European Court of Human Rights delivers judgment in case concerning right to fair trial

On 9 June 2026, the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment concerning Finland in a case about the right to a fair trial. The case concerned whether an unreasoned arbitral award issued in arbitration proceedings violated the applicant company’s right to a fair trial as guaranteed in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court unanimously held that Article 6 had not been violated.

The case concerned expedited arbitration proceedings between two limited liability companies, resulting in an arbitral award that contained no reasoning. The applicant company sought the annulment of the arbitral award in the domestic courts, arguing that the unreasoned decision was in violation of the public policy (ordre public) of Finland and infringed the right to a fair trial. The claim was rejected by domestic courts at all levels.

The Court stated in its judgment that the present case concerned a voluntary arbitration procedure in which the parties can, under certain conditions, waive certain guarantees of a fair trial. The Court emphasised that the waiver must be free, lawful and unequivocal and come with minimum guarantees.

In the Court’s opinion, the applicant company had voluntarily agreed to the application of the Rules for Expedited Arbitration and expressly and knowingly consented to an unreasoned arbitral award. The applicant company had also failed to request a reasoned award within the time limit set by the arbitrator. The Court considered that the applicant company had expressly and unequivocally waived its right to a reasoned decision on several occasions.

The Court also took into account the fact that the domestic law and the Rules for Expedited Arbitration provided several procedural safeguards. It held that the obligation to give reasons does not constitute a fundamental procedural principle that cannot be waived in voluntary arbitration, provided that the waiver is valid and the requisite minimum guarantees are secured.

The Court concluded that there had been no violation of the right to a fair trial  under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 

Read the judgment in the HUDOC database.