LEXONOMICA 
Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 77–98, June 2023  
 
https://doi.org/10.18690/lexonomica.15.1.77-98.2023 
CC-BY, text © Sokolova, 2023 
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 
This license allows reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or 
format, so long as attribution is given to the creator. The license allows for commercial use. 
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 
 
 
  
 
THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL OF LEGAL 
PERSONS THROUGHOUT THE CASE LAW OF 
THE ECHR AND THE CJEU 
  
Accepted  
13. 3. 2023 
 
Revised 
1. 6. 2023 
 
Published 
29. 6. 2023 
MARIIA SOKOLOVA 
University of Maribor, Faculty of Law, Maribor, Slovenia 
mariia.sokolova@student.um.si 
 
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR 
mariia.sokolova@student.um.si 
 
Keywords 
the right to a fair trial, 
the right to an effective 
legal remedy,  
legal persons,  
companies,  
fundamental rights of 
companies,  
ECHR,  
Charter of Fundamental 
Rights 
Abstract The ambition of this article is an analysis of the right 
t o a f a i r t r i a l o f l e g a l e n t i t i e s t h r o u g h t h e p r i s m o f t h e 
jurisprudence of the ECtHR and the CJEU. Despite the factual 
admission of the right to a fair trial to companies in the case 
law of the Courts, the absence of a strong theoretical 
foundation and persuasive explanation in their judgments 
raises ambiguity as to the ECtHR and the CJEU positions in 
that regard. In that context, the article examines landmark 
cases of both Courts and relevant doctrinal considerations 
concerning the application of guarantees provided by the right 
t o a f a i r t r i a l t o l e g a l p e r s o n s . T h e E C t H R c a s e l a w i s 
considered inconsistent and the Strasbourg court, it appears, 
tries to avoid any far -reaching conclusions. The CJEU in its 
case law, due to the inherent focus of EU law on economic 
values, interprets the right to a fair trial of companies broadly, 
and sometimes, broader than it is needed. It is concluded that 
the issue requires more attention from both the Courts and 
legal scholars, in the view of serious consequences the 
ignorance and unfounded admission of any fundamental right 
could entail to the society and economy. 
 

78 LEXONOMICA.   
 
1 Introduction 
 
The thorny issue of whether legal entities in question can possess and be subject to 
human – or more appropriately to use the term fundamental rights in relation to 
companies
1
 – raises long-lasting debates among legal scholars.  
 
Proponents claim it is quite obvious that legal entities should enjoy (certain) 
fundamental rights. Companies as forms of associations of human beings in a 
corporate form are considered social phenomena, which independently from human 
beings behind (shareholders, managers, workers) exercise some fundamental rights 
(Kulick, 2021: 559, 560). Certain rights are vital for the companies’ functioning, the 
most obvious examples of such are the freedom of speech enjoyed by publishing 
houses and the freedom of religion of religious groups. Without other rights, such 
as the right to property, the very idea of companies as entities, which can separately 
from their shareholders be liable for their obligations with their assets, appears 
diminished. Acknowledging the companies as independent legal actors but merely 
holders of duties and responsibilities including compliance with human rights, while 
simultaneously denying they are bearers of certain fundamental rights, is inconsistent 
since denying companies fundamental rights protection thus denies the specific 
socio-economic phenomenon that companies represent as independent legal entities 
(Kulick, 2021: 559, 560). In turn, recognition will additionally stimulate companies 
to protect human (fundamental) rights that they share equally with others (Dhooge, 
2007: 205).  From a global perspective, recognition and protection of companies’ 
fundamental rights is a matter of public interest, not only companies own one, 
otherwise, the rule of law can appear undermined, which can lead to catastrophic 
consequences to the economy and welfare of the population (Oliver, 2015: 662; 
Oliver, 2022: 48-49).
2
  
  
 
1
 For the purposes of this article, the terms human rights and fundamental rights are used interchangeably, as well as the 
terms legal persons, legal entities, companies and corporations, since the strict distinction is not of crucial importance here. 
2
 In particular, the author refers to Yukos case, when the Russian oil company (Yukos) managed by a political 
opponent of Russian president Mikhail Khodorkovsky was arbitrarily prosecuted with procedural violations for 
alleged fraud and tax evasion, that resulted in Yukos’ demise and 8 years of imprisonment to Mr. Khodorkovsky. 
Insufficient attention of foreign investors to the violations of fundamental rights has become a starting point for 
absolute corruption and confidence in the impunity of Putin’s regime. 

M. Sokolova: The Right to a Fair Trial of Legal Persons Throughout the Case Law of the 
ECHR and the CJEU 
79. 
 
 
Opponents in essence claim that granting human rights to legal persons would entail 
marginalization and dehumanization of human rights, a sufficient increase in the 
amount of litigation deriving from it, and consequently, a reduction of the level of 
the protection provided to individuals now. Particular arguments of the critics of 
this idea will be discussed also further throughout the article.  
 
It is worth mentioning here, that some fundamental rights of the legal entities have 
been recognized by international courts, first and foremost by the ECtHR, though 
without any principal discussion in that regard. Indeed, the European Convention 
on Human Rights
3
 (hereinafter – the ECHR) contains some indications that 
companies can enjoy certain human rights. In particular, Article 10 states that "This 
Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, 
television or cinema enterprises," Article 34, in turn, recognizes the right to an 
individual application of "any person, non-governmental organisation or group of 
individuals…", and Article 1 of the Protocol 1 to the ECHR provides the protection 
of property to "every natural or legal person…" Nevertheless, the issue of whether 
cited above provisions of the ECHR grants fundamental rights to companies is 
controversially assessed in doctrine (Scolnicov, 2013: 4-6). The absence of 
persuasive explanations from the side of the ECtHR, as well as the absence of a 
coherent theory for granting fundamental rights to companies, is the main complaint 
of the opponents of this idea, along with the claims of dehumanization of human 
rights mentioned above. 
 
Further discussion requires delving into existing concepts of corporate personhood. 
There are three traditional theories concerning corporate personhood, however, 
neither of the existing theories sufficiently explains the recognition of companies as 
bearers of human rights. Particularly, the fiction theory of corporate personhood, in 
a nutshell, refers to the understanding of the company as an intendment and a 
creature of the state (law), respectively such a creature can possess only rights that 
the state (law) confers upon it. That conception allows designating human rights to 
the companies merely by an act of legislator, which is in contradiction with one of 
the central ideas of human rights, according to which human rights are considered 
as attributed to human beings regardless of granting or revocation them by the state 
(Isiksel, 2016: 316). Following the natural theory of corporate agency, a company is 
 
3
 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, singed in Rome 4.XI.1950. 

80 LEXONOMICA.   
 
an objectively real entity, which is distinct from its shareholders, and has its spirit, 
will, and purpose, while law merely recognizes it and gives legal effect to its existence. 
Proponents of this theory ascribe to the company certain purely human 
characteristics and claim autonomous agency, that, however, does not imply 
humanity and human rights protection. Even though business entities indeed share 
certain attributes with human, humanity is intuitively considered more than the sum 
of certain attributes to be shared with humans. Therefore, traditionally human rights 
norms identify and protect human characteristics that corporations lack (Isiksel, 
2016: 318-320). The third, aggregative theory holds that a company is a form of 
human organization to achieve particular objectives and it acquires the rights of the 
humans it is composed of. This theory ignores some essential features of the 
company such as limited liability, identity in succession, etc., as well as other 
characteristics that make a company distinct from its shareholders. 
 
The right to a fair trial, however, places a specific position. The most rigorous critics 
arguing companies cannot be entitled to human rights assume the right to a fair trial 
is applicable to business entities (Sanchez-Graells and Marcos, 2014; Scolnicov, 
2013: 20-22). The extent and intensity of the right to a fair trial remain the principal 
points for further discussion.  
 
In the view of foregoing, the aim of this article is to explore the right to a fair trial 
enjoyed by companies through the prism of the case law of the ECtHR and the 
CJEU, as well as to thoroughly examine doctrinal studies relevant to the issue that is 
the focus of the article. The article is logically divided into two substantial parts, apart 
from the introduction with a brief overview of companies’ fundamental rights and 
the conclusion summarizing the main inferences. The first part is dedicated to the 
application of the right to a fair trial to legal entities by the ECtHR, and the second 
one by the CJEU. Each part consists of the analysis of the right to a fair trial and its 
components according to the underlying legislation and the case law and is 
complemented by doctrinal commentaries on the issues concerned. Taking into 
account space constraints, guarantees of the right to a fair trial related to civil 
litigation are predominantly examined throughout the article. 
  

M. Sokolova: The Right to a Fair Trial of Legal Persons Throughout the Case Law of the 
ECHR and the CJEU 
81. 
 
 
2 The European Court of Human Rights 
 
The right to a fair trial is enshrined in Article 6 of the ECHR and refers to civil and 
criminal proceedings. Although the first paragraph applies to both categories of 
cases and the ECtHR has never made an explicit assignment of it to the particular 
type of litigation, it is widely considered to refer to civil proceedings (e.g. Rozakis, 
2006: 117; the ECtHR, 2022). In this case, a kind of artificial distinction is made by 
the doctrine, taking into account that the paragraph has been implemented by the 
ECtHR mostly in civil cases or in a manner differentiating civil and criminal 
proceedings. The second and the third paragraphs are thought to apply primarily to 
criminal proceedings, though there is a practice of applying these paragraphs to civil 
proceedings by analogy and vice versa, whenever it is possible.
4
  
 
From a literal interpretation of the first paragraph, several elements of the right to a 
fair trial are inferred, which can be distinguished between two aspects: institutional 
and procedural. A guarantee of determination of the case by an independent and 
impartial tribunal established by law refers to the institutional aspect. Fairness, 
publicity and reasonable time of a hearing, public pronunciation of the judgment, in 
turn, are procedural guarantees in their nature, that is, they are dimensions of the 
procedural aspect. The ECtHR through its case law has acknowledged also other 
guarantees
5
, such as the right to access to a court, the principle of equality of arms, 
the right to adversarial proceedings, the right to be present at the trial, the 
requirement to give reasons for judicial decisions, the principle of legal certainty and 
consistency and some others. 
 
The second and third paragraphs are designed to apply to criminal proceedings, 
traditionally requiring more specific guarantees. The second paragraph recognizes 
the presumption of innocence, guaranteeing that no guilt can be presumed until 
proved according to law and imposing the burden of proof on the prosecution 
(Schabas, 2015: 298). The third paragraph, in turn, set out a number of minimum 
guarantees that apply in criminal proceedings, complementing the general 
requirement of the fairness of all judicial proceedings. This includes the right to 
 
4
 In particular, in criminal proceedings the ECtHR frequently examines the first and the third paragraphs together. 
5
 See e.g. case Golder v. the UK, no. 4451/70, 21.02.1975, acknowledging the right to access to a court; Case Dombo 
Beheer B.V. v. the Netherlands, no. 14448/88, 27.10.1993 acknowledging the principle of the equality of arms; case 
H. v. Belgium, no. 8950/80, 30.11.1987 recognizing the obligation of the courts to provide reasoning, etc.  

82 LEXONOMICA.   
 
information about the nature and cause of the accusation, the right to adequate time 
and facilities to prepare a defence, including the right to defence through legal 
assistance, guarantees concerning the examination of witnesses, the right to an 
interpreter, as well as certain implicit guarantees recognized by the Court, such as 
the right to be present at trial, protection against self-incrimination and some others. 
 
Predominantly, the right to a fair trial is deemed attributable to legal persons, 
"because of its importance to the quality and fairness of the court proceedings" (van 
der Muijsenbergh and Rezai, 2012: 49), the only limits of its application constitute a 
point for discussion. In that regard, certain authors state that there is no reason why 
the level of protection provided by the right to a fair trial to companies should be 
weaker than one provided for natural persons since otherwise legal persons cannot 
enforce their substantive rights as they have (Oliver, 2015: 678). Moreover, it is 
considered unfair if a party has a stronger position in proceedings against a legal 
person than in proceedings against a natural person (Julicher, et al., 2019: 10). Other 
commentators insist on the reduced scope of the protection for corporations since 
e.g., they cannot suffer state coercion at the same level as individuals, while one of 
the primary objectives of the right to a fair trial is to create a counterbalance between 
an individual and public powers (Sanchez-Graells and Marcos, 2014: 7, 9). Moreover, 
legal persons can suffer only economic detriment from the breach of fairness, 
impartiality, the publicity of the trial, while in the case of individuals, human 
autonomy is affected (Scolnicov, 2013: 22). Both arguments are specifically relevant 
to criminal proceedings, because the person charged with a criminal offence is 
subject to stressful process full of anxiety and uncertainty, at the same time 
corporation experiences nothing of that sort (Scolnicov, 2013: 22).  
 
For its part, the reference to the personal component of the right to a fair trial, that 
is protected humanity, human dignity and other purely human characteristics, raises 
certain issues. On the one hand, it reverts the issues of corporate personhood, in 
particular, whether and to what extent companies can attribute procedural 
guarantees-derivatives of those enjoyed by individuals following the aggregative 
theory. On the other - it leads to the issue of the nature, purpose and objective of 
each particular guarantee of the right to a fair trial: whether the guarantee derives 
from the individual’s dignity, personality, and weakness and is aimed primarily at its 
protection or it is rooted in the rule of law, and its pursuit is the main objection. It 
is assumed by certain authors that the recourse to human dignity doubts legitimate 

M. Sokolova: The Right to a Fair Trial of Legal Persons Throughout the Case Law of the 
ECHR and the CJEU 
83. 
 
 
reasons for the application of certain guarantees to legal persons, and contrary, if the 
root of a certain privilege is in the rule of law, it relates to all litigants, including 
companies (Višekruna, 2018: 116).   
 
As to the ECtHR jurisprudence on the issues concerned, the right to a fair trial in 
principle has been regarded as applicable to companies without any kind of 
discussion, despite the decades-long practice, the vast amount of proceedings 
instituted by companies on alleged violations of almost every guarantee of Article 6 
ECHR and constant criticism from the side of legal scholars. However, judgments 
and concurring opinions in some cases deserve detailed analysis.  
 
2.1 Comingersoll SA v. Portugal 
 
It is appropriate, to begin with the landmark case Comingersoll SA v. Portugal.
6
 The 
case in question concerned a company formed under Portuguese law, complaining 
about the length of civil proceedings instituted upon the enforcement of bills of 
exchange, which had lasted more than 17 years and was pending by the time of the 
consideration of the case by the ECtHR. The Court found the violation of the right 
to a fair trial, as it is expected, without any reference to the specific status of the 
applicant. Nevertheless, commenting on the right of Comingersoll company to the 
compensation of non-pecuniary damage the Court provided reasoning, which can 
be considered (in the absence of others) showing the Court’s positions as regards 
the corporate personhood, the nature of the right to a fair trial and other relative 
issues.  
 
In particular, the Court stated that the Convention must be interpreted in a way ‘to 
guarantee rights that are practical and effective’ (para. 35). This argumentation of the Court 
is considered in doctrine a shift from a traditional focus on human dignity towards 
a focus on the rule of law aspect of human rights protection - the ECtHR 
pragmatically moved away from the discussion of the applicant’s specific status, 
nature of the compensation and other issues while pointing out the importance of 
the effectiveness principle for the rule of law (Emberland, 2003: 424-425; Isiksel, 
2019). In general, however, out of purely Comingersoll context, is pointless to interpret 
the right to a fair trial based on ‘human’ or ‘the rule of law’ nature, since all the 
 
6
 Comingersoll S.A. v. Portugal, no. 35382/97, 6.04.2000. 

84 LEXONOMICA.   
 
guarantees forming it have ambivalent nature. Moreover, the ECHR as an 
instrument has its own value system, formed by individual dignity, as well as, by the 
rule of law, alongside other values such as democracy and European liberalism. 
Therefore, a restrictive approach to the interpretation of the right to a fair trial based 
on one of the dimensions of the underlying value system does not reflect the essence 
of the object and purpose of the Convention regime, especially in the context of 
corporate protection (Emberland, 2006: 38-51). 
 
Non-pecuniary damage, in the opinion of the Court, can be claimed out of objective 
or subjective reasons, "among these, account should be taken of the company's reputation, 
uncertainty in decision-planning, disruption in the management of the company (for which there is 
no precise method of calculating the consequences) and lastly, albeit to a lesser degree, the anxiety 
and inconvenience caused to the members of the management team" (para. 35). The latter cited 
is deemed in legal doctrine as the Court’s commitment to an aggregative theory of 
corporate personhood (Emberland, 2003: 429-430; Isiksel, 2019: 993-995; 
Scolnicov, 2013: 14 et. seq), since the reference to a personal component, namely to 
uncertainty in decision planning, disruption in the management, anxiety and 
inconvenience, is quite strong. These are, however, considerations of general nature, 
which form a certain context for the case but do not correlate with the facts of the 
particular case in full. Concerning the case, the ECtHR noted, that "the proceedings 
continued beyond a reasonable time must have caused Comingersoll S.A., its directors and 
shareholders considerable inconvenience and prolonged uncertainty, if only in the conduct of the 
company's everyday affairs. The applicant company was in particular deprived of the possibility of 
recovering its claim earlier…it remains outstanding today. In this connection, it is, therefore, 
legitimate to consider that the applicant company was left in a state of uncertainty that justified 
making an award of compensation" (para. 36). In this part of the reasoning, directly 
referring to the facts of the case the Court made at least a verbal distinction between 
the company, its shareholders and its management, assuming that each of them 
suffered from the considerable inconvenience and prolonged uncertainty. In 
substance, the state of uncertainty, following the Court’s emphasis, is caused by a 
deprivation of the company from the recovery of the debt. Here there is no reference 
to a personal component, in contrast, the Court rather protects the company’s right 
to recover debts, i.e. to maintain the balance of its assets and liabilities – a key 
attribute of a company and factual protection of its economic interests. That can 
indicate the recognition of the company as an independent subject protected by the 
Convention, without a human component.  

M. Sokolova: The Right to a Fair Trial of Legal Persons Throughout the Case Law of the 
ECHR and the CJEU 
85. 
 
 
In a concurring opinion,
7
 four judges clarified their position (disagreement) as to the 
personal reference, such as anxiety and inconvenience of management, made by the 
Court. In particular, judges pointed out that "the company is an independent living 
organism… whose rights also receive autonomous protection under the ECHR". Moreover, 
judges state that the majority of rights apply directly to autonomous legal entities, 
deserving the Convention’s protection. Therefore, there are no reasons for the Court 
"to be prevented from accepting, without any reservation, implied or otherwise, that a company may 
suffer non-pecuniary damage, not because of the anxiety or uncertainty felt by its human components, 
but because, as a legal person, in the society in which it operates, it has attributes, such as its own 
reputation, that may be impaired by acts or omissions of the State". This reasoning resembles 
a moderate version of a natural theory of corporate personhood, concerning the 
company as an autonomous agent separate from its shareholders, management and 
so forth.  
 
That is to say, Comingersoll case provides equivocal reasoning, on the one hand with 
the strong reference to personal implications attributed to humans forming the 
company, on another hand, factually protecting the right of the company to recover 
its debts, highlighting the feature of the company that makes it distinct from the 
shareholders, managers, etc.  
 
2.2 Marpa Zeeland B.V. and Metal Welding B.V. v. the Netherlands 
 
Another case deserving analysis is the case of Marpa Zeeland B.V. and Metal Welding 
B.V. v. the Netherlands
8
 concerned criminal proceedings instituted against applicant 
companies and their director. They were convicted of forgery and tax fraud. There 
were imposed fines on the companies, and the director was sentenced to 2 years of 
imprisonment. In exchange for the remission of the sentence (reduction of the fines 
and term of imprisonment), the applicants withdrew their appeals. Further, the 
request for remission was rejected, and the appeal against the initial sentence was 
rejected as well. Besides it, proceedings lasted at least 6 years. In this case, the Court 
found a violation of the right to access to a court, consequently, the right to lodge a 
meaningful appeal, and the violation of the reasonable time requirement. There was 
no reasoning provided as regards the applicability of Article 6 of the ECHR to the 
 
7
 Concurring opinion of judge Rozakis, joined by judges Sir Nikolas Bratza, Caflisch and Vajić in case Comingersoll 
S.A. v. Portugal, no. 35382/97, 6.04.2000. 
8
 Marpa Zeeland B.V. and Metal Welding B.V. v. the Netherlands, no. 46300/99, 09.02.2005. 

86 LEXONOMICA.   
 
companies, nevertheless, the Court’s considerations on the applicant’s right to 
compensation for non-pecuniary damage contain a valuable position. The ECtHR 
referred to Comingersoll, however, stated that "…that the applicant companies and their 
director must have experienced considerable frustration when, after being refused remission of 
sentence, they were barred from pursuing their appeals. Their situation was further aggravated by 
the fact that the proceedings continued beyond a reasonable time" (para. 71). Following cited 
justification, the Court points out that the companies and the director distinctly 
experienced frustration because they both failed in remission of the sentence: the 
companies - in reduction of the imposed fines, the director – in the term of his 
imprisonment. That is, again, there is no reason to state that the Court equates the 
companies with their director or by other means emphasizes a personal component.  
 
2.3 Granos Organicos Nacionales S.A. v. Germany 
 
The third case to examine is Granos Organicos Nacionales S.A. v. Germany
9
, which 
concerned the issue of the refusal to grant legal aid to a legal entity and, consequently, 
violation of the right to access to a court, since the Convention does not contain an 
independent article, providing the right to legal aid. The applicant company was 
registered and operated under Peruvian law. It was engaged in the export of organic 
bananas in Europe through sales agents - two German companies under the 
concluded commission agreement, which contained a clause that all legal disputes 
would be brought to the German courts. The applicant company requested legal aid 
in the form of dispensation from advanced payment of court fees before the German 
court in a civil dispute for the breach of the commission contract, submitting that 
the company and shareholders were insolvent and were not able to pay the court 
fee. The requested legal aid was not granted, which became a ground for the 
application for the alleged violation of the right to access to a court. The Court did 
not find the violation of Article 6 of the ECHR out of several reasons, among them 
out of considerations of reciprocity of German and Peruvian law, proportionally to 
the aims pursued by national legislation and mainly "the absence of a consensus among 
State Parties to the Convention on the granting of legal aid to legal persons" (paras.  47-53). In 
addition, the Court, examining the violati o n o f t h e r i g h t t o a c c e s s t o a c o u r t i n 
conjunction with Article 14 of the ECHR, prohibiting discriminative treatment, 
accepted the arguments of the Government and found that there were ‘…relevant 
 
9
 Granos Organicos Nacionales S.A. v. Germany, no. 19508/07, 22.03.2012. 

M. Sokolova: The Right to a Fair Trial of Legal Persons Throughout the Case Law of the 
ECHR and the CJEU 
87. 
 
 
reasons for the different treatment of natural and legal persons…’ with respect to legal aid in 
the particular case (para.  57). In doctrine, this case is considered proof of a limitation 
of the scope of the right to a fair trial under Article 6 to companies in comparison 
with natural persons, supported by the ECtHR (Wilcox, 2018: 42). Substantively, 
however, the Court’s position, in this case, cannot be regarded as conclusive, since 
the Court did not independently examine the issue of availability of legal aid to legal 
persons within the notion of the right to access to a court, but refers it to the 
discretion of the States (Johan Settem, 2016: 405-407). Nevertheless, it appears 
inconsistent to claim, that the positions of the Court in the Comingersoll and Marpa 
Zeeland B.V. cases are conclusive, but the one in the Granos Organicos case is not. In 
fact, the Court does not manifestly exclude the companies’ right to legal aid, though 
admits that there can be different treatment between natural and legal persons as 
regards certain components of the right to a fair trial if it is justified by the particular 
situation of the company concerned.  
 
For the most part, other case law on the violation of the right to a fair trial is vaguer: 
it either does not contain any justification at all,
10
 o r i t r e f e r s t o Comingersoll 
considerations, without extensive reasoning regarding the facts of the particular case, 
irrespective of whether the proceedings at issue concerned the right to an 
independent and impartial tribunal
11
, publicity
12
 and fairness of hearing
13
, the right 
to access to a court.
14
 For certain cases, however, Comingersoll reasoning appears far-
fetched, e.g. it is doubtful that the lack of publicity of a trial or the absence of a 
public pronunciation of a judgment can directly affect the reputation of the 
company, or can directly cause "uncertainty in decision-planning, disruption of management 
or anxiety, inconvenience of members of management team". It is clear, that e.g. lengthy 
proceedings, judgment without reasoning, and limitation of access to a court can 
produce the perverse effects cited above, that, however, is not so clear in case of the 
 
10
 Centroprom Holding AD Beograd v. Montenegro, no. 30796/10, 10.02.2022, para. 13; 
MUDr. Vladimír Gergel, s.r.o. v. Slovakia, 22.07.2021, no. 48858/20, para. 19; Ialtexgal Aurica S.A. v. the Republic 
of Moldova, no. 16000/10, 16.02.2021, para. 21; Framipek s.r.o. and AGRORACIO Senica, a.s. v. Slovakia, no. 
51894/14 and 52073/14, 28.01.2020, para. 47. 
11
 Advance Pharma sp. z o.o v. Poland, no. 1469/20, 03.05.2022, para. 357 no justification; Beg S.p.a. v. Italy,  no. 
5312/11, 20.08.2021, para. 165 no justification. 
12
 Mirovni Inštitut v. Slovenia, no. 32303/13, 13.06.2018, para. 51, the Court cited para. 35 of Comingersoll case. 
13
 Wohlmeyer Bau GmbH v. Austria, no. 20077/02, 08.07.2004, para.  61, the Court cited paras. 35, 36 of 
Comingersoll case; Alpha Doryforiki Tileorasi Anonymi Etairia v. Greece, no. 72562/10, 22.02.2018, para. 94, the 
Court cited para. 35 of Comingersoll. 
14
 Dareskizb Ltd v. Armenia, no. 61737/08, 21.09.2021, para. 97, the Court cited para. 35 of Comingersoll case; 
Association BURESTOP 55 and others v. France, no. 56176/18, 01.10.2021, para. 121, no justification. 

88 LEXONOMICA.   
 
violation of some guarantees. That is not to say, that these violations do not affect 
the company, they do indeed, but not in the perspective described by the Court in 
Comingersoll.  
 
3 The European Court of Justice 
 
The right to a fair trial within the EU has two main periods of its development – 
before the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union (hereinafter: 
CFR)
15
 entered into force and after it. Before the adoption of the CFR, the right to 
effective judicial protection and, a bit later, the right to a fair legal process, has long 
been recognized as general principles of EU law by the CJEU. In its case law, the 
CJEU identified a number of elements of the right to effective judicial protection 
and the right to a fair legal process is comprised of, such as the right to access to a 
court, the right to an independent tribunal, the right to a legal process within a 
reasonable time, the right to be heard (Teleki, 2021: 316-318) and other "traditional" 
elements. Since the CFR has been proclaimed, these rights have been reaffirmed by 
the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, which is embodied in Article 47. 
Article 47 CFR is largely inspired by Articles 6(1) and 13 of the ECHR but goes 
further than both (Kellerbauer, et al., 2019: 2215; Gutman, 2019: 889; Peers, et al., 
2021: 1253-1254). 
 
Notwithstanding that it follows from Article 52(3) CFR, that rights, which 
correspond to the rights guaranteed by the ECHR have the same meaning and scope 
laid down in the Convention and relevant case law, a higher level of protection is 
welcomed by the CFR. In comparison with the equivalent provisions of the ECHR, 
the Article 47 CFR per se offers more extensive guarantees, e.g. the right to an 
effective remedy or the right to legal aid. The latter e.g. is absent in the text of the 
Convention and the conditions under which it is granted are not so clear according 
to the case law of the ECtHR. Moreover, legal scholars note a t endency to assert the 
a u t o n o m y o f t h e r i g h t t o a f a i r t r i a l u n d e r t h e C F R f r o m t h e s i d e o f t h e C J E U 
(Gutman, 2019: 888; Kellerbauer, et al., 2019: 2216; Schütze and Takis Tridimas, 
2018: 398). In particular, AG Cruz Villalon in his opinion in the case Samba Diouf 
stated that "…the right to the effective judicial protection... acquired a separate identity and 
 
15
 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 391–407.  

M. Sokolova: The Right to a Fair Trial of Legal Persons Throughout the Case Law of the 
ECHR and the CJEU 
89. 
 
 
substance under that article which are not mere a sum of Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR." 
16
 In 
a number of cases, the CJEU noted that "Article 47 of the Charter secures in EU law the 
protection afforded by Article 6(1) of the ECHR. It is necessary, therefore, to refer only to Article 
47." 
17
 In other words, Article 47 be considered within its own content and the CJEU 
case law. 
 
Thus, the first paragraph of the commented article guarantees the right of everyone 
whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated to an 
effective remedy before a tribunal. The notion of the right to an effective remedy 
refers first and foremost to the right to access to a court, which in turn implies time 
limits applicable to the institutions of proceedings, the requirement to adjudicate and 
give a decision in reasonable time and some other guarantees (Kellerbauer, et al., 
2019: 2217-2219; Gutman, 2019: 889). The second paragraph provides that everyone 
entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and 
impartial tribunal previously established by law and shall have the possibility of being 
advised, defended and represented. In its sufficient part, this paragraph is equal to 
Article 6(1) ECHR examined in detail above. Apart from the rights literally perceived 
from the paragraph, the CJEU acknowledged also other aspects of the right, e.g., 
constituting the notion of the "fairness" of proceedings. In particular, the CJEU’s 
case law is focused on the principle of equality of arms, the right to defence and 
corresponding to its duty to give reasons upon which the decision is based, the right 
to appear in person at a trial and certain other guarantees (Kellerbauer, et al., 2019: 
2222, 2224-2225). The third paragraph ensures that legal aid shall be available to 
those who lack sufficient resources in so far as such aid is necessary to ensure 
effective access to justice. 
 
Concerning the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial of legal persons, it has 
to be pointed out that EU law by its very nature is oriented to the economic sphere, 
and economic freedoms are still core values of EU law, despite the fact that the 
protection of individual rights and the rule of law has been included in its objectives 
in last decades. Therefore, generally, the doctrine unanimously considers 
fundamental rights under the CFR, including the discussed one, applicable to legal 
 
16
 Opinion of AG Cruz Villalon in Case C-69/10, Brahim Samba Diouf v Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de 
l’Immigration, 28.07.2011, ECLI:EU:C:2011:102, para. 39. 
17
 Case C-199/11, Europese Gemeenschap v Otis NV and Others, 6.11.2012, ECLI:EU:C:2012:684, para.  47; Case 
C-386/10, Chalkor AE Epexergasias Metallon v European Commission, 8.12.2011, para. 51 and others. 

90 LEXONOMICA.   
 
persons, apart from provisions obviously related to natural persons or to specific 
target groups, such as EU citizens (Oliver, 2015: 679-680; Julicher, et al., 2019: 4-5).  
 
In contrast to the case law of the ECtHR, the CJEU case law provides considerations 
which more precisely indicate that companies are entitled to the right to an effective 
remedy and to a fair trial under the CFR.  
 
 For instance, in case Bank Mellat,
18
 which concerned among others the issue of 
whether an Iranian state-owned bank can invoke the protection of fundamental 
rights under EU law, in particular the right of defence and the right to effective 
judicial protection under Article 47 of the CFR, the General Court concluded that 
Article 47"…guarantees the right to ‘everyone’, a wording which includes legal persons, such as 
applicant" (para. 36). The General Court pointed out that neither the CFR nor EU 
primary law contains provisions preventing legal persons – emanations of non-EU 
states from the protection of fundamental rights, "those rights may be therefore relied upon 
by those persons before the Courts of the European Union in so far as those rights are compatible 
with their status as legal persons" (para.  41). This judgment was upheld by the CJEU, 
the Court noted that the right of defence and the right to effective judicial protection 
"…may be invoked by any natural person or any entity bringing an action before the Courts of the 
European Union ".
19
 A similar position was expressed in cases Good Luck Shipping
20
 
and Almaz-Antey
21
, which concerned alleged infringements of the obligation to state 
reasons for the decisions on freezing assets, the right to effective judicial protection 
and the right of defence are applicable to foreign (non-EU Member States) legal 
entities, the General Court recalled, among others, that "the effectiveness of the judicial 
review guaranteed by Article 47…requires… to ensure that the decision, which affects the person 
or entity concerned individually, is taken on a sufficiently solid factual basis" (para.  51 of case 
Good Luck Shipping, para.  84 of case Almaz-Antey).  
 
These considerations create an impression, that the issue of whether legal entities 
are entitled to the right to an effective remedy under the CFR is not even considered 
controversial by the CJEU. In that regard, the Court pursued an unambiguous and 
non-restrictive approach, determining the widest circle of persons invoking the 
 
18
 Case T-496/10, Bank Mellat v Council of the European Union, 29.01.2013, ECLI:EU:T:2013:39. 
19
 Case C-176/13 P, Bank Mellat v Council of the European Union, 18.02.2016, ECLI:EU:C:2016:96, para. 49. 
20
 Case T-423/13, Good Luck Shipping LLC v Council of the European Union, 24.05.2016, ECLI:EU:T:2016:308. 
21
 Case T-225/17, Joint-Stock Company ‘Almaz-Antey’ Air and Space Defence Corp., formerly OAO Concern PVO 
Almaz-Antey v Council of the European Union, 25.01.2017, ECLI:EU:T:2017:25. 

M. Sokolova: The Right to a Fair Trial of Legal Persons Throughout the Case Law of the 
ECHR and the CJEU 
91. 
 
 
protection of the rights under Article 47 CFR – from foreign legal entities to even 
emanations of foreign States.  
 
3.1 Orkem v. Commission of the European Communities 
 
In order to show, how far the CJEU has taken corporate human rights, the Orkem 
case
22
 should be observed. Despite the fact, that the case concerned the privilege 
against self-incrimination, which falls within the scope of Article 48 CFR, it is 
nevertheless an indispensable element of the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of 
ECHR and, therefore, can be analysed in the context of the examined issue. Orkem 
was a French company engaged in chemical activity. It brought an action to the 
CJEU for the annulment of the Commission’s decision adopted within the alleged 
violation of the competition law from the side of Orkem, according to which it had 
been obliged to reply to certain questions. Respectively, Orkem claimed, among 
others, that its right to defence was infringed because the Commission in fact sought 
to compel Orkem to incriminate itself. The Court supported the position of the 
applicant and annulled the contested decision, by stating that "the Commission may not 
compel an undertaking to provide it with answers which might involve an admission on its part of 
the existence of an infringement which it is incumbent upon the Commission to prove" (para. 35). 
The CJEU’s reasoning does not exclude the Commission’s right to compel an 
undertaking to answer factual questions as to the subject matter and disclose certain 
documents (paras. 37-40), however, de facto the privilege against self-incrimination 
was recognized for legal entities. This judgment is ambiguously perceived by legal 
scholars, in particular, some commentators state, that the CJEU is "more generous 
to legal entities than it need have" and any further movements in that direction 
"would jeopardize the enforcement of competition law for no good" (Oliver, 2015: 
686). Researchers note, in particular, that the notion of "undertaking" under the 
CJEU case law is wide, therefore problems may arise, e.g. in determining to whom 
of a legal person the privilege extends (Veenbrink, 2015: 134-135). In general, the 
discussion within the Orkem case raises issues of a limitation of the scope of the 
privilege against self-incrimination for legal entities similar to those mentioned above 
and relating mostly to specific guarantees for criminal proceedings, provided by 
Article 6 ECHR. The most radical positions were expressed by the AGs in certain 
 
22
 Case 374/87, Orkem v. Commission of the European Communities, 18.10.1989, ECLI:EU:C:1989:387. 

92 LEXONOMICA.   
 
cases of the CJEU. Thus, AG Geelhoed in the case SGL Carbon
23
 stated that the 
concept of the privilege against self-incrimination was developed in relation to 
natural persons in the context of classical criminal proceedings, inter alia by the 
ECtHR case law to which the CJEU usually refers, consequently "it is not possible 
simply to transpose findings of the ECtHR without more to legal persons or undertakings" in 
competition proceedings (para. 63). AG Ruiz Jarabo-Colomer in the case 
Volkswagen
24
 arguing irrespective of the privilege against self-incrimination, noted 
that guarantees specific to criminal law cannot be transferred en blok to competition 
law, since they are "designed specifically to compensate for that imbalance of power…The same 
procedural guarantees for natural and legal persons, apart from being a mockery to the most needed 
individuals… would entail a lower degree of protection" (para.  66). Nevertheless, the CJEU 
has not moved away from its position and has constantly confirmed it.
25
  
 
3.2 DEB v. Bundesrepublik Deutschland 
 
Returning to the guarantees forming the right to a fair trial under Article 47 CFR, 
the landmark case DEB,
26
 in which the CJEU recognized the right to legal aid of the 
legal persons has to be commented on. DEB, a company registered and operated 
under German law, requested legal aid to cover advanced costs of the compulsory 
representation by a lawyer in a court dispute against the Federal Republic of 
Germany for its failure to timely transport two Directives concerning common rules 
in natural gas, that lead to sufficient damages and loss of profit of DEB (paras. 14 -
17). DEB was refused in granting legal aid at the court of the first instance due to 
the conditions of national law. The appeal court, in turn, was uncertain, whether the 
refusal was consistent with the principle of the effectiveness of EU law since it makes 
it impossible to pursue an action seeking to establish State liability under EU law 
(paras. 18-25), the respective question to the preliminary ruling was therefore 
referred to the CJEU. The CJEU, in turn, noted that the question in fact concerns 
 
23
 Opinion of AG Geelhoed in Case C-301/04 P, Commission of the European Communities v SGL Carbon AG, 
19.01.2006, ECLI:EU:C:2006:53. 
24
 Opinion of AG Ruiz Jarabo-Colomer in Case C-338/00 P, Volkswagen AG v Commission of the European 
Communities, 17.10.2002, ECLI:EU:C:2002:591.   
25
 Case C-238/99 P, Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij NV v. Commission of the European Communities, 15.10.2002, 
ECLI:EU:C:2002:582, paras.  273-276; Case C-301/04 P, Commission of the European Communities v SGL 
Carbon AG, 29.06.2006, ECLI:EU:C:2006:432; Case T-112/98, Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG v Commission of 
the European Communities, 20.02.2001, ECLI:EU:T:2001:61.  
26
 Case C-279/09, DEB Deutsche Energiehandels- und Beratungsgesellschaft mbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 
22.12.2010, ECLI:EU:C:2010:811. 

M. Sokolova: The Right to a Fair Trial of Legal Persons Throughout the Case Law of the 
ECHR and the CJEU 
93. 
 
 
the right of a legal person to effective access to justice that is ensured by the principle 
of effective judicial protection under EU law, enshrined in Article 47.  
 
In that regard, the Court provided the substantive analysis in three aspects – in light 
of other provisions of EU law, the law of Member States and the case law of the 
ECtHR (para. 37). 
 
The CJEU first examined the wording of Article 47, it stated, in particular, that the 
use of the word ‘Person’ or ‘Mensch’ in German may indicate that legal persons are 
not excluded from the scope of Article 47. Moreover, the right to an effective 
remedy and to a fair trial under Article 47 is included in the Chapter ‘Justice’ of the 
Charter, other rights of which are invoked equally by natural and legal persons. Other 
EU law, such as Directive 2003/8/EC, establishing common rules on legal aid in 
cross-border disputed, in the opinion of the CJEU, is not persuasive for the 
conclusion of general application, since relates to specific categories of litigation 
(paras. 39-43). Analysis of the law of the Member States, in turn, shows the absence 
of any common approach to the issue of granting legal aid to companies (para. 44). 
Lastly, the CJEU referred to the case law of the ECtHR, since the right to legal aid 
under EU law is bound by the meaning and scope of the corresponding right under 
the ECHR and the case law of the ECtHR. In particular, the Court examined certain 
cases of the ECtHR and fo und out that "the grant of legal aid to legal persons is not in 
principle impossible but must be assessed in the light of the applicable rules and the situation of the 
company concerned" (para. 52), consequently, it is for the national courts to make the 
assessment. The CJEU suggested that the following may be taken into consideration 
in making the assessment of grating legal aid: subject-matter of the litigation, whether 
the applicant has a reasonable prospect of success, the complexity of the applicable 
law and procedure and its economic importance for the applicant (paras. 53, 61); as 
well as the financial capacity of an applicant, inter alia the form of the company, 
whether it is a capital company or a partnership, whether it is a limited liability 
company or otherwise; the financial capacity of its shareholders, namely, their ability 
to obtain sum necessary to institute court proceedings; the objects of the company, 
whether it is profit-making or non-profit making company; the manner in which it 
has been set up; and, more specifically, the relationship between the resources 
allocated to it and the intended activity  (paras. 54, 62); and, lastly, whether the costs 
of proceedings represent an unsurmountable obstacle to access to court (para.  61). 
The CJEU confirmed its position in the case GREP a few years later (Peers, et al., 

94 LEXONOMICA.   
 
2021: 1380).
27
 DEB judgement is controversially assessed in doctrine, despite its 
clear (at first glance) position on granting legal aid to legal persons. In particular, 
researchers state, that DEB judgment expresses itself in allowing legal aid to legal 
persons, however, does not provide the conditions under which legal aid must be 
granted, as well as, the inferences made in the judgment do not clarify whether legal 
aid is available to legal persons if national law precludes such aid in principle 
(Engström, 2011: 59, 65-66; Oliver, 2015: 682) and so on.  
 
4 Conclusion 
 
Despite the doctrinal controversy in the question of entitlement of legal entities to 
fundamental rights, the right to a fair trial places a specific position among legal 
scholars and in the case law of the ECtHR and the CJEU.  
 
T h e r i g h t t o a f a i r t r i a l i s enshrined in Article 6 ECHR and contains various 
guarantees for the litigants of civil and criminal proceedings, such as the right to 
public and fair hearing in a reasonable time, impartial and independent tribunal; 
other guarantees, in turn, were developed by the case law of the ECtHR. Article 6 
ECHR and relevant case law served as a source of inspiration for Article 47 CFR, 
which ensures the right to an effective legal remedy and to a fair trial to everyone 
those rights and freedoms guaranteed by EU law are violated. Notwithstanding 
Article 52(3) CFR, according to which the rights guaranteed by the CFR shall have 
the same meaning and scope laid down in the ECHR and relevant case law, a higher 
level of protection is not prevented by the CFR and is welcomed by the CJEU. 
 
As to the applicability to legal persons, the right to a fair trial in principle has been 
regarded as applicable to companies without any kind of discussion by both courts. 
This, however, is constantly criticized by legal scholars in relation to the case law of 
the ECtHR, at the same time, is perceived without any ambiguity regarding the case 
law of the CJEU. The reason behind this is that EU law by its very nature is focused 
on the economic sphere, and economic freedoms are still core values of EU law, 
while the ECHR is inherently oriented to the protection of the rights of humans as 
a response to the atrocities carried out during the Second World War. Therefore, in 
order to be applicable to legal entities, it is thought, the ECHR has to have a strong 
 
27
 Case C-156/12, GREP GmbH v Freitstaat Bayern,13.06.2012, ECLI:EU:C:2012:342. 

M. Sokolova: The Right to a Fair Trial of Legal Persons Throughout the Case Law of the 
ECHR and the CJEU 
95. 
 
 
theoretical foundation and at least any persuasive discussion whatsoever in that 
regard from the side of the ECtHR.  
 
It appears excessively difficult to make inferences from the case law of the ECtHR 
as to its firm position concerning the right to a fair trial of legal persons, since the 
case law is vague, and the positions of the Court are inconsistent. On the one hand, 
one might argue for the ECtHR commitment to an aggregative theory of corporate 
personhood, since the reference to a personal component, namely to uncertainty in 
decision planning, disruption in the management, anxiety and inconvenience, in the 
Court’s judgments is quite strong. On the other hand, a closer look at the ECtHR 
reasoning shows various indicators of recognition of the company as an independent 
subject protected by the Convention, without any individual component. In 
particular, in some cases, the Court directly refers to the right of the company to 
recover debts, or experienced frustration in relation to consequences influencing the 
company, and not its shareholders, managers and workers. In general, the case law 
of the Strasbourg court creates an impression, that it by any means avoids explicit 
admissions and prohibitions to legal entities in that regard. For instance, the Court 
does not manifestly exclude the companies’ right to legal aid, though substantively 
does not examine this issue, but refers it to the discretion of the States. 
 
In contrast, the CJEU case law provides considerations which precisely indicate that 
companies are entitled to the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial under the 
CFR. In general, the Court pursued an unambiguous and non-restrictive approach, 
ensuring the protection of the rights under Article 47 CFR to the widest possible 
circle of legal persons – even to non-EU legal entities and emanations of foreign 
States. Moreover, it appears from the case law, that the CJEU pursues the idea of 
s e p a r a t e i d e n t i t y a n d s u b s t a n c e o f t h e r i g h t t o a f a i r t r i a l u n d e r t h e C F R , 
consequently, a level of protection higher than it is provided by the ECHR and case 
law of the ECtHR is often welcomed. Thus, the right to legal aid was explicitly 
granted to legal persons, moreover, the Court states different criteria for the national 
courts as to the factors that could be taken into consideration in the assessment of 
this right. In spite of certain doctrinal doubts, this is an unprecedented Court 
position, which sufficiently increases guarantees of the legal persons under the CFR. 
In the view of certain scholars, the CJEU sometimes has taken corporate 
fundamental rights too far. In particular, the Court recognized the privilege against 
self-incrimination for legal entities in proceedings instituted by the Commission for 

96 LEXONOMICA.   
 
the alleged violations of competition law. Any further movement in this direction, 
in the opinion of researchers, would entail a lower level of protection to individuals 
because it is not possible simply to transpose purely "criminal" guarantees designed 
for individuals without more to legal persons, as it was done by the CJEU.  
 
In general, it can be concluded that insufficient attention is paid to the issue of 
whether legal persons are entitled to the right to a fair trial, and fundamental rights 
in principle - from both the doctrine and the courts. However, it requires extensive 
examination and a careful judicial approach, due to the consequences both the 
excessive admission and the ignorance of the human rights of companies may lead 
to the society, economy and welfare of the population.  
 
 
References 
 
Dhooge, L. (2007) Human Rights for Transnational Corporations. Journal of Transnational Law & 
Policy, 16(2). 
Emberland, M. (2003) Compensating Companies for Non-Pecuniary Damage: Comingersoll S.A. v. 
Portugal and the Ambivalent Expansion of the ECHR Scope. British Yearbook of International 
Law, 74(1). 
Emberland, M. (2006) The Human Rights of Companies, Exploring the Structure of ECHR Protection. 
Oxford: Oxford University Press. 
Engström, J. (2011) The Principle of Effective Judicial Protection after the Lisbon Treaty. Reflection 
in The Light of Case C-279/09 DEB Deutsche Energiehandels- und Beratungsgesellschaft 
mbH. Review of European Administrative Law, 4(2). 
European Court of Human Rights (2022) Guide on Article 6 of the ECHR, Right to a Fair Trial 
(Civil Limb). 
Gutman, K. (2019) The Essence of the Fundamental Right to an Effective Remedy and to a Fair 
Trial in the Case-Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union: The Best Is Yet to 
Come? German Law Journal, 20.  
Isiksel, T. (2016) The Rights of Man and the Rights of the Man-Made: Corporations and Human 
Rights. Human Rights Quarterly, 38(2). 
Isiksel, T. (2019) Corporate Human Rights Claims under the ECHR. Georgetown Journal of Law & 
Public Policy, 17.  
Johan Settem, O. (2016) Applications of the ‘Fair Hearing’ Norm in ECHR Article 6(1) to Civil Proceedings, 
With Special Emphasis on the Balance Between Procedural Safeguards and Efficiency. Switzerland: 
Springer International Publishing.  
Julicher, M., Henriques, M., Amat Blai, A., and Policastro, P. (2019) Protection of the EU Charter for 
Private Legal Entities and Public Authorities? The Personal Scope of Fundamental Rights 
within Europe Compared. Utrecht Law Review, 15(1).  
Kellerbauer, M., Klamert, M., and Tomkin, J. (2019) The EU Treaties and the Chapter of Fundamental 
Rights: A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 
Kulick, A. (2021) Corporate Human Rights? The European Journal of International Law, 32(2). 
Oliver, P. (2015) Companies and Their Fundamental Rights: A Comparative Perspective. The 
International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 64(3). 

M. Sokolova: The Right to a Fair Trial of Legal Persons Throughout the Case Law of the 
ECHR and the CJEU 
97. 
 
 
Oliver, P. (2022) What Fundamental Rights, if Any, Should Companies Enjoy? A Comparative 
Perspective. Revue Européenne du Droit, 4.   
Peers, S., Hervey, T., Kenner, J., and Ward, A. (2021) The Charter of Fundamental Rights: A Commentary, 
2
nd
 edition. Hart Publishing. 
Rozakis, C. (2006) The Right to a Fair Trial in Civil Cases: Article 6 Para. 1 of the ECHR. Id-Dritt, 19. 
Sanchez-Graells, A., and  Marcos, F. (2014) “Human Rights” Protection for Corporate Antitrust 
Defendants: Are We Not Going Overboard? University of Leicester, School of Law Research 
Paper, 14(03), http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2389715. 
Schabas, W. (2015) The European Convention on Human Rights: A Commentary. Oxford University Press. 
Schütze, R. and Tridimas, T. (2018) Oxford Principles of European Union Law, Volume 1: The European 
Union Legal Order. Oxford University Press. 
Scolnicov, A (2013) Lifelike and Lifeless in Law: Do Corporations Have Human Rights? University 
of Cambridge Faculty of Law Research Paper, 13 http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2268537. 
Teleki, C. (2021) Due Process and Fair Trial in EU Competition Law. Brill.  
van den Muijsenbergh, W., and Rezai, S.  (2012) Corporations and the European Convention on 
Human Rights. Global Business & Development Law Journal, 25(1). 
Veenbrink, M. (2015) Privilege against Self-Incrimination in EU Competition Law: A Deafening 
Silence? Legal Issues of Econ Integration, 42. 
Višekruna, A. (2018) Protection of Rights of Companies before the European Court of Human 
Rights. EU and Comparative Law Issues and Challenges Series (ECLIC), doi: 
https://doi.org/10.25234/eclic/6524. 
Wilcox, V. (2018) A Company's Right to Damages for Non-Pecuniary Loss. Cambridge University Press. 
 
 
About the author 
Mariia Sokolova, PhD Student, University of Maribor, Faculty of Law, e-mail: 
mariia.sokolova@student.um.si 
 
 
  

98 LEXONOMICA.