Open Justice Campaign - Retreat - Secret Courts - Butler-Sloss - Hungerstrike

Europe's Lawyers and Judges
ban the public scrutiny of Judges

The Big Issue:   
Council of Europe Countries which administer justice in secret courts.

gimme help ReadMe
Open Justice campaign
Read me
Country by country survey of secret court procedural practice.
Albania   Austria   Belgium   Bulgaria   Croatia   Cyprus   Czech Republic   Denmark   Estonia   England Finland   France   Georgia   Germany   Greece   Hungary   Iceland   Ireland   Latvia   Lithuania   Luxembourg   FYROM   Malta   Netherlands   Norway   Poland   Portugal   Romania   Russia   Scotland  Slovakia   Slovenia   Spain   Sweden   Switzerland   Turkey
  (B)Court Secrecy rules (C)How secret (D)Secret Judgements (A)
Albania Open court unless a child (under 14) gives evidence Very few cases held in secret courts Unclear Yes
 Top        
Austria Child custody cases are held in secret Most, if not all, in secret Judgments published only to parties Yes
         
Belgium All custody disputes are held in secret unless in the context of a divorce when they are public See (B) If the case is held in secret the judgments are not published.
In other cases only initials are used.		 Yes
         
Bulgaria At the court's discretion Adoption cases are always in secret. Most divorce cases not Judgments publicly announced (but reasons not necessarily so) Yes
         
Croatia All custody cases are held in secret See (B) Not published except if there is media interest in which case initials are used for the parties. Yes
         
Cyprus At the court's discretion to hold in secret if evidence is held injurious to the child Very few cases in secret Judgments not published Yes
         
Czech Republic At court's discretion in secret No figures available Not published. Copies in court records exclude names Yes
         
Denmark All in secret See (B) If published no names are Yes
      given  
Estonia Secret at court's discretion on request of a party 95% private Published even if hearing held in secret Yes
         
Finland Secret, at court discretion on request of a party Mostly public Even if given in secret may subsequently be published Yes
         
France As a general rule held in secret See (B) Published with names Yes
         
Georgia At court's discretion. More likely to be in secret if a child gives evidence Mostly in public No answer available Yes
         
Germany Public excluded from custody cases by law.
No discretion except to admit some relatives and officials		 See (B) The operative section of judgements and the reasoning are published. Names are published. Publication may be refused if deemed necessary to protect individuals or the public. Yes
         
Greece Judge interviews the child in secret No figures Judgments published with names Yes
         
Hungary Basically all are public except by court decision if absolutely necessary to protect secrets or morality Only 5‑10 cases per annum in secret Judgments published Yes
         
Iceland Presumption that such cases are held in secret unless judge decides otherwise with parties' consent Mostly in secret No answer Yes
         
Ireland All such cases must be held in secret See (B) Higher court judgments are published without names. Lower court judgements are never published Yes
         
Latvia Secret at court's discretion on request of a party Mostly in public Names need not be given. Only the operative part and not the facts are published Yes
         
Lithuania Presumption of court proceedings held in secret Very rarely public Only supreme court judgements are published. Names can be concealed. Yes
         
Luxembourg Open court in divorce cases unless a child gives evidence See (B). No figures If the case is heard in public the judgment is published. If not, only the parties and their lawyers may have it. Yes
         
FYROM Secret at court's discretion upon request of party Roughly 50/50 Unpublished unless the hearing was in public in which case the press are free to publicise Yes
         
Malta At court's discretion Frequently in secret Published unless the court rules otherwise, which is quite usual in such cases Yes
         
Netherlands All custody cases in secret  see (B) Judgments are made public with names Yes
         
Norway All are held in secret See (B) Unpublished except with judges consent and in the case of supreme court judgments Yes
         
Poland At court's discretion Mostly in secret Published with names Yes
         
Portugal At the discretion of the court on a request of the party Mostly in secret Published without names Yes
         
Romania At court's discretion 90% public All published with names Yes
         
Russia In adoption cases in secret. In all others public unless there are state security reasons or a need to prevent disclosures which infringe privacy 99% public No formal publication. Judgments read out in open court (unless heard in secret) but then filed. Only parties have access to files. Yes
         
Scotland Open Court and public can scrutinise lawyers, judges and experts. Open Court judgement Published with names  
       
Slovakia At the discretion of the judge No figures available  Published with names Yes
         
Slovenia In practice all are held in secret See (B) Not published Yes
         
Spain In practice all custody cases are held in secret to protect the privacy of the children See (B) Judgments given in secret. Names are not concealed in the court files Yes
         
Sweden At the discretion of the court 95% public All published but parts may be withheld e.g., if they concern child abuse or health issues. Yes
         
Switzerland In practice all in secret See (B) Published but names concealed Yes
         
Turkey At the discretion of the court Mostly held in public No answer available Yes
       

England and Wales

 

 Trials are held behind the closed doors of secret courts. Appeal hearings are open to scrutiny and are held in public. Secret. No publication of Judgements or the reasons for decisions.
Rules of court prescribe up to two years imprisonment if parties disclose any details about the secret proceedings.		 Yes
Comment by Lord Denning

Disclaimer:
             This listing is based on a submission by the UK Government to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, where the UK Government was challenged about human rights violations against fathers who had been forced to endure court hearings from which the press was banned, where the men's families were not admitted, where untrained probation officers were allowed to give evidence determining childrens' and fathers' future, where scrutiny by independent experts or competent professionals or the public was banned, with judgements being pronounced behind closed doors, and where fathers were threatened with 2 years imprisonment for publicizing their treatment and their experience in England's Secret Courts.

We continue tocorrected some errors and omissions, and would appreciate your help in producing an accurate list. .

The validity of the UK Government's submission was challenged in the ECHR for being "annectodal", for providing "no sources or evidence" and for being "unverified".
If you know that any information given here needs correction, or if you want to get in touch with us,
please kindly write an e-mail to us at the Open Justice Campaign.                                      

Jump to top of page                                                                                                                               [This page last ]

webmaster@hock.freeserve.co.uk