28 Legal Digest of International Fair Trial Rights and Vinck v Belgium to concern criminal proceedings, notwithstanding the serious consequences of such sanctions.53 1.2 Determination of “rights and obligations in a suit at law” and of “civil rights and obligations” Article 14(1) of the ICCPR and article 6(1) of the ECHR apply not only to criminal proceedings, but also to any determination of a person’s “rights and obligations in a suit at law” (ICCPR) or a person’s “civil rights and obligations” (ECHR). It should be noted that there are discrepancies between the various language texts of the ICCPR pertaining to the concept of a “suit at law” (as referred to in English, or “droits et obligations de caractère civil” in French, for example) – each of which, according to Article 53 of the ICCPR, is equally authentic –”. The travaux préparatoires to the ICCPR do not resolve these apparent discrepancies54. Similar to the approach concerning the meaning of “criminal” proceedings (See also 1.1), the European Court of Human Rights has reaffirmed that it will apply an autonomous meaning to ECHR expressions, i.e., autonomous when compared to their domestic law classification.55 Any other solution might lead to results incompatible with the object and purpose of the ECHR as it would open the possibility for States to circumvent fair trial guarantees simply by classifying various areas of law as public or administrative (and thus out of the reach of the jurisdiction of Article 6 of the ECHR).56 It is, instead, the substantive content and effects of the right in question under the domestic law of the State concerned, not its legal classification, that will determine whether or not a right is to be regarded as civil within the meaning of the ECHR.57 It is clear that fair trial guarantees apply to civil litigation falling within the realm of private law, such as those related to actions in tort, contract, commercial and family law. Therefore, when two private persons dispute over a right or obligation, this unquestionably attracts the guarantees of Article 14(1) of the ICCPR and Article 6(1) of the ECHR. However, the problems start when disputes occur between individuals and the State around rights that, according to domestic law, fall under the realm of public or administrative law. In the leading case of Ringeisen v Austria, the European Court of Human Rights took the view that: “It is not necessary that both parties to the proceedings should be private persons. The wording of Article 6(1) is far wider; the French expression ‘contestations sur (des) droits et obligations de caractère civil’ covers all proceedings the result of 53 Sayadi and Vinck v Belgium, HRC Communication 1472/2006, UN Doc CCPR/C/94/D/1472/2006 (2008), para 10.11. 54 UN Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment 32 (2007), para 16. 55 König v Germany [1978] ECHR 3, para 88. 56 König v Germany [1978] ECHR 3, para 88. 57 König v Germany [1978] ECHR 3, para 89.