•
Colozza v Italy (1985) – Held that when a person is
tried in absentia without being aware of the proceedings, the defendant is entitled to a fresh trial when they are made aware. •
Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland (2000) – Case involving two Irish citizens imprisoned for choosing to remain silent and to use their rights not to incriminate themselves when suspected of an IRA-related terrorist act. "The Court ... finds that the security and public order concerns relied on by the Government cannot justify a provision which extinguishes the very essence of the applicants' rights to silence and against self-incrimination guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention." •
García Ruiz v Spain (1999) – The Court applied the fourth-instance doctrine, stating that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the convention. •
Van Kück v Germany (2003) – the court took the approach of considering the merits of the case and in finding a breach based on the fact that the German courts had failed to follow the Strasbourg court's approach to medical necessity on
hormone replacement therapy and
gender reassignment surgery. This was in line with and an expansion of the earlier ruling in
Camilleri v Malta (2000) in which the courts were more willing to consider the merits of the court's decision which compromised fairness, stating that the decision had been "arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable". •
Perez v France (2004) – "the right to a fair trial holds so prominent a place in a democratic society that there can be no justification for interpreting Article 6 § 1 of the Convention restrictively". •
Khamidov v Russia (2007) – the court considered "abundant evidence" contradicting the finding of the national court, with the result that "the unreasonableness of this conclusion is so striking and palpable on the face of it" that the decision was "grossly arbitrary". This once again showed the court's changing stance in considering the actual merits of a case. This therefore illustrates the court is developing an appellate function as opposed to a review function. •
Khlyustov v. Russia (2013) – A person may not claim a violation of the right to a fair trial when he has been acquitted or when proceedings have been discontinued. •
Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland (2020) – irregular appointment of judges breached the right to tribunal established by law. •
Xero Flor v. Poland (2021) – irregular appointment of judges breached the right to tribunal established by law. The Convention applies to contracting parties only; however, in cases where a contracting party court has to confirm the ruling of a non-contracting state, they retain a duty to act within the confines of article 6. Such was the case in
Pellegrini v Italy (2001), a case concerning the application of a Vatican ecclesiastical court ruling on a divorce case. In the determination of criminal charges,
Engel v Netherlands set out three criteria to determine meaning of "criminal": a) the classification of the offence in the law of the respondent state, b) the nature of the offence, c) the possible punishment.
Funke v France states that if the contracting state classifies the act as criminal, then it is automatically so for the purposes of article 6. •
John Murray v United Kingdom (1996) 22 EHRR 29 •
Benthem v Netherlands (
ECtHR 23 October 1985) •
Assanidze v. Georgia, App. No. 71503/01 (ECtHR 8 April 2004) ==See also==