Chapter i  Fair Trial Standards: Scope of Application 29 which is decisive for private rights and obligations. The English text ‘determination of ... civil rights and obligations’, confirms this interpretation.”58 Accordingly, in ascertaining whether a case concerns the determination of a civil right, it is ultimately “the character of the right at issue” that is determinative (See also 1.2.2)59 or, in other words, it is enough that the outcome of the proceeding should be “decisive” for private rights and obligations.60 For a dispute to be potentially decisive in this way and thereby attract the protection of fair trial guarantees applicable to civil proceedings, a tenuous connection or remote consequence to the right at stake will not suffice. Rather, civil rights and obligations must be the object (or one of the objects) of the dispute (“contestation” in the language of the European Court).61 As to what amounts to a “contestation”, or dispute, the European Court has provided some guidance in Benthem v the Netherlands,62 namely that the expression: • should not be construed too technically but should instead be “given a substantive rather than a formal meaning”;63 • may relate not only to the actual existence of a right but also to its scope or the manner in which it may be exercised;64 • may concern both questions of fact and questions of law;65 and • must be genuine and of a serious nature.66 1.2.1 Existence of the right in the domestic law of the State The starting point for deciding whether proceedings are “civil” or involve a “suit at law” is to establish that there is a right or obligation in the national law of the State concerned.67 The Human Rights Committee has repeatedly found that there is no suit at law in situations where the domestic law does not grant any entitlement to the person concerned such as, for example, where the law does not provide any right of promotion or appointment.68 This will be the case even if the dispute relates to a claim that might otherwise have been classified as a matter involving a determination of a civil right. Similarly, the European Court of Human 58 Ringeisen v Austria [1971] ECHR 2, para 94; see also König v Germany [1978] ECHR 3, para 90. 59 König v Germany [1978] ECHR 3, para 90; Benthem v the Netherlands [1985] ECHR 11, para 34. 60 Baraona v Portugal [1987] ECHR 13, para 42; Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v Belgium [1981] ECHR 3, para 46. 61 Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v Belgium [1981] ECHR 3, para 47. 62 Benthem v the Netherlands [1985] ECHR 11, para 32. 63 Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v Belgium [1981] ECHR 3, para 45. 64 Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v Belgium [1981] ECHR 3, para 49. 65 Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v Belgium [1981] ECHR 3, para 51 in fine. 66 Sporrong and Lönnroth v Sweden [1982] ECHR 5, para 81. 67 Z and Others v the United Kingdom [2001] ECHR 333, para 98; and Roche v the United Kingdom [2005] ECHR 926, para 117. 68 Kolanowski v Poland, HRC Communication 837/1998, UN Doc CCPR/C/78/D/837/1998 (2003), para 6.4; Dimitrov v Bulgaria, HRC Communication 1030/2001, UN Doc CCPR/C/85/D/1030/2001 (2005), para 8.3; Karatsis v Cyprus, HRC Communication 1182/2003, UN Doc CCPR/C/84/D/1182/2003 (2005), para 6.4; and Fernández v Spain, HRC Communication 1396/2005, UN Doc CCPR/C/85/D/1396/2005 (2005), para 6.3.