VI. JURISPRUDENŢA CURŢII EUROPENE A DREPTURILOR OMULUI 1. Este Procedura un „pat al lui Procust”? Exemple din jurisprudenţa Curţii Europene a Drepturilor Omului
VI. ECHR CASELAW 1. Is this Procedure a “Procrustean bed”? Examples from the case law of the European Court of Human Rights

Summary/Abstract: The procedure is designed to ensure equal opportunities for participants before the court, to discipline the parties and to allow cases to be heard within a reasonable time. Undoubtedly, the professional sees small breaches of procedure on a daily basis which do not necessarily jeopardize the above mentioned goals. However, there are also breaches of procedure which harm the procedural interests of the opposing party or other interests of a general nature and which must be promptly sanctioned by the court by forfeiture. Choosing the just case in which the procedure must be strictly applied and discerning the one in which its application would turn it into a formalistic Procrustean bed that would violate human rights can also be done with the help of benchmarks inspired by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. This article is inspired by the Court's case law on forfeiture from procedural rights, with a detour through the theory of excessive formalism, and only touches on civil law forfeiture by chance. Faced with dozens of normative systems, which had been organized over hundreds of years to serve very diverse societies, the European Court of Human Rights (hereafter the Court) had to carefully draw the boundaries of its jurisdiction when it came to substantive or procedural time limits recognized by national laws. Failure to respect such deadlines has variable consequences in these legal systems and a unified approach by the Court was needed to ensure a similar defense of human rights across Europe.

• Details
• Contents