УДК 340.13 PDF
DOI 10.37566/2707-6849-2021-1(34)-14
TarasPASHUK,
Senior Lawyer of the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights,
Doctor of Law
CONCEPT OF ABUSE OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS: GENERAL THEORETICAL ANALYSIS (BASED ON THE CASE-LAW OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS)
The author analyses the concept of abuse of procedural rights with reference to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). In their applications to the ECtHR the applicants often claim that the violations the European Convention on Human Rights (the ECHR) were accompanied by various abuses by the domestic authorities. Such abuses may be of procedural nature and those matters are examined by the ECtHR quite often because the Convention is primarily aimed at protecting an individual from State arbitrariness. At the same time, the problem of abuse of procedural rights may arise before the ECtHR, when such acts were committed by an applicant. This aspect of the problem is being examined in the present article.
In this regard the issue of abuse of procedural rights appears in the case-law of the ECtHR in the context of the complaints concerning the alleged violations of rights under the ECHR. This may happen when the State measures to address such a negative phenomenon (for example, penalty for the abuse of procedural right) may at the same time affect the fundamental rights under the Convention. Apart from that, this issue may arise in the context of the application of restrictive measures by the ECtHR itself due to applicants’ abuse of their right of individual petition to the ECtHR. The main features of the abuse of procedural rights arising from the case-law of the ECtHR are the following: (1) using the procedural right contrary to its purpose (in view of multiple purposes of human conduct, this condition implies the need to establish a dominant purpose in the procedural conduct of the person); (2) the presence of damage resulting from such procedural conduct; (3) the exceptional nature of such procedural conduct (implying the necessity to focus on the explicit and obvious facts of procedural abuses). The combination of these features should be used cumulatively in order to determine correctly the limits of applicability of this concept and distinguish it from other related concepts, such as legitimate use of procedural right, refusal to use the procedural right, good-faith mistake in procedural conduct. In addition, the lack of legislative regulation of this institution in the law on criminal procedure of Ukraine calls for the development of judicial practice under Article 185-3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of Ukraine as regards the administrative liability for contempt of court. It is argued that the provisions of Article 185-3 of that Code, if given appropriate judicial interpretation, can cover a wide range of procedural abuses.
Keywords: abuse of procedural right, realisation of subjective right, contempt of court.
References
ECtHR, Navalnyy v. Russia [GC], nos. 29580/12 and 4 others, 15 November 2018. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-187605
ECtHR, Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, nos. 68762/14 and 71200/14, 20 September 2018. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-186126
ECtHR, Kyprianou v. Cyprus [GC], no. 73797/01, ECHR 2005-XIII. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-71671
ECtHR, Gestur Jónsson and Ragnar Halldór Hall v. Iceland [GC], nos. 68273/14 and 68271/14, 22 December 2020. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-207115
Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights, Guide on Article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights Prohibition of abuse of rights, 2020. URL: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_17_ENG.pdf
Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights, Practical Guide on Admissibility Criteria, 2021. URL: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Admissibility_guide_ENG.pdf
ECtHR, Chepelenko and Others v. Ukraine (dec.), nos. 15117/17, 18635/17, 18655/17, 251/18 and 3633/18, 28 January 2020. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-201597
ECtHR, Miroļubovs and Others v. Latvia, no. 798/05, 15 September 2009. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-93983
ECtHR, Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, 28 November 2017. URL: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-178753