Safeguarding the Right to an Impartial Tribunal by Means of Challenging the Judge

  • Fokke FernhoutEmail author
  • Erwin Giesen
  • Oscar Vranken
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT, volume 70)


The requirement of an impartial tribunal, as foreseen in Art. 6 ECHR, is the same for each Member State and the absence of a margin of appreciation makes it impossible to deviate from that requirement. However, the way to accomplish this objective is left to the contracting states. This implementation discretion has resulted in different challenge procedures within the EU Member States. It turns out that the differences cover all aspects of these procedures, including the ground on which a challenge may be based, the time limit within which the challenge has to be submitted and the judicial authority that has to decide on it. In this contribution, a method of assessing the predicted (a priori) effectiveness of such challenge procedures will be described. The method is based on a comparative research of characteristics of challenge procedures and a survey among lawyers and law students to establish the relative importance of each of these characteristics. The method is applied to the challenge procedures in the codes of civil procedure of 25 EU Member States.


  1. Aray-Takahashi Y (2001) The margin of appreciation doctrine and the principle of proportionality in the jurisprudence of the ECHR. Intersentia, Oxford, p 34Google Scholar
  2. CCJE et al (2016) Challenges for judicial independence and impartiality in the member states of the Council of Europe (Report prepared jointly by the Bureau of the CCJE and the Bureau of the CCPE). Information Document SG/Inf(2016)3rev 2016, p 18Google Scholar
  3. Council of Europe (2013) Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Strasbourg (report of the Council of Europe). Council of Europe Publishing, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
  4. de Rechtspraak (2016) de Rechtspraak, Jaarverslag 2016 (annual report published by the Dutch Council for the Judiciary). The Hague, pp 48–52Google Scholar
  5. Giesen I, Kristen F, Enneking L (2012) De wrakingsprocedure, Een rechtsvergelijkend onderzoek naar de mogelijkheden tot herziening van de Nederlandse wrakingsprocedure. Sdu Uitgevers, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  6. Greer S (2000) The margin of appreciation: interpretation and discretion under the European Convention on Human Rights. Bristol University Press, Bristol, para. 1.5Google Scholar
  7. Lawless RM, Robbenholt JK, Ulen TS (2010) Empirical methods in law. Aspen Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Schokkenbroek J (1998) The basis, nature and application of the margin of appreciation doctrine in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rts Law J 30(31):32–45Google Scholar
  9. van Rossum W, Tigchelaar J, Ippel P (2012) Wraking bottom-up, Een empirisch onderzoek. Sdu Uitgevers, The Hague, p 54Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations