The Doctrine of Excessive Formalism in the Legal Theory and Practice of the European Court of Human Rights

Authors

  • Oksana Shcherbaniuk Professor of the Vilnius University, Lithuania and Professor of the Department of Procedural Law Yuriy Fedkovych Chernivtsi National University, Ukrain
  • Tetiana Bohdanevych Leading Researcher at the National School of Judges of Ukraine, Ukraine

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.6000/2817-2302.2024.03.03

Keywords:

Excessive formalism, judicial process, principles of law

Abstract

As a means of organising certain existing disputes and resolving conflicts within society, it has made the institution of procedural formalities necessary since the beginning of history. The existence of formalities in a proceeding, whether judicial or extrajudicial, serves to limit certain situations in the course of the process. It is well known that there are several principles that regulate the formalities of procedure, mainly by establishing procedural limits. These reason values are thus aimed at achieving the principles of purpose. The methodological basis of the article is the dialectical method of cognition based on materialistic dialectic with the use of such general scientific methods as analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, abstraction, specification, analogy, hypothesis building method, and the system-structural method. The study has resulted in the identification of cases of excessive formalism by courts when applying the rules of procedural law. The practical significance of the results obtained is to prevent such mistakes by law enforcement authorities in the future. As a result of writing this article, the author has established that the main manifestations of excessive formalism are the creation by the court of procedural obstacles to the implementation of procedural rules by the parties to the case, strict interpretation by national legislation of the procedural rules, and return of an administrative claim on formal grounds. It is proved that excessive formalism in resolving the issue of acceptance of a statement of claim leads to a violation of the right to fair judicial protection.

References

Affaire Airey c. Irlande. Requête no 6289/73 URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-61978

Affaire Guzzardi c. Italie. Requête no 7367/76 URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-62056

Affaire Xavier Lucas c. France. Requête no 15567/20 URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-217615

Alexander, L., & Schauer, F. (2007). Law’s Limited Domain Confronts Morality’s Universal Empire. William and Mary Law Review, 48(5), 1579-1603. Recuperado de http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol48/iss5/4.

CE, Section, 3 juin 2022, n°452798 URL: https://www.conseil-etat.fr/fr/arianeweb/CE/decision/2022-06-03/452798

CEDH, (GC), 25 mars 2014, Vuckovic c/ Serbie, n° 17153/11, § 4 URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-142276

CEDH, (GC), 4 février 2005, Mamatkoulov c/Turquie, n° 46827/99, § 122 URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-68182

CEDH, (GC), 5 avril 2018, Zubac c/ Croatie, n° 40160/12, § 97 URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-182297

CEDH, 15 mars 2022, Communauté Genevoise d’action Syndicale (CGAS) c/ Suisse, n° 21881/20, § 53 URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-216195

CEDH, 21 mars 2000, Dulaurans c/ France, n° 34553/97, § 38 URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-63017

CEDH, 25 août 1987, Englert c/ Allemagne, n° 10282/83, § 31 URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-62038

CEDH, 5 février 2015, Bochan c/ Ukraine, n° 22251/08, § 61 URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-152332

CEDH, 6 décembre 2007, Maumousseau et Washington c/ France, n° 39388/05, § 103 URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-83821

CEDH, Commission (deuxième chambre), 12 octobre 1994, Fouquet c/ France, n° 20398/92, § 37

CEDH, Irrecevabilité, 21 septembre 2010, Association les Témoins de Jéhovah c/ France, n° 8916/05 URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-100804

F. Lazaud, L’exécution par la France des arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme, PUAM, 2006, p. 254.

J-P. Costa, «Le Conseil d’État a presque complètement intégré la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homm », AJDA, 2007, p. 60.

Scalia, A. (1989). The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules. The University of Chicago Law Review, 56(4), 1175-1188. Recuperado de http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclrev/vol56/iss4/1. https://doi.org/10.2307/1599672 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1599672

Schauer, F. (1998). On the Supposed Defeasibility of Legal Rules. Current Legal Problems, 51(1), 223-240. https://doi.org/10.1093/clp/51.1.223 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/clp/51.1.223

Schauer, F. (2004b). The Limited Domain of the Law. Virginia Law Review, 90(7), 1909-1956. https://doi.org/10.2307/1515650 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1515650

Velluzzi, V. (2016). L’abuso del diritto dalla prospettiva della filosofia giuridica. En G. Visintini (ed.), L’abuso del diritto (pp. 163-176). Nápoles: ESI.

Zorzetto, S. (2013). The Language of Legal Rules: Some Notes about Plain-Meaning in Law. L’Ircocervo. Recuperado de http://www.lircocervo.it/index/pdf/2013_1/2013_1_LEGISLAZIONE_2_Zorzetto.pdf.

Downloads

Published

2024-03-20

How to Cite

Shcherbaniuk, O. ., & Bohdanevych, T. . (2024). The Doctrine of Excessive Formalism in the Legal Theory and Practice of the European Court of Human Rights. Frontiers in Law, 3, 15–21. https://doi.org/10.6000/2817-2302.2024.03.03

Issue

Section

Articles