Increasing Openness of Court Proceedings?*

Maija Dahlberg
{"title":"Increasing Openness of Court Proceedings?*","authors":"Maija Dahlberg","doi":"10.18261/issn.1504-3096-2019-03-04-03","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article concentrates on the openness of court proceedings, in particular on public access to court documents at the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The current presumption by the ECJ is that third-party access to the ECJ’s submissions may undermine the sound administration of justice and the equality of arms principle, whereas in the ECHR system, court documents including parties’ submissions are made public as a rule, both in pending and closed cases. Accordingly, it seems that the two sibling European courts have adopted fully opposing approaches to the third-party right of access to court files. There are serious arguments for the ECJ to change its current approach, as the public’s right of access to court documents increases the justification of court cases: it strengthens the justificatory force of court judgments, and finally the legitimacy and accountability of the court itself, since it reveals more arguments based on which judges deliberate, but which are absent from the final judgment. In addition, there are some practical deficiencies in the ECtHR proceedings relating to third-party access to court documents that make the promise of transparent court hard to fulfil.","PeriodicalId":83332,"journal":{"name":"Tidsskrift for rettsvidenskap","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tidsskrift for rettsvidenskap","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.1504-3096-2019-03-04-03","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article concentrates on the openness of court proceedings, in particular on public access to court documents at the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The current presumption by the ECJ is that third-party access to the ECJ’s submissions may undermine the sound administration of justice and the equality of arms principle, whereas in the ECHR system, court documents including parties’ submissions are made public as a rule, both in pending and closed cases. Accordingly, it seems that the two sibling European courts have adopted fully opposing approaches to the third-party right of access to court files. There are serious arguments for the ECJ to change its current approach, as the public’s right of access to court documents increases the justification of court cases: it strengthens the justificatory force of court judgments, and finally the legitimacy and accountability of the court itself, since it reveals more arguments based on which judges deliberate, but which are absent from the final judgment. In addition, there are some practical deficiencies in the ECtHR proceedings relating to third-party access to court documents that make the promise of transparent court hard to fulfil.
提高法庭程序的公开性?*
本文集中讨论了法院诉讼程序的公开性,特别是欧洲法院(ECJ)和欧洲人权法院(ECtHR)的法庭文件的公开性。欧洲法院目前的推定是,第三方获取欧洲法院的意见书可能会破坏健全的司法和武器平等原则,而在欧洲人权法院系统中,包括各方意见书在内的法庭文件通常会在未决和结案案件中公开。因此,这两个欧洲兄弟法院似乎对第三方查阅法院档案的权利采取了完全相反的做法。欧洲法院有充分的理由改变其目前的做法,因为公众获得法庭文件的权利增加了法庭案件的正当性:它加强了法庭判决的正当性力量,最终加强了法院本身的合法性和问责制,因为它揭示了法官审议的更多论点,但它们不在最终判决中。此外,欧洲人权法院的诉讼程序在第三方获取法庭文件方面存在一些实际缺陷,这使得透明法庭的承诺难以兑现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信