Detailed Abstract

1- Introduction

The right of access to a court is a constituent element of a composite human right, namely the right to access to justice. Without respecting this right, numerous procedural guarantees of the right to access to justice from right to justice to a fair trial and the enforcement of judgments will not be realized. International human rights instruments, both global and regional, have recognized this right. These include the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), and the European Convention on Human Rights (1950). Beyond treaty instruments, this right is also manifested in the jurisprudence of international human rights judicial and quasi-judicial bodies. The European Court of Human Rights is one such body whose jurisprudence regarding the right of access to a court the present article seeks to analyze.

2- Research Gap and Objective

Despite the existing literature on the guarantees of the right to access to justice, including a fair trial and the right of access to a court, there is a lack of systematic research in Persian legal literature concerning the approach of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) regarding the expansion and restriction of the right of access to a court. The primary objective of this study is to identify the criteria applied by the Court to determine the limits of this right, particularly in complex areas such as State immunity, civil servants’ right of access to ordinary courts for employment disputes, the expansion of the requirements of the right of access to a court from criminal to civil matters, the extension of the scope of the right of access to a court to the enforcement stage of judgments, and the limitation of access to a court in cases of non-compliance with procedural requirements. This research seeks to answer the question of in which areas the Court has expanded the right of access to a court, and in which areas it has imposed limitations on it.

3- Methodology

This study adopts a descriptive-analytical method. Its research tool is documentary and library-based research. The materials examined include international human rights instruments and the case-law of a regional judicial body, namely the European Court of Human Rights, concerning the right of access to a court. Accordingly, the study analyzes the content of the existing instruments and judicial decisions after reviewing them and extracts relevant indicators from them. Landmark judgments delivered by the Court, including Golder v. the United Kingdom, Airey v. Ireland, Hornsby v. Greece, Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom, Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland, and Baka v. Hungary, have served as the basis for this analysis.

4- Key Findings

The findings are categorized into two main sections: the expansion of the right and the legitimate restrictions imposed by the Court:

• Expansion of the Right

• Effectiveness and Legal Aid: In the case of Airey v. Ireland, the Court ruled that access to a court must be practical and effective rather than theoretical or illusory, thereby requiring States to provide legal aid in complex civil disputes.

• Enforcement of Judgments: In the case of Hornsby v. Greece, the Court held that the execution of a final judicial decision is an integral part of the ‘trial’ and, consequently, the right of access to a court.

• Extension to Civil Disputes: The Court has extended the safeguards of the right of access to a court traditionally associated with criminal matters, including the provision of legal aid to civil disputes.

• Restrictions on the Right

• Procedural Formalities: The Court permits strict statutory limitation periods and formal procedural rules, provided that they pursue a legitimate aim and do not impair the very essence of the right.

• Immunities: Although sovereign (State) and organizational (international organizations) immunities are recognized in international law and may, in certain cases, bar access to a court, the dismissal of a claim due to immunity is permissible only if alternative remedies/means of redress are available.

• Civil Servants: The Court has established a two-prong test (the Eskelinen test) for excluding civil servants from access to ordinary courts: first, the domestic law must have expressly excluded access to court; and second, the exclusion must be justified on objective grounds in the State’s interest.

5- Contribution to the Field

This study provides a framework for understanding how the European Court of Human Rights operationalizes the abstract provisions of human rights treaties and transforms them into concrete legal standards. It may serve as a comparative reference for legal scholars in applying these international standards to domestic legislative and judicial reforms, as well as to the interpretation of constitutional rights. It can also serve as a basis for potential future developments on this subject at the national level.

6- Implications and Applications

• Policy-making: Legislators should draft procedural laws in a manner that prioritizes substantive justice over excessive formalism.



• Practice: Domestic courts must treat the enforcement of judgments as an integral component of the right of access to a court and the right to a fair trial.



• Legal Advocacy: This study equips defense counsels and litigators with the ability to employ the ECtHR’s proportionality standards to challenge disproportionate procedural barriers.



• International Cooperation: It facilitates a convergent approach to interpreting human rights obligations within procedural laws.

7- Conclusion

The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights demonstrates that the right of access to a court is dynamic and evolutive. In addition to explicitly recognizing the right of access to a court and identifying its specific manifestations, the Court’s case-law has, in certain instances, expanded the concept or scope of this right, while in others, it has prescribed permissible limitations. The Court has successfully prevented States from utilizing formal, jurisdictional, or administrative barriers as absolute shields against accountability. Any limitation imposed must be proportionate to a legitimate aim and must never impair the very essence of the right of access to a court.