| Sara Norström et Adelina Hajdini | |
| Doctorantes à la Södertörn University (Stockholm) | |
| Cet article est une étude sur la manière dont le droit à un procès équitable énoncé à l’article 6 de la CEDH a été confirmé dans les procédures judiciaires suédoises en ce qui concerne les défis posés par la pandémie. Il inclura les ajustements que les tribunaux suédois ont apportés à leur procédure afin de protéger la santé publique. Il traite également de la marge de manœuvre des tribunaux en raison de l’absence de droit contraignant pour les opérations judiciaires pendant cette période. Les ajustements des tribunaux seront analysés sur la base des garanties de sécurité juridique, de transparence, d’égalité de traitement et d’efficacité de l’article 6 CEDH. L’un des résultats des ajustements causés par la pandémie a été une transition plus rapide vers l’ère numérique. La transition des tribunaux suédois vers la sphère numérique était un processus déjà en cours, ce qui a facilité la transition. Néanmoins, il existe un possible conflit d’intérêts entre le respect du droit à un procès équitable et la protection de la santé publique, comme évoqué dans cet article. Une brève introduction sur la façon dont la Suède a abordé la lutte contre la pandémie est incluse. | This article is a study on how the right to a fair trial in Article 6 ECHR was upheld in Swedish court procedures in regards to challenges brought by the pandemic. It will include the adjustments Swedish courts made to their procedure in order to protect public health. It also discusses the courts wide room for manoeuvre due to absence of hard law for court operations during this time. The courts adjustments will be analysed with basis in the legal certainty guarantees transparency, equal treatment and effectiveness in Article 6 ECHR. One of the results from the adjustments caused by the pandemic was a faster transition to the digital era. The Swedish courts transition to the digital sphere was a process already in progress and this resulted in an easier transition. Nonetheless, there is a possible conflict of interest between upholding the right to a fair trial and protecting public health as discussed in this article. A short introduction on how Sweden approached the fight against the pandemic is included. |
| The fight against the spread of Covid-19, which required physical distancing, challenged the functioning of all actors of the society. Among them the courts have been impacted and obliged to make procedural adjustments in order to preserve the right to a fair trial. It consequently challenged a fundamental pillar of democracy and the Rule of law. This paper aims to analyse how the Swedish courts have dealt with the adjustments made during Covid-19. The right to a fair trial is in Sweden laid down in Chapter 2, Section 11, in the Swedish Constitution/Instrument of Government (1974:152) and complies with the right to a fair trial stated in Article 6 European Convention on Human Rights, ECHR. The most central measures to adjust to procedural requirements for complying to the right to a fair trial and its intrinsic principles transparency, equal treatment, presence in the courtroom and effectiveness was to digitise court procedures. | |
| Significant digital advancements in court procedures came already around 2019 when the Swedish legislator made amendments in law to remove hindrances for an effective digitised court procedure. The advanced stage of courts’ digitalisation in Sweden allowed for prompt adjustments in order to protect public health against the spread of Covid-19. Making these adjustments brought the digitised procedure of Swedish courts even further along. The digitised procedure was a prerequisite for upholding the right to a fair trial during this time. It is noteworthy that the motivation for digitising court procedures in Sweden was effectiveness to begin with but switched to protecting public health when the pandemic started. It is interesting to study the possible conflict of interest between protecting public health and protecting the right to a fair trial. | L’avis du Comité scientifique
L’article étudie comment les tribunaux suédois ont utilisé les technologies numériques pour garantir les conditions d’un procès équitable conformément à l’article 6 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme pendant la pandémie de Covid-19. L’analyse se concentre particulièrement sur les conditions de publicité et de célérité du procès ainsi que d’égalité des parties posées par la Convention. Il est montré que la numérisation de la justice avait déjà été largement engagée en Suède avant l’apparition de la pandémie, ce qui a facilité le maintien du bon fonctionnement de la Justice malgré la crise sanitaire. L’article souligne en outre le conflit mis en exergue pendant la pandémie entre l’impératif de préserver la santé publique et celui de garantir les conditions d’un procès équitable. Patricia JONASON, Professeure à la Södertörn University |
| During the Covid-19 pandemic, the courts maintained a wide margin of manoeuvre. This correlates with the Swedish strategy for combating the Covid-19 pandemic which relies principally on soft law in form of recommendations enacted by the Public Health Agency of Sweden (Folkhälsomyndigheten). Although, the Swedish Government still issued some hard law as well, by for example limiting how many people were allowed at one public gathering. However, this did not apply to the Swedish courts because the Swedish legislation, the Public Order Act (1993:1617), does not define a court hearing as a public gathering.
Lire l’intégralité de l’article, au format .pdf
|
|