Chapter i  Fair Trial Standards: Scope of Application 31 designation of the type of proceedings, or on the particular forum in which individual legal systems may provide that the right in question is to be adjudicated upon (especially in common law systems where there is no inherent difference between public law and private law and where the courts normally exercise control over the proceedings either at first instance or on appeal specifically provided by statute or else by way of judicial review).76 The concepts are autonomous of domestic designations and the European Court of Human Rights has recognized that there is no common standard pointing to a European notion of what amounts to a civil right.77 Each case must, therefore, be examined in the light of its particular features. There is some guidance, however, on specific categories of proceedings that have been treated as amounting to suits at law or civil proceedings by their nature. In its General Comment 32 on fair trial rights, the Human Rights Committee has summarized suits at law as falling within one of the following three categories, which overlap with similar decisions by the European Court of Human Rights:78 (a) udicial procedures aimed at determining rights and obligations concerning private law (law governing the relationship between individuals and legal persons) in the areas of contract, property and torts.79 (b) Equivalent notions in the area of administrative law (law governing the relationship between individuals and legal persons vis-à-vis the State), such as termination of the employment of civil servants for other than disciplinary reasons;80 the determination of social security benefits;81 the pension rights of soldiers;82 procedures relating to the 76 Y. L. v Canada, HRC Communication 112/1981, UN Doc CCPR/C/OP/1 at 28 (1984), para 9.2; Kaur v Canada, HRC Communication 1455/2006, UN Doc CCPR/C/94/D/1455/2006 (2008), para 7.5; Ringeisen v Austria [1971] ECHR 2, para 94; König v Germany [1978] ECHR 3, para 88; Baraona v Portugal [1987] ECHR 13, paras 42–44; Georgiadis v Greece [1997] ECHR 28, para 34; and Werner v Austria [1997] ECHR 92, paras 38–40. See also UN Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment 32 (2007), para 16 and contrast with Kolanowski v Poland, HRC Communication 837/1998, UN Doc CCPR/C/78/D/837/1998 (2003), para 6.4. 77 Feldbrugge v the Netherlands [1986] ECHR 4, para 10. 78 UN Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment 32 (2007), para 16. 79 See, for example: Deisl v Austria, HRC Communication 1060/2002, UN Doc CCPR/C/81/D/1060/2002 (2004), para 11.1 (property rights); Pretto and Others v Italy [1983] ECHR 15 (property rights); and Axen v Germany [1983] ECHR 14 (torts). 80 Casanovas v France, HRC Communication 441/1990, UN Doc CCPR/C/51/D/441/1990 (1994), para 5.2; Perterer v Austria, HRC Communication 1015/2001, UN Doc CCPR/C/81/D/1015/2001 (2004), para 9.2; Vargas-Machuca v Peru, HRC Communication 906/2000, UN Doc CCPR/C/75/D/906/2000 (2002); Frydlender v France [2000] ECHR 353; and Vilho Eskelinen and Others v Finland [2007] ECHR 314. 81 García Pons v Spain, HRC Communication 454/1991, UN Doc CCPR/C/55/D/454/1991 (1995), para 9.3; and Schuler-Zgraggen v Switzerland [1993] ECHR 29. 82 Y. L. v Canada, HRC Communication 112/1981, UN Doc CCPR/C/OP/1 at 28 (1984), para 9.3.