127



























lawrdquo136





should


ie ldquoto start


















136


















4 141



vol V 2014 p 202 142






Procedure







The






If not it







The




143

















254 267 (1970) 146

























which







Menschenrdquo154






In






































Procedure














on the ground of







opponentrdquo161




156


2011) [2011] 3 WLR 871 sect 61 157


18 sect 14 158


seq 159






291 160


























punishesrdquo163


























163



et autre 165




















March 2004 1 BvR 159103 NJW 2004 p 2079 169





161196 NJW 2002 p 3618 (3624)


Procedure













courts172
















170











































cacophony180









orderrsquordquo 177



























Procedure







A dialogue186






















































rhetoric190


Both have




law192


of Article

6 ECHR194


dynamismrdquo195




inherentrdquo197





ascertained199






on the

190



























5891100 199






Procedure






been enfeebled203












201









358 et seq 202


















119 et seq 205











In 2012207








Will the



because




However it


force212







which proves their

207


















Charter) 212


















Procedure






have





Since





Of














seq 218
























240 221













whereas


The resistances


Ⅴ Conclusion








) which





competition227




222

Ibidem p 45 223





















Procedure








D Recueil Dalloz




EU European Union










Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553







Procedure









judgment90






A right to appeal




the Karlsruhe






against the judge94







88




































-










that








97




























ER 942 946 at [12] CA 103




Procedure





which enjoys a









appeal106















































right to appeal110






procedure112










courtrdquo





108










ndeg331-2 112












Procedure



















By contrast in







114



















per legge raquo 117

































The


















109 122




















Procedure












the European








ldquovirtuerdquo130













126


11 May 1965 2 BvR 25963 BVerfGE 19 p 43 127



























lawrdquo136





should


ie ldquoto start


















136


















4 141



vol V 2014 p 202 142






Procedure







The






If not it







The




143

















254 267 (1970) 146

























which







Menschenrdquo154






In






































Procedure














on the ground of







opponentrdquo161




156


2011) [2011] 3 WLR 871 sect 61 157


18 sect 14 158


seq 159






291 160


























punishesrdquo163


























163



et autre 165




















March 2004 1 BvR 159103 NJW 2004 p 2079 169





161196 NJW 2002 p 3618 (3624)


Procedure













courts172
















170











































cacophony180









orderrsquordquo 177



























Procedure







A dialogue186






















































rhetoric190


Both have




law192


of Article

6 ECHR194


dynamismrdquo195




inherentrdquo197





ascertained199






on the

190



























5891100 199






Procedure






been enfeebled203












201









358 et seq 202


















119 et seq 205











In 2012207








Will the



because




However it


force212







which proves their

207


















Charter) 212


















Procedure






have





Since





Of














seq 218
























240 221













whereas


The resistances


Ⅴ Conclusion








) which





competition227




222

Ibidem p 45 223





















Procedure








D Recueil Dalloz




EU European Union










Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553













-










that








97




























ER 942 946 at [12] CA 103




Procedure





which enjoys a









appeal106















































right to appeal110






procedure112










courtrdquo





108










ndeg331-2 112












Procedure



















By contrast in







114



















per legge raquo 117

































The


















109 122




















Procedure












the European








ldquovirtuerdquo130













126


11 May 1965 2 BvR 25963 BVerfGE 19 p 43 127



























lawrdquo136





should


ie ldquoto start


















136


















4 141



vol V 2014 p 202 142






Procedure







The






If not it







The




143

















254 267 (1970) 146

























which







Menschenrdquo154






In






































Procedure














on the ground of







opponentrdquo161




156


2011) [2011] 3 WLR 871 sect 61 157


18 sect 14 158


seq 159






291 160


























punishesrdquo163


























163



et autre 165




















March 2004 1 BvR 159103 NJW 2004 p 2079 169





161196 NJW 2002 p 3618 (3624)


Procedure













courts172
















170











































cacophony180









orderrsquordquo 177



























Procedure







A dialogue186






















































rhetoric190


Both have




law192


of Article

6 ECHR194


dynamismrdquo195




inherentrdquo197





ascertained199






on the

190



























5891100 199






Procedure






been enfeebled203












201









358 et seq 202


















119 et seq 205











In 2012207








Will the



because




However it


force212







which proves their

207


















Charter) 212


















Procedure






have





Since





Of














seq 218
























240 221













whereas


The resistances


Ⅴ Conclusion








) which





competition227




222

Ibidem p 45 223





















Procedure








D Recueil Dalloz




EU European Union










Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553







Procedure





which enjoys a









appeal106















































right to appeal110






procedure112










courtrdquo





108










ndeg331-2 112












Procedure



















By contrast in







114



















per legge raquo 117

































The


















109 122




















Procedure












the European








ldquovirtuerdquo130













126


11 May 1965 2 BvR 25963 BVerfGE 19 p 43 127



























lawrdquo136





should


ie ldquoto start


















136


















4 141



vol V 2014 p 202 142






Procedure







The






If not it







The




143

















254 267 (1970) 146

























which







Menschenrdquo154






In






































Procedure














on the ground of







opponentrdquo161




156


2011) [2011] 3 WLR 871 sect 61 157


18 sect 14 158


seq 159






291 160


























punishesrdquo163


























163



et autre 165




















March 2004 1 BvR 159103 NJW 2004 p 2079 169





161196 NJW 2002 p 3618 (3624)


Procedure













courts172
















170











































cacophony180









orderrsquordquo 177



























Procedure







A dialogue186






















































rhetoric190


Both have




law192


of Article

6 ECHR194


dynamismrdquo195




inherentrdquo197





ascertained199






on the

190



























5891100 199






Procedure






been enfeebled203












201









358 et seq 202


















119 et seq 205











In 2012207








Will the



because




However it


force212







which proves their

207


















Charter) 212


















Procedure






have





Since





Of














seq 218
























240 221













whereas


The resistances


Ⅴ Conclusion








) which





competition227




222

Ibidem p 45 223





















Procedure








D Recueil Dalloz




EU European Union










Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553













right to appeal110






procedure112










courtrdquo





108










ndeg331-2 112












Procedure



















By contrast in







114



















per legge raquo 117

































The


















109 122




















Procedure












the European








ldquovirtuerdquo130













126


11 May 1965 2 BvR 25963 BVerfGE 19 p 43 127



























lawrdquo136





should


ie ldquoto start


















136


















4 141



vol V 2014 p 202 142






Procedure







The






If not it







The




143

















254 267 (1970) 146

























which







Menschenrdquo154






In






































Procedure














on the ground of







opponentrdquo161




156


2011) [2011] 3 WLR 871 sect 61 157


18 sect 14 158


seq 159






291 160


























punishesrdquo163


























163



et autre 165




















March 2004 1 BvR 159103 NJW 2004 p 2079 169





161196 NJW 2002 p 3618 (3624)


Procedure













courts172
















170











































cacophony180









orderrsquordquo 177



























Procedure







A dialogue186






















































rhetoric190


Both have




law192


of Article

6 ECHR194


dynamismrdquo195




inherentrdquo197





ascertained199






on the

190



























5891100 199






Procedure






been enfeebled203












201









358 et seq 202


















119 et seq 205











In 2012207








Will the



because




However it


force212







which proves their

207


















Charter) 212


















Procedure






have





Since





Of














seq 218
























240 221













whereas


The resistances


Ⅴ Conclusion








) which





competition227




222

Ibidem p 45 223





















Procedure








D Recueil Dalloz




EU European Union










Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553







Procedure



















By contrast in







114



















per legge raquo 117

































The


















109 122




















Procedure












the European








ldquovirtuerdquo130













126


11 May 1965 2 BvR 25963 BVerfGE 19 p 43 127



























lawrdquo136





should


ie ldquoto start


















136


















4 141



vol V 2014 p 202 142






Procedure







The






If not it







The




143

















254 267 (1970) 146

























which







Menschenrdquo154






In






































Procedure














on the ground of







opponentrdquo161




156


2011) [2011] 3 WLR 871 sect 61 157


18 sect 14 158


seq 159






291 160


























punishesrdquo163


























163



et autre 165




















March 2004 1 BvR 159103 NJW 2004 p 2079 169





161196 NJW 2002 p 3618 (3624)


Procedure













courts172
















170











































cacophony180









orderrsquordquo 177



























Procedure







A dialogue186






















































rhetoric190


Both have




law192


of Article

6 ECHR194


dynamismrdquo195




inherentrdquo197





ascertained199






on the

190



























5891100 199






Procedure






been enfeebled203












201









358 et seq 202


















119 et seq 205











In 2012207








Will the



because




However it


force212







which proves their

207


















Charter) 212


















Procedure






have





Since





Of














seq 218
























240 221













whereas


The resistances


Ⅴ Conclusion








) which





competition227




222

Ibidem p 45 223





















Procedure








D Recueil Dalloz




EU European Union










Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553



























The


















109 122




















Procedure












the European








ldquovirtuerdquo130













126


11 May 1965 2 BvR 25963 BVerfGE 19 p 43 127



























lawrdquo136





should


ie ldquoto start


















136


















4 141



vol V 2014 p 202 142






Procedure







The






If not it







The




143

















254 267 (1970) 146

























which







Menschenrdquo154






In






































Procedure














on the ground of







opponentrdquo161




156


2011) [2011] 3 WLR 871 sect 61 157


18 sect 14 158


seq 159






291 160


























punishesrdquo163


























163



et autre 165




















March 2004 1 BvR 159103 NJW 2004 p 2079 169





161196 NJW 2002 p 3618 (3624)


Procedure













courts172
















170











































cacophony180









orderrsquordquo 177



























Procedure







A dialogue186






















































rhetoric190


Both have




law192


of Article

6 ECHR194


dynamismrdquo195




inherentrdquo197





ascertained199






on the

190



























5891100 199






Procedure






been enfeebled203












201









358 et seq 202


















119 et seq 205











In 2012207








Will the



because




However it


force212







which proves their

207


















Charter) 212


















Procedure






have





Since





Of














seq 218
























240 221













whereas


The resistances


Ⅴ Conclusion








) which





competition227




222

Ibidem p 45 223





















Procedure








D Recueil Dalloz




EU European Union










Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553







Procedure












the European








ldquovirtuerdquo130













126


11 May 1965 2 BvR 25963 BVerfGE 19 p 43 127



























lawrdquo136





should


ie ldquoto start


















136


















4 141



vol V 2014 p 202 142






Procedure







The






If not it







The




143

















254 267 (1970) 146

























which







Menschenrdquo154






In






































Procedure














on the ground of







opponentrdquo161




156


2011) [2011] 3 WLR 871 sect 61 157


18 sect 14 158


seq 159






291 160


























punishesrdquo163


























163



et autre 165




















March 2004 1 BvR 159103 NJW 2004 p 2079 169





161196 NJW 2002 p 3618 (3624)


Procedure













courts172
















170











































cacophony180









orderrsquordquo 177



























Procedure







A dialogue186






















































rhetoric190


Both have




law192


of Article

6 ECHR194


dynamismrdquo195




inherentrdquo197





ascertained199






on the

190



























5891100 199






Procedure






been enfeebled203












201









358 et seq 202


















119 et seq 205











In 2012207








Will the



because




However it


force212







which proves their

207


















Charter) 212


















Procedure






have





Since





Of














seq 218
























240 221













whereas


The resistances


Ⅴ Conclusion








) which





competition227




222

Ibidem p 45 223





















Procedure








D Recueil Dalloz




EU European Union










Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553









lawrdquo136





should


ie ldquoto start


















136


















4 141



vol V 2014 p 202 142






Procedure







The






If not it







The




143

















254 267 (1970) 146

























which







Menschenrdquo154






In






































Procedure














on the ground of







opponentrdquo161




156


2011) [2011] 3 WLR 871 sect 61 157


18 sect 14 158


seq 159






291 160


























punishesrdquo163


























163



et autre 165




















March 2004 1 BvR 159103 NJW 2004 p 2079 169





161196 NJW 2002 p 3618 (3624)


Procedure













courts172
















170











































cacophony180









orderrsquordquo 177



























Procedure







A dialogue186






















































rhetoric190


Both have




law192


of Article

6 ECHR194


dynamismrdquo195




inherentrdquo197





ascertained199






on the

190



























5891100 199






Procedure






been enfeebled203












201









358 et seq 202


















119 et seq 205











In 2012207








Will the



because




However it


force212







which proves their

207


















Charter) 212


















Procedure






have





Since





Of














seq 218
























240 221













whereas


The resistances


Ⅴ Conclusion








) which





competition227




222

Ibidem p 45 223





















Procedure








D Recueil Dalloz




EU European Union










Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553







Procedure







The






If not it







The




143

















254 267 (1970) 146

























which







Menschenrdquo154






In






































Procedure














on the ground of







opponentrdquo161




156


2011) [2011] 3 WLR 871 sect 61 157


18 sect 14 158


seq 159






291 160


























punishesrdquo163


























163



et autre 165




















March 2004 1 BvR 159103 NJW 2004 p 2079 169





161196 NJW 2002 p 3618 (3624)


Procedure













courts172
















170











































cacophony180









orderrsquordquo 177



























Procedure







A dialogue186






















































rhetoric190


Both have




law192


of Article

6 ECHR194


dynamismrdquo195




inherentrdquo197





ascertained199






on the

190



























5891100 199






Procedure






been enfeebled203












201









358 et seq 202


















119 et seq 205











In 2012207








Will the



because




However it


force212







which proves their

207


















Charter) 212


















Procedure






have





Since





Of














seq 218
























240 221













whereas


The resistances


Ⅴ Conclusion








) which





competition227




222

Ibidem p 45 223





















Procedure








D Recueil Dalloz




EU European Union










Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553















which







Menschenrdquo154






In






































Procedure














on the ground of







opponentrdquo161




156


2011) [2011] 3 WLR 871 sect 61 157


18 sect 14 158


seq 159






291 160


























punishesrdquo163


























163



et autre 165




















March 2004 1 BvR 159103 NJW 2004 p 2079 169





161196 NJW 2002 p 3618 (3624)


Procedure













courts172
















170











































cacophony180









orderrsquordquo 177



























Procedure







A dialogue186






















































rhetoric190


Both have




law192


of Article

6 ECHR194


dynamismrdquo195




inherentrdquo197





ascertained199






on the

190



























5891100 199






Procedure






been enfeebled203












201









358 et seq 202


















119 et seq 205











In 2012207








Will the



because




However it


force212







which proves their

207


















Charter) 212


















Procedure






have





Since





Of














seq 218
























240 221













whereas


The resistances


Ⅴ Conclusion








) which





competition227




222

Ibidem p 45 223





















Procedure








D Recueil Dalloz




EU European Union










Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553







Procedure














on the ground of







opponentrdquo161




156


2011) [2011] 3 WLR 871 sect 61 157


18 sect 14 158


seq 159






291 160


























punishesrdquo163


























163



et autre 165




















March 2004 1 BvR 159103 NJW 2004 p 2079 169





161196 NJW 2002 p 3618 (3624)


Procedure













courts172
















170











































cacophony180









orderrsquordquo 177



























Procedure







A dialogue186






















































rhetoric190


Both have




law192


of Article

6 ECHR194


dynamismrdquo195




inherentrdquo197





ascertained199






on the

190



























5891100 199






Procedure






been enfeebled203












201









358 et seq 202


















119 et seq 205











In 2012207








Will the



because




However it


force212







which proves their

207


















Charter) 212


















Procedure






have





Since





Of














seq 218
























240 221













whereas


The resistances


Ⅴ Conclusion








) which





competition227




222

Ibidem p 45 223





















Procedure








D Recueil Dalloz




EU European Union










Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553










punishesrdquo163


























163



et autre 165




















March 2004 1 BvR 159103 NJW 2004 p 2079 169





161196 NJW 2002 p 3618 (3624)


Procedure













courts172
















170











































cacophony180









orderrsquordquo 177



























Procedure







A dialogue186






















































rhetoric190


Both have




law192


of Article

6 ECHR194


dynamismrdquo195




inherentrdquo197





ascertained199






on the

190



























5891100 199






Procedure






been enfeebled203












201









358 et seq 202


















119 et seq 205











In 2012207








Will the



because




However it


force212







which proves their

207


















Charter) 212


















Procedure






have





Since





Of














seq 218
























240 221













whereas


The resistances


Ⅴ Conclusion








) which





competition227




222

Ibidem p 45 223





















Procedure








D Recueil Dalloz




EU European Union










Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553







Procedure













courts172
















170











































cacophony180









orderrsquordquo 177



























Procedure







A dialogue186






















































rhetoric190


Both have




law192


of Article

6 ECHR194


dynamismrdquo195




inherentrdquo197





ascertained199






on the

190



























5891100 199






Procedure






been enfeebled203












201









358 et seq 202


















119 et seq 205











In 2012207








Will the



because




However it


force212







which proves their

207


















Charter) 212


















Procedure






have





Since





Of














seq 218
























240 221













whereas


The resistances


Ⅴ Conclusion








) which





competition227




222

Ibidem p 45 223





















Procedure








D Recueil Dalloz




EU European Union










Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553




















cacophony180









orderrsquordquo 177



























Procedure







A dialogue186






















































rhetoric190


Both have




law192


of Article

6 ECHR194


dynamismrdquo195




inherentrdquo197





ascertained199






on the

190



























5891100 199






Procedure






been enfeebled203












201









358 et seq 202


















119 et seq 205











In 2012207








Will the



because




However it


force212







which proves their

207


















Charter) 212


















Procedure






have





Since





Of














seq 218
























240 221













whereas


The resistances


Ⅴ Conclusion








) which





competition227




222

Ibidem p 45 223





















Procedure








D Recueil Dalloz




EU European Union










Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553







Procedure







A dialogue186






















































rhetoric190


Both have




law192


of Article

6 ECHR194


dynamismrdquo195




inherentrdquo197





ascertained199






on the

190



























5891100 199






Procedure






been enfeebled203












201









358 et seq 202


















119 et seq 205











In 2012207








Will the



because




However it


force212







which proves their

207


















Charter) 212


















Procedure






have





Since





Of














seq 218
























240 221













whereas


The resistances


Ⅴ Conclusion








) which





competition227




222

Ibidem p 45 223





















Procedure








D Recueil Dalloz




EU European Union










Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553









rhetoric190


Both have




law192


of Article

6 ECHR194


dynamismrdquo195




inherentrdquo197





ascertained199






on the

190



























5891100 199






Procedure






been enfeebled203












201









358 et seq 202


















119 et seq 205











In 2012207








Will the



because




However it


force212







which proves their

207


















Charter) 212


















Procedure






have





Since





Of














seq 218
























240 221













whereas


The resistances


Ⅴ Conclusion








) which





competition227




222

Ibidem p 45 223





















Procedure








D Recueil Dalloz




EU European Union










Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553







Procedure






been enfeebled203












201









358 et seq 202


















119 et seq 205











In 2012207








Will the



because




However it


force212







which proves their

207


















Charter) 212


















Procedure






have





Since





Of














seq 218
























240 221













whereas


The resistances


Ⅴ Conclusion








) which





competition227




222

Ibidem p 45 223





















Procedure








D Recueil Dalloz




EU European Union










Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553








In 2012207








Will the



because




However it


force212







which proves their

207


















Charter) 212


















Procedure






have





Since





Of














seq 218
























240 221













whereas


The resistances


Ⅴ Conclusion








) which





competition227




222

Ibidem p 45 223





















Procedure








D Recueil Dalloz




EU European Union










Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553







Procedure






have





Since





Of














seq 218
























240 221













whereas


The resistances


Ⅴ Conclusion








) which





competition227




222

Ibidem p 45 223





















Procedure








D Recueil Dalloz




EU European Union










Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553














whereas


The resistances


Ⅴ Conclusion








) which





competition227




222

Ibidem p 45 223





















Procedure








D Recueil Dalloz




EU European Union










Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553







Procedure








D Recueil Dalloz




EU European Union










Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553








Bibliography


















2010



seq


Law 2nd



2014 No 19 pp 723-733



2009










Claredon Press 1989



Institute 1981







Intersentia 2012


Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553







Procedure










Paris Seuil ed 2006



















54



















158







2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553









2012 p 161-178



15 (2009) 462-481




277-287

















Bruylant 2011 p1-10


pp 1584-1593

















ed 2001


European Union 3rd








Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553







Procedure




May 2003








Durham 2004


Press


















ed 2011 pp 555-569






238



23-34







Bruylant 2011 p 239-256










2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553












2012 p 235-249



1 2006 pp 14 et seq











1983







103


p 1-6


EuGRZ 36 (2009) p 541-553




