Ensuring the Right of Access to Court during the Consideration of the Case by International Commercial Arbitration
Apparently, one of the arguments against the application of the ECHR to arbitration is that neither the preparatory materials of the Convention nor the text of the ECHR itself contain a direct reference to arbitration. At the same time, according to one of the principles of interpretation of the Convention, which is stated by the ECtHR in the judgment in Tyrer v. United Kingdom: «The Convention is a living instrument that must be interpreted in the light of modern conditions». Various arbitration-related decisions of the Convention’s review bodies indicate that, as regards the application of the Convention to arbitration, it has also been interpreted as having direct relevance to it. The ECtHR takes into account the changing rules of national and international law and generally provides a broad and autonomous interpretation of the ECHR. This also applies to the Court’s interpretation of the most obvious provision of the ECHR that may be relevant to arbitration, namely Article 6 (1) of the ECHR. This article examines the issue of theoretical and practical interaction between the right of access to court and international commercial arbitration. Examples of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights on the possibility of exercising the right of access to court during the consideration of foreign economic disputes by arbitrators are given. It is argued that national arbitration laws more or less invariably establish procedural rights similar to those provided for in Article 6 (1) of the ECHR. However, it cannot be ruled out that national arbitration laws violate the Convention in some cases. Even assuming that the laws of arbitration in all countries comply with Article 6 (1) of the ECHR, the fact that this provision imposes certain obligations on states in relation to arbitration by virtue of the fact that the Convention can be considered a quasi-constitutional norm.
Prytyka, Yu. D. (2005) Mizhnarodnyi komertsiinyi arbitrazh: Pytannia teorii ta praktyky. Kyiv : In Yure.
Komarov, V. V.; Pogoreckij, V. N. (2009) Mezhdunarodnyj kommercheskij arbitrazh. Harkov : Pravo.
Pobirchenko, I. H. (ed.) (2007) Mizhnarodnyi komertsiinyi arbitrazh v Ukraini. Kyiv : InIure.
Tsirat, H. A. (2002) Mizhnarodnyi komertsiinyi arbitrazh. Kyiv : Istyna.
Born, G. (2009) International Commercial Arbitration. Vol. I. Austin : Wolters Kluwer. ISBN 9789-0411-2759-4.
Decision of the European Commission of Human Rights (Plenary) of 12 December 1983, Bramelid and Malmström v. Sweden, Application No. 8588/79; 8589/79. (N.d.) Retrieved from European Court of Human Rights: https://bit.ly/3slBZHI.
Besson, S. (2006) Arbitration and Human Rights. ASA Bulletin, 24 (3), 395–416. Retrieved from Kluwer Law Online: https://bit.ly/3wd1NqL.
Cour européenne des Droits de lHomme (1197/61) — Décision — X. contre la Republique Federale Dallemagne. (N.d.) Retrieved from European Court of Human Rights: https://bit.ly/3LZ7QWp.
Decision of the European Commission of Human Rights of 13 July 1990, Axelsson and Others v. Sweden, Application No. 11960/86. (N.d.) Retrieved from European Court of Human Rights: https://bit.ly/3kSG2Hq.
Petrochilos, G. (2004) Procedural law in international arbitration. 1st pub. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
Decision of the European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) of 17 May 1995, Lundgren v. Sweden, Application No. 22506/93. (N.d.) Retrieved from European Court of Human Rights: https://bit.ly/3skMNpk.
Samuel, A. (2004) Arbitration, Alternative Dispute Resolution Generally and the European Convention on Human Rights. Journal of International Arbitration, 21 (5), 413–437.
Postanova Kasatsiinoho hospodarskoho sudu u skladi Verkhovnoho Sudu vid 07.10.2020 r. № 911/1803/19. (N.d.) Retrieved from Yedynyi derzhavnyi reiestr sudovykh rishen: https://bit.ly/3LYJM6b.
Bělohlávek, A. J. (2011) Arbitration from Perspective of Right to Legal Protection and Right to Court Proceedings (the Right to Have Ones Case Dealt with by a Court) : Significance of Autonomy and Scope of Right to Fair Trial. Bělohlávek A. J., Rozehnalová N. (eds.). The Relationship between Constitutional Values, Human Rights and Arbitration (pp. 47–70). New York : Juris.
Jaksic, A. (2007) Procedural Guarantees of Human Rights in Arbitration Proceedings — A Still Unsettled Problem? Journal of International Arbitration, 24 (2), 159–171.
Judgement of the European Court of Human Rights (Chamber) of 19 March 1997, Hornsby v. Greece, Application No. 18357/91. (N.d.) Retrieved from European Court of Human Rights: https://bit.ly/3Mc4Eah.
Byelousov, P. I. (24.01.2011) Ukraine: The Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Case «Regent Company v. Ukraine»: Prospects of Further Practice in Cases Related to International Commercial Arbitration. Retrieved from Mondaq: https://bit.ly/3vTYCoP .
Decision of the European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) of 27 November 1996, Nordström-Janzon and Nordström-Lehtinen v. the Netherlands, Application No. 28101/95. (N.d.) Retrieved from European Court of Human Rights: https://bit.ly/3KUfTCD.
Judgement of the European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber) of 23 March 1995, Loizidou v. Turkey (Preliminary Objections), Application No. 15318/89. (N.d.) Retrieved from European Court of Human Rights: https://bit.ly/3FpXPiH.
Evans, M. D. (ed.). (2010) International Law. 3rd ed. Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press.
Decision of the European Commission of Human Rights of 04 March 1987, R. v. Switzerland, Application No. 10881/84. Retrieved from European Court of Human Rights: https://bit.ly/3kPdKxB.
Mustill, M. J.; Boyd, S. C. (1989) The law and practice of commercial arbitration in England (2nd ed.). London; Edinburgh : Butterworth.