Review

The issue of enforcement of the right for fair trial in Ukraine is becoming increasingly urgent, as the current judicial system does not have confidence in society and acts without taking into account the legally established fundamental principles of the judiciary.

The purpose of this article is to analyse the problematic issues of enforcement of the right for fair trial in Ukraine and to suggest possible ways of their solution, taking into account the experience of France.

To resolve the stated goal, the author proposes the following algorithm for observation the question of the right to a fair trial: 1) analysis of certain aspects of the enforcement of the right for fair trial in France; 2) a comparative analysis of the provision of the right for a fair trial in France and Ukraine;

Extrapolation of the experience of France in ensuring the right to a fair trial in the system of judicial proceedings of Ukraine.

It is noted that according to Art. 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well as the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, the right to a fair trial – the establishment of certain qualifications for the organization of a court: its creation by law; independence, impartiality; accessibility; observance of the procedure of consideration of the case; publicity; ensuring of the enforcement of the rights of participants in court proceedings provided by the procedural law; competition; a reasonable period of consideration of the case; execution of the final court decision, etc.

The author concludes that the positive and useful in the legislation of France for the borrowing of Ukrainian legislators is a detailed normative definition of the principles of the activity of judges, the conditions for recognizing their bias, the rules for determining the composition of the court, withdrawal and isolation, such features were based on the analysis of procedural law, the specific cases examined by the European Court of Human Rights. For instance, the author states that in the legislation of Ukraine, it would be advisable to propose as a basis for the removal (recusal) of a judge, any pleading (enemy) relationship between a judge and any party in a case that would provide additional guarantees to ensure impartiality of the trial (on the example of France).

References

1. 1. Code of criminal procedure accessed 06.05.2018 (in English).
2. Case of Kress v. France (Application no. 39594/98): Judgment of the European Court of Human rights 07.07.2001 accessed 06.05.2018 (in English).
3. Case of Foucher v. France (Application no. 23805/94): Judgment of the European Court of Human rights 04.12.1995 accessed 06.05.2018 (in English).
4. Case of Yvon v. France (Application no. 44962/98): Judgment of the European Court of Human rights 24.07.2003 accessed 06.05.2018 (in English).
5. Case of Immeubles Groupe Kosser v. France (Application no. 38748/97): Judgment of the European Court of Human rights 21.03.2002 accessed 06.05.2018 (in English).
6. Case of Frydlender v. France (Application no. 30979/96): Judgment of the European Court of Human rights 27.06.2000 accessed 06.05.2018 (in English).
7. Case of Hentrich v. France (Application no. 13616/88): Judgment of the European Court of Human rights 22.09.2004 accessed 06.05.2018 (in English).
8. Case of Martinie v. France (Application no. 58675/00): Judgment of the European Court of Human rights 12.04.2006 accessed 06.05.2018 (in English).
9. Case of Augusto v. France (Application no. 71665/01): Judgment of the European Court of Human rights 11.04.2007 accessed 06.05.2018 (in English).
10. Case of Mantovanelli v. France (Application no. 21497/93): Judgment of the European Court of Human rights 18.03.1997 accessed 06.05.2018 (in English).
11. Case of De Geouffre de la Pradelle v. France (Application no. 12964/87): Judgment of the European Court of Human rights 16.12.1992 accessed 06.05.2018 (in English).
12. Case of Perez v. France (Application no. 47287/99): Judgment of the European Court of Human rights 12.02.2004 accessed 06.05.2018 (in English).
13. Case of Fretté v. France (Application no. 36515/97): Judgment of the European Court of Human rights 26.05.2002 accessed 06.05.2018 (in English).
14. Case of Levages Prestations Services v. France (Application no. 21920/93): Judgment of the European Court of Human rights 23.10.1996 accessed 06.05.2018 (in English).
15. Case of G.L. and S.L. v. France (Application no. 58811/00): Judgment of the European Court of Human rights 06.03.2003 accessed 06.05.2018 (in English).
16. Case of Procola v. Luxembourg (Application no. 14570/89): Judgment of the European Court of Human rights 28.09.1995 accessed 06.05.2018 (in English).
17. Debard T, Guinchard S, Montagnier G, Varinard A, Institutions juridictionelles (Auflage, DallozSirey, Paris 2009) (in English).
18. Liusher F ta inshi, Konstytutsyonnaia zashchyta prav y svobod lychnosty [Constitutional protection of the rights and freedoms of the individual] (Moskva, Progress: Univers 1993) 288 (in Russian).
19. Mykhailov P, Sud prysiazhnykh vo Frantsyy: stanovlenye, razvytye y transformatsyia [Jury trial in France: formation, development and transformation] (SPb, Yurid. tsentr Press 2004) 428 (in Russian).
20. Morhun S, Zapozychennia frantsuzkoi modeli sudu prysiazhnykh do ukrainskoho zakonodavstva: realii i perspektyvy [Borrowing of the French model of the jury trial in Ukrainian legislation: realities and prospects] (2017) 3 Pidpryiemnytstvo, hospodarstvo i pravo 268–271 (in Ukrainian).
21. Ministerstvo yustytsii Ukrainy, Pravo na spravedlyvyi sud: praktyka Yevropeiskoho sudu z prav liudyny shchodo Ukrainy [The right to a fair trial: the practice of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to Ukraine] data zvernennya 06.05.2018 (in Ukrainian).