EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Regional protection of human rights

Rights guaranteed by the ECHR THE RIGHT TO LIFE

 Prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

The right to liberty and security of person Right to a fair trial

The right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence

The right to marry and to found a family

The right to freedom of expression The right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others

The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion

The right to the peaceful enjoyment of one's possessions

 The right to regular, free and fair elections  The right to education

The competence of ECtHR  Inter-state applications (33 ECHR)  Any High Contracting Party may refer to the Court any alleged breach of the provisions of the Convention and the Protocols thereto by another High Contracting Party.  Advisory opinions (Art. 47 ECHR)  The Court may, at the request of the Committee of Ministers, give advisory opinions on legal questions concerning the interpretation of the Convention and the Protocols thereto.

The competence of ECtHR  Individual complaints (Art. 34 ECHR)  The Court may receive applications from any person, non- governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.  Decision on the failure to execute a judgment (Art. 46 ECHR)  If the Committee of Ministers considers that a High Contracting Party refuses to abide by a final judgment in a case to which it is a party, it may refer to the Court the question whether that Party has failed to fulfil its obligation;  If the Court finds a violation, it shall refer the case to the Committee of Ministers for consideration of the measures to be taken.

Admissibility criteria 1. The Six Months Rule 2. Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies 3. Ratione materiae 4. Ratione loci 5. Ratione temporis 6. Ratione personae 7. Anonymous application 8. The case manifestly ill-founded 9. The case already examined by the Court or other international court or tribunal 10. An abuse of the right to petition 11. Significant disadvantage

Domestic remedies and the six months rule  Article 35(1): The Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, and within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken.  In order to exhaust domestic remedies the remedy available must be effective.  The burden falls on the government to show the availability of such a remedy.  It is then for the applicant to point out that it was either exhausted or was in fact ineffective.  Only in truly exceptional circumstances will an applicant be absolved from an obligation to exhaust all available remedies (Akdivar v Turkey, 16 September 1996).  At the same time, if the applicant does pursue a remedy which was not effective this will affect the admissibility of his or her application if, as a result, she or he has missed the six month time limit.

The case manifestly ill-founded  Cases which have failed to disclose sufficient evidence to substantiate a violation;  Where the facts do not disclose an interference;  where an interference is plainly justified or  where the applicant has ceased to be a victim.

Effective remedy It must be capable of providing redress including making a binding decision; It must be accessible; The personal circumstances of the applicant is relevant; Discretionary remedies are insufficient; The remedy must offer a reasonable prospect of success; Undue delays may render a remedy insufficient.

Other criteria  Incompatible ratione temporis: the Convention is not binding on the State at the time of the events complained of;  Incompatible ratione loci: the complaint relates to a place where the Convention is not binding;  Incompatible ratione personae: the complaint relates to a person not bound by the Convention, or over whom the Convention organs have no jurisdiction;  Incompatible ratione materiae: the complaint relates to a right not provided by the Convention;

New admissibility criterion  The Court can declare applications inadmissible if:  1) "the applicant has not suffered a significant disadvantage", unless (2) respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto requires an examination of the application on the merits" and (3) "provided that no case may be rejected on this ground which has not been duly considered by a domestic tribunal."

Significant disadvantage Adrian Mihai Ionescu v. RomaniaAdrian Mihai Ionescu v. Romania, Korolev v. RussiaKorolev v. Russia  external assessment of extent of the disadvantage in itself;  pecuniary interest involved is not the only element to determine whether the applicant has suffered a significant disadvantage.  the relation of that loss to the particular situation of the allged victim  even modest pecuniary damage may be significant in the light of the person's specific condition and the economic situation of the country or region in which he or she lives.

Necessity of the reform  The Court’s excessive workload is due to two factors in particular:  The processing of a great number of applications that are declared inadmissible (more than 90% on which a decision is made)  applications related to structural issues in which the Court has already delivered judgments finding a violation of the Convention and where a well established case law exists. These applications, called repetitive cases, account for around 60% of the judgments of the Court every year.

Pending allocated cases

Changes introduced by Protocol 14  Protocol 14 introduces changes in three main areas:  reinforcement of the Court’s filtering capacity to deal with clearly inadmissible applications (competence of a single judge)  a new admissibility criterion concerning cases in which the applicant has not suffered a significant disadvantage  measures for dealing more efficiently with repetitive cases (friendly settlements, competence of 3 judges committee)