en

Law Journal of the National Academy of Internal Affairs

  • Received 18.11.2025,
  • Revised 20.02.2026,
  • Accepted 31.03.2026
  • Published 03.04.2026
Download article Download article
Volume 16, No. 1, 2026
  • human rights; state sovereignty; fair trial guarantees; international law; public law; judicial jurisprudence; legal interpretation
  • https://doi.org/10.63341/naia-chasopis/1.2026.102
  • Pages 102-114

The relevance of the study is rooted in the persistent tension between state sovereignty and the applicability of human rights guarantees under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), particularly concerning Article 6(1) ECHR. The aim of the article was to explore how the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) interprets the application of procedural guarantees in cases involving sovereign state actions. The methodology employed includes a selective analysis of ECtHR case law, focusing on matters involving public and private law and the distinction between acta jure imperii and acta jure gestionis. The article demonstrated that the applicability of Article 6(1) depends significantly on whether the dispute relates to public law matters, such as tax assessments, or private law matters, such as contractual disputes. It was found that the Court generally excludes state actions in sovereign capacities from the scope of Article 6(1), while extending it to cases involving non-sovereign state activities. This distinction underscored the Court’s ongoing balancing act between protecting individual rights and respecting state sovereignty. The article concluded that, despite challenges, the evolving jurisprudence of the ECtHR shows a potential for expanding the scope of human rights guarantees under the Convention. The practical value of this research lies in its contribution to the broader understanding of the ECtHR’s approach, which can guide future case law and academic discussions regarding the limits of state sovereignty and the application of fair trial guarantees

References

  1. Bates, E. (2010). The evolution of the European Convention on Human Rights: From its inception to the creation of a Permanent Court of Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199207992.001.0001.
  2. Bates, E., Dzehtsiarou, K., & Forde, A. (2025). Russia, the Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights: A troubled membership and its legacy. Bristol: Bristol University Press. doi: 10.56687/9781529232820.
  3. Bernhards, R. (1999). Evolutive treaty interpretation, especially of the European Convention on Human Rights. In German Yearbook of International Law (pp. 11-25). Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. doi: 10.3790/978-3-428-50216-5.
  4. Boschiero, N. (2013). Jurisdictional immunities of the state and exequatur of foreign judgments: A private international law evaluation of the recent ICJ judgment in Germany v. Italy. In N. Boschiero (Ed.), International courts and the development of international law: Essays in honour of Tullio Treves (pp. 781-825). The Hague: TMC Asser Press. doi: 10.13130/1971-8543/2641.
  5. Council of Europe. (1956). Preparatory work on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
  6. Council of Europe. (1972). Preparatory work on Articles 53 and 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
  7. Grant, T. (2013). Article 2(1)a&b. In R. O’Keefe & C. Tams (Eds.), The United Nations Convention on jurisdictional immunities of states and their property: A commentary (pp. 40-53). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/law/9780199601837.001.0001.
  8. Grech, P. (2006). Governmental liability, immunity and Article 6 of the ECHR. Id-Dritt, 19, 285-298.
  9. Helfer, L.R. (2008). Redesigning the European Court of Human Rights: Embeddedness as a deep structural principle of the European Human Rights Regime. European Journal of International Law, 19(1), 125-159. doi: 10.1093/ejil/chn004.
  10. Henkin, L. (1995). Human rights and state sovereignty. Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, 25(1), 31-45. doi: 10.70249/9780871694270-014.
  11. Huneeus, A. & Madsen, M.R. (2018). Between universalism and regional law and politics: A comparative history of the American, European, and African human rights systems. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 16(1), 136-160. doi: 10.1093/icon/moy011.
  12. International Law Commission. (1991). Draft articles on jurisdictional immunities of states and their property, with commentaries. Retrieved from https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/4_1_1991.pdf.
  13. Jones, D.L. (2023). Article 6 ECHR and immunities arising in public international law. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 52(2), 463-472. doi: 10.1093/iclq/52.2.463.
  14. Kivisto, H.-M. & Haapala, T. (2023). A missed opportunity of supranationalism? The drafting of European political authority in the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, 1949–51. Parliaments, Estates and Representation, 43(3), 306-321. doi: 10.1080/02606755.2023.2274214.
  15. Kleinlein, T. (2019). The procedural approach of the European Court of Human Rights: Between subsidiarity and dynamic evolution. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 68(1), 91-110. doi: 10.1017/S0020589318000416.
  16. Kloth, M. (2010). Immunities and the right of access to Court under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Leiden: Brill Nijhoff. doi: 10.1163/ej.9789004181847.i-220.
  17. Kurban, D. (2023). Mobilizing supranational courts against authoritarian regimes. In S.A. Boutcher, C.S. Shdaimah & M.W. Yarbrough (Eds.), Research handbook on law, movements, and social change (pp. 197-210). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. doi: 10.4337/9781789907674.00021.
  18. Lawson, R. (2018). Protecting the independence of the judiciary: Possibilities and limits of the European Convention on Human Rights. Revista do Instituto Brasileiro de Direitos Humanos, 17, 249-268.
  19. Le Moli, G. (2022). Human dignity in international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/9781009042765.
  20. Letsas, G. (2013). The ECHR as a living instrument: Its meaning and legitimacy. In A. Føllesdal, B. Peters & G. Ulfstein (Eds.), Constituting Europe: The European Court of Human Rights in a national, European, and global context (pp. 106-141). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139169295.
  21. Moravcová, D. (2023). The scope of judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters within the EU in the context of the exclusion of administrative matters and acta iure imperii. Institutiones Administrationis–Journal of Administrative Sciences, 3(1), 112-126. doi: 10.54201/iajas.v3i1.71.
  22. Okada, Y. (2023). Can acta jure gestionis be attributable to the state? A restrictive doctrine of state responsibility. European Journal of International Law, 34(2), 383-414. doi: 10.1093/ejil/chad018.
  23. Orakhelashvili, A. (2019). Jurisdictional immunity of states and general international law – explaining the jus gestionis v. jus imperii divide. In T. Ruys & N. Angelet (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of immunities and international law (pp. 105-124). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/9781108283632.006.
  24. Orakhelashvili, A. (2025). State Immunity from Jurisdiction between Law, Comity and Ideology. In A. Orakhelashvili (Ed.), Research handbook on jurisdiction and immunities in international law (pp. 113-138). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. doi: 10.4337/9781783472185.
  25. Rachovitsa, A. (2017). The principle of systemic integration in human rights law. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 66(3), 557-588. doi: 10.1017/S0020589317000185.
  26. Sanger, A. (2016). State immunity and the right of access to court under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 65(1), 213-228. doi: 10.1017/S0020589315000524.
  27. Sun, C. & Liamzon, A. (2018). Acta iure gestionis and acta iure imperii. In Max Planck encyclopedia of comparative constitutional law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  28. Teleki, C. (2021). Due process and fair trial in EU competition law: The impact of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Leiden: Brill Nijhoff. doi: 10.1163/9789004447493_020.
  29. Tomz, M., & Wright, M. (2010). Sovereign theft: Theory and evidence about sovereign default and expropriation. In W. Hogan & F. Sturzenegger (Eds.), The natural resources trap: Private investment without public commitment (pp. 69-133). Massachusetts: MIT Press. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262013796.001.0001.
  30. United Nations Human Rights Committee. (2007). General comment No 32: Article 14: Right to Equality Before Courts and Tribunals and to a Fair Trial. Retrieved from https://www.refworld.org/legal/general/hrc/2007/en/52583.
  31. Van Drooghenbroeck, S., & Rizcallah, C. (2019). The ECHR and the essence of fundamental rights: Searching for sugar in hot milk? German Law Journal, 20(6), 904-923. doi: 10.1017/glj.2019.68.
  32. Vitkauskas, D., & Dikov, G. (2012). Protecting the right to a fair trial under the European Convention on Human Rights. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
  33. Vogiatzis, N. (2022). Interpreting the right to interpretation under Article 6(3)(e) ECHR: A cautious evolution in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights? Human Rights Law Review, 22(1), 1-25. doi: 10.1093/hrlr/ngab027.
  34. Walther, R. (2024). Subsidiarity in the ECHR: An empty promise for local authorities? International Journal of Human Rights, 28(7), 1086-1111. doi: 10.1080/13642987.2023.2297934.
  35. Worster, W.T. (2016). Relative international legal personality of non-state actors. Brooklyn Journal of International Law, 42(1), 207-273. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2682444.