s or her civil rights and obligations brought before a court or tribunal. The Court observes that it would be inconceivable that Article 6 § 1 should describe in detail the procedural guarantees afforded to parties in a pending lawsuit without also protecting the right of access to a court which makes it in fact possible to benefit from such guarantees. The fair, public and expeditious characteristics of judicial proceedings are of no value at all if there are no judicial proceedings (see Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, Series A No. 18, §§ 31 - 39). The Convention is intended to guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective. This is particularly true of the right of access to the courts in view of the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial (see Airey v. Ireland, 9 October 1979, Series A No. 32, § 24). A restrictive interpretation of the right of access to a court guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 would not be consonant with the object and purpose of the provision (see De Cubber v. Belgium, 26 October 1984, Series A No. 86, § 30).
29. The Court further reiterates that the "right to a court" is, however, not absolute. The right by its very nature calls for regulation by the State and may be subject to limitations (see Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, Series A No. 93, § 57). At the same time, these limitations must not restrict or reduce a person's 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 § 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 sought to be achieved (see Levages Prestations Services v. France, 23 October 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V, § 40, and Luordo v. Italy, No. 32190/96, § 85, ECHR 2003-IX).
30. Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court observes that, following the District Court's decision of 13 August 2002, the applicant's civil action by which she sought the invalidation of the contract was transferred to the Commercial Court on the ground that the subject matter of the action was outside the District Court's judicial power. In its turn, the Commercial Court, whose decision was subsequently endorsed by the two higher-instance courts, decided that it also lacked authority to adjudicate the applicant's case and that the District Court should have taken jurisdiction over the matter. As a result the proceedings in the applicant's case were discontinued.
31. The Court reiterates that it is not its task to take the place of the domestic courts. It is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to resolve problems of interpretation of domestic legislation. The role of the Court is limited to verifying whether the effects of such interpretation are compatible with the Convention. This applies in particular to the interpretation by courts of rules of a procedural nature (see Miragall Escolano and Others v. Spain, No. 38366/97, §§ 33 - 39, ECHR 2000-I).
32. The Court accepts that the rules on jurisdictional parameters to judicial powers of various courts within the entire network of the State's judicial system are undoubtedly designed to ensure the proper administration of justice. Those concerned must expect those rules to be applied. However, the rules in question, or the application of them, should not prevent litigants from making use of an available remedy (see, mutatis mutandis, Leoni v. Italy, No. 43269/98, § 23, 26 October 2000).
33. In the present case the Court adheres to the applicant's description of the situation in which she found herself as a result of the domestic courts' interpretation of the jurisdictional parameters to their authority. She was locked in a
> 1 2 3 ... 14 15 16 17
Zaki.ru законы и право
поиск по сайту
каталог документов
добавить сайт Zaki.ru в избранное
Правовые акты международные
Правовые акты Российской Федерации
