EUROPEAN STANDARDS OF ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND THE PRACTICE OF THE ECHR IN REGULATING CIVIL PROCEDURAL PARTICIPATION: A COMPARATIVE LEGAL DIMENSION

Abstract

The article provides a comprehensive study of European standards of access to justice and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in regulating civil procedural joinder from a comparative legal perspective. It is substantiated that the right of access to justice in contemporary European law constitutes an integral element of the broader right to a fair trial and encompasses not only the formal possibility of bringing a claim before a court, but also the effectiveness, practicality, and enforceability of judicial protection. It is established that the case law of the ECtHR plays a decisive role in shaping the content of this right by developing criteria for the admissibility of procedural limitations, as well as standards of equality of arms, legal certainty, proportionality, and effectiveness of judicial proceedings. The study demonstrates that civil procedural joinder cannot be regarded as a neutral technical mechanism, as it directly affects the realization of the right to a fair trial by balancing procedural economy with the protection of individual rights of the parties involved. It is argued that the admissibility of joinder should be assessed in light of key principles, including equality of arms, reasonable time of proceedings, individualization of procedural status of co-participants, and avoidance of excessive formalism. Within the framework of comparative legal analysis, the article examines the regulation of joinder in various European legal systems, identifying common trends and national specificities. It is concluded that the harmonization of national civil procedural legislation with ECtHR standards should not be reduced to formal unification but must be based on the functional alignment of procedural mechanisms with the requirements of fair trial. Particular attention is paid to the need to refine the criteria for admissibility of joinder, strengthen the active role of the court in managing multi-party proceedings, and ensure effective guarantees of individual procedural protection.