Not logged in Talk Contributions Create account Log in

Article Talk Read Edit View history Search Wikipedia

European Court of Human Rights

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Coordinates: 48.596389N 7.774167E

Main page Not to be confused with the European Court of Justice, the highest court of the European Union.
Contents
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR or ECtHR; French: Cour europenne des
Featured content European Court of Human Rights
droits de lhomme) is a supra-national or international court established by the European
Current events
Random article
Convention on Human Rights. It hears applications alleging that a contracting state has
Donate to Wikipedia breached one or more of the human rights provisions concerning civil and political rights set
Wikipedia store out in the Convention and its protocols. An application can be lodged by an individual, a
group of individuals or one or more of the other contracting states, and, besides judgments,
Interaction
the Court can also issue advisory opinions. The Convention was adopted within the context
Help
of the Council of Europe, and all of its 47 member states are contracting parties to the
About Wikipedia
Convention. The Court is based in Strasbourg, France.
Community portal
Recent changes
Contents
Contact page
1 History and structure
Tools 1.1 Protocol 14 reforms
What links here 2 Judges
Related changes 3 Plenary court and administration
Upload file
4 Jurisdiction
Special pages
4.1 Applications by individuals
Permanent link Signatories to the European Convention on
4.2 Inter-state cases
Page information Human Rights
Wikidata item 4.3 Advisory opinion
Established 1959 (initially)
Cite this page 5 Procedure and decisions
1998 (permanent)
6 Relationship with other courts
Print/export Country 47 member states of the Council

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 Create a book 6.1 The European Court of Justice of Europe
Download as PDF 6.2 National courts Location Strasbourg, France
Printable version
7 Criticism Authorized European Convention on Human
8 Architecture by Rights
In other projects
9 Honours and awards Decisions Grand Chamber of the European
Wikimedia Commons
are Court of Human Rights
Wikinews 10 Miscellanea
appealed to
11 See also
Languages No. of 47 judges. One from each of the
12 References positions 47 member states of the Council
13 External links of Europe
Azrbaycanca
Website echr.coe.int
Bn-lm-g
President

History and structure [ edit ]
Currently Guido Raimondi
()
The Court was established on 21 January 1959 on the basis of Article 19 of the European Since 2010 (judge), 2015 (President)

Convention on Human Rights when its first members were elected by the Consultative
Bosanski
Brezhoneg
Assembly of the Council of Europe.[1] The Convention charges the Court with ensuring the
Catal observance of the engagement undertaken by the contracting states in relation to the Convention
etina and its protocols, that is ensuring the enforcement and implementation of the European
Cymraeg Convention in the member states of the Council of Europe. The jurisdiction of the Court has been
Dansk recognised to date by all 47 member states of the Council of Europe. On 1 November, 1998, the
Deutsch
Court became a full-time institution and the European Commission of Human Rights, which used
Eesti
to decide on admissibility of applications, was abolished by Protocol 11.[2][3] Building of the European Court of

Human Rights
Espaol The accession of new states to the European Convention on Human Rights following the fall of
Esperanto the Berlin Wall in 1989 led to a sharp increase in applications filed in the Court. The efficiency of
Euskara
the Court was threatened seriously by the large number of pending applications, which were accumulating and increasing steadily. In

1999 8,400 applications were allocated to be heard. In 2003 27,200 cases were filed and the number of pending applications rose to
Franais
approximately 65,000. In 2005, the Court opened 45,500 case files. In 2009 57,200 applications were allocated, with the number of
pending applications rose to 119,300. At the time more than 90% of them were declared to be inadmissible, and the majority of cases
Hrvatski decided, around 60% of the decisions by the Court, related to what is termed repetitive cases, where the Court has already delivered
Bahasa Indonesia judgment finding a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights or where well established case law exists on a similar case.
Interlingua
Protocol 11 was designed to deal with the backlog of pending cases by establishing the Court and its judges as a full-time institution, by
slenska

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 Italiano simplifying the procedure and reducing the length of proceedings. However, as the workload of the Court
continued to increase, the contracting states agreed that further reforms were necessary and in May
Basa Jawa 2004 the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers adopted Protocol 14 to the European Convention on

Human Rights. Protocol 14 was drafted with the aim of reducing the workload of the Court and that of the
Kurd
Latina
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which supervises the execution of judgments, so that
Latvieu the Court could focus on cases that raise important human rights issues.[4]
Lietuvi
Magyar Protocol 14 reforms [ edit ]

Protocol 14 entered into force on 1 June 2010, three months after it was ratified by all 47 contracting

Nederlands
states to the Convention.[4] Between 2006 and 2010, Russia was the only contracting state to refuse to
ratify Protocol 14. In 2010, Russia ended its opposition to the protocol, in exchange for a guarantee that
A piece of the Berlin Wall
Norsk Russian judges would be involved in reviewing complaints against Russia.[5] Protocol 14 led to reforms in
in front of the European Court
Norsk nynorsk three areas: The Court's filtering capacity was reinforced to deal with clearly inadmissible applications,
of Human Rights
Polski new admissibility criteria were introduced so that cases where the applicant has not suffered a significant
Portugus
disadvantage would be declared inadmissible, and measures were introduced to deal more effectively
Romn
with repetitive cases.[4]

Simple English Protocol 14 amended the Convention so that judges would be elected for a non-renewable term of nine years, whereas previously judges
Slovenina served a six-year term with the option of renewal. Amendments were also made so that a single judge could reject plainly inadmissible
Slovenina
applications, while prior to this protocol only a three judge committee could make this final decision. In cases of doubt, the single judge
/ srpski
refers the applications to the Committee of the Court. A single judge may not examine applications against the state which nominated
Srpskohrvatski /
him. The three judge committee has jurisdiction to declare applications admissible and decide on the merits of the case if it was clearly
Suomi well founded and based on well established case law. Previously the three judge committee could only declare the case inadmissible, but
Svenska
could not decide on the merits of the case, which could only be done by a chambers of seven judges or the Grand Chamber. Protocol 14
/tatara
also provides that when a three judge committee decides on the merits of a case, the judge elected to represent that state is no longer a
Trke

compulsory member of this committee. The judge can be invited by the committee, to replace one of its members, but only for specific
reasons, such as when the application relates to the exhaustion of national legal remedies.[4]
Ting Vit
Protocol 14 empowered the Court to declare applications inadmissible where the applicant has not suffered a significant disadvantage
Vro
and which do not raise serious questions affecting the application or the interpretation of the Convention, or important questions
Yorb
concerning national law. The European Commissioner for Human Rights is now allowed to intervene in cases as a third party, providing
Edit links written comments and taking part in hearings. In order to reduce the workload of the Court, Protocol 14 states that the Court should

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 encourage the parties to reach a settlement at an early stage of the proceedings, especially in repetitive cases. The Committee of
Ministers supervises the settlement's execution. Protocol 14 also allows the Committee of Ministers to ask the Court to interpret a final
judgment if there are difficulties in the execution of a final judgment. In order to prevent repetitive applications concerning structural
problems in contracting states on which the Court has previously made a final decision, the Committee of Ministers can in exceptional
circumstances and with a two-thirds majority, initiate proceedings for non-compliance with a final decision in the Grand Chamber of the
Court. Article 17 of protocol 14 allows the European Union to become party to the Convention. In turn the Lisbon Treaty, which entered
force in December 2009, provides that the European Union should accede and become a party to the Convention.[4] The Committee of
Ministers is to evaluate in 2012 to 2015 the extent to which the implementation of Protocol 14 has improved the effectiveness of the
Court. The Committee of Ministers is to decide before 2019 whether more reforms of the Court are necessary.[4]

Judges [ edit ]

Main article: List of judges of the European Court of Human Rights

Judges are elected for a non-renewable nine-year term.[4] The number of full-time judges sitting in the Court is equal to the number of
contracting states to the European Convention on Human Rights, currently 47. The Convention requires that judges are of "high moral
character" and have qualifications suitable for high judicial office, or be jurisconsults of recognised competence. Each judge is elected by
majority vote in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe from among three candidates nominated by each contracting state.
[2] Judges are elected whenever a sitting judge's term has expired or when a new state accedes to the Convention. The retiring age of
judges is 70, but they may continue to serve as judges until a new judge is elected or until the cases in which they sit have come to an
end. The judges perform their duties in an individual capacity and are prohibited from having any institutional or other type of ties with the
contracting state in respect of whom they were elected. To ensure the independence of the Court, judges are not allowed to participate in
activity that may compromise the Court's independence. Judges cannot hear or decide a case if they have a family or professional
relationship with a party. A judge can be dismissed from office only if the other judges decide, by a two-thirds majority, that the judge has
ceased to fulfil the required conditions. Judges enjoy, during their term as judges, the privileges and immunities provided for in Article 40
of the Statute of the Council of Europe.[2]

Plenary court and administration [ edit ]

The plenary court is an assembly of all of the Court's judges. It has no judicial functions. It elects the court's president, vice-president,
registrar and deputy registrar. It also deals with administrative matters, discipline, working methods, reforms, the establishment of
Chambers and the adoption of the Rules of Court.[2]

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 Jurisdiction [ edit ]

The jurisdiction of the court is generally divided into inter-state cases, applications by individuals against contracting states, and advisory
opinions in accordance with Protocol No.2. Applications by individuals constitute the majority of cases heard by the Court.[2] A Committee
is constituted by three judges, Chambers by seven judges and a Grand Chamber by 17 judges.[2]

Applications by individuals [ edit ]

Applications by individuals against contracting states, alleging that the state violates their rights under the European Convention on
Human Rights, can be made by any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals. Although the official languages of the
Court are English and French, applications may be submitted in any one of the official languages of the contracting states. An application
has to be made in writing and signed by the applicant or by the applicant's representative.[6] Once registered with the Court, the case is
assigned to a judge rapporteur, who can make a final decision that the case is inadmissible. A case may be inadmissible when it is
incompatible with the requirements of ratione materiae, ratione temporis or ratione personae, or if the case cannot be proceeded with on
formal grounds, such as non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, lapse of the six months from the last internal decision complained of,
anonymity, substantial identity with a matter already submitted to the Court, or with another procedure of international investigation. If the
rapporteur judge decides that the case can proceed, the case is referred to a Chamber of the Court which, unless it decides that the
application is inadmissible, communicates the case to the government of the state against which the application is made, asking the
government to present its observations on the case. The Chamber of the Court then deliberates and judges the case on its admissibility
and its merits. Cases that raise serious questions of interpretation and application of the European Convention on Human Rights, a
serious issue of general importance, or which may depart from previous case law can be heard in the Grand Chamber if all parties to the
case agree to the Chamber of the Court relinquishing jurisdiction to the Grand Chamber. A panel of five judges decides whether the
Grand Chamber accepts the referral.[2][4]

Case examples

Assanidze v. Georgia, App. No. 71503/01 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Apr. 8, 2004)

Inter-state cases [ edit ]

Any contracting state to the European Convention on Human Rights can sue another contracting state in the Court for alleged breaches
of the Convention, although in practice this is very rare.[2] Until now only four interstate cases have been decided by the court:[7]

Ireland v. United-Kingdom (n 5310/71), judgement of 18.01.1978 on inhuman and degrading treatment in Northern Ireland (art. 3)

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 Denmark v. Turkey (n 34382/97), judgement of 05.04.2000 ratifying a friendly settlement of 450.000 DKK regarding a Danish national
detained in Turkey (art. 3)
Cyprus v. Turkey (n 25781/94), judgements of 10.05.2001 on the treatment of missing persons (art. 2, 3 & 5), the right of return of
Greek who have fled to the south (art. 8, 13 & P1-1), the rights of Greeks still living in the north (art. 3, 8, 9, 10, 13, P1-1, P1-2) and
the trial by military courts (art. 6). A subsequent judgement of 12.05.2014 awarded 90 million euro in 'just satisfaction' (art. 41)
Georgia v. Russian Federation (n 13255/07), judgement of 03.07.2014 on the collective expulsion of Georgians from Russia (art. 3,
5, 13, 38, P4-4) and Russia not cooperating with the Court (art. 38)

Advisory opinion [ edit ]

The Committee of Ministers may, by majority vote, ask the Court to deliver an advisory opinion on the interpretation of the European
Convention on Human Rights, unless the matter relates to the content and scope of fundamental rights which the Court already
considers.[2]

Procedure and decisions [ edit ]

After the preliminary finding of admissibility the Court examines the case by hearing representations from both parties. The Court may
undertake any investigation it deems necessary on the facts or issues raised in the application and contracting states are required to
provide the Court with all necessary assistance for this purpose. The European Convention on Human Rights requires all hearings to be
in public, unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying the holding of a private hearing. In practice the majority of cases are heard
in private following written pleadings. In confidential proceedings the Court may assist both parties in securing a settlement, in which case
the Court monitors the compliance of the agreement with the Convention. However, in many cases, a hearing is not held. The judgment
of the Grand Chamber is final. Judgments by the Chamber of the Court becomes final three months after they are issued, unless a
reference to the Grand Chamber for review or appeal has been made. If the panel of the Grand Chamber rejects the request for referral,
the judgment of the Chamber of the Court becomes final.[2] The Grand Chamber is made up of 17 judges: the Courts President and Vice-
Presidents, the Section Presidents and the national judge, together with other judges selected by drawing of lots.

The Court's chamber decides both issues regarding admissibility and merits of the case. Generally, both these issues are dealt with in the
same judgment. In final judgments the Court makes a declaration that a contracting state has violated the Convention, and may order the
contracting state to pay material and/or moral damages and the legal expenses incurred in domestic courts and the Court in bringing the
case. The Court's judgments are public and must contain reasons justifying the decision. Article 46 of the Convention provides that
contracting states undertake to abide by the Court's final decision. On the other hand, advisory opinions are, by definition, non-binding.

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 The Court has to date decided consistently that under the Convention it has no jurisdiction to
annul domestic laws or administrative practices which violate the Convention. The Committee of
Ministers of the Council of Europe is charged with supervising the execution of the Court's
judgments. The Committee of Ministers oversees the contracting states' changes to their national
law in order that it is compatible with the Convention, or individual measures taken by the
contracting state to redress violations. Judgments by the Court are binding on the respondent
states concerned and states usually comply with the Court's judgments.[2]
Grand Chamber of the European
Chambers decide cases by a majority. Any judge who has heard the case can attach to the Court of Human Rights
judgment a separate opinion. This opinion can concur or dissent with the decision of the Court. In
case of a tie in voting, the President has the casting vote.

Relationship with other courts [ edit ]

The European Court of Justice [ edit ]

Main article: Relationship between the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights

The Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) is not related to the European Court of Human Rights. However, since all EU states
are members of the Council of Europe and have signed the Convention on Human Rights, there are concerns about consistency in case
law between the two courts. The ECJ refers to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and treats the Convention on Human
Rights as though it was part of the EU's legal system, since it forms part of the legal principles of the EU member states. Even though its
member states are party to the Convention, the European Union itself is not a party, as it did not have competence to do so under
previous treaties. However, EU institutions are bound under article 6 of the EU Treaty of Nice to respect human rights under the
Convention. Furthermore, since the Treaty of Lisbon took effect on 1 December 2009, the EU is expected to sign the Convention. This
would mean that the Court of Justice is bound by the judicial precedents of the Court of Human Rights's case law and thus be subject to
its human rights law, avoiding issues of conflicting case law between these two courts.

However, to the surprise of many, in an opinion issued in December 2014 by the ECJ it rejected the accession to the European Court of
Human Rights in Opinion 2/13. [8]

National courts [ edit ]

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 Most of the Contracting Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights have incorporated the Convention into their own national
legal systems, either through constitutional provision, statute or judicial decision.[9]

Criticism [ edit ]

The court's interpretation of the Convention's reach is at times subject to criticism as either too narrow or too wide. For instance, the
former judge in respect of Cyprus, Loukis Loucaides, criticised the Court for a "reluctance to find violations in sensitive matters affecting
the interests of the respondent States".[10] On the other hand, the British Law Lord, Lord Hoffmann argued in 2009 that the Court has not
taken the doctrine of the margin of appreciation far enough, being "unable to resist the temptation to aggrandise its jurisdiction and to
impose uniform rules on Member States. It considers itself the equivalent of the Supreme Court of the United States, laying down a
federal law of Europe".[11] Lord Hoffman considered that the ability of the court to interfere in the detail of domestic law ought to be
curtailed.[12] He was in 2010 joined in the criticism by the president of the Belgian Constitutional Court, Marc Bossuyt,[13] who in 2014
also criticized the Court for being judicial activist as it expands the guarantees of the Treaty to issues that clearly were not included in the
Treaty nor intended by the framers. Bossuyt especially criticized the Court's handling of asylum cases with respect to articles 3 and 6 of
the Treaty.[14]

Criticism from Russia, a country held to be in violation of the Convention by the Court in many decisions, is frequent. The Court's judge in
respect of Russia, Anatoly Kovler, explaining his frequent dissenting opinions, noted that "I dislike when the Court evaluates non-
European values as reactionary (Refah v. Turkey)".[15] The chairman of the Russian Constitutional Court Valery Zorkin, pointing to the
Markin v. Russia case, stated that Russia has the right to create a mechanism of protection from Court decisions "touching the national
sovereignty, the basic constitutional principles".[16] Notably, in 2014 Russia was ordered by ECtHR to pay in excess of $2 billion in
damages to former shareholders of Yukos, which the court ruled was intentionally bankrupted by the government.[17][18]

There has also been criticism of the Court's structure. Loucaides wrote that by introducing in its Rules a Bureau, the Court created "a
separate collective organ that had nothing to do with the structure of the Court organs according to the Convention".[19] It has been said
that in failing to distinctly define how a consensus is reached reduces its legitimacy. Furthermore, as the ECtHR grows, the consensus
between the members diminishes.[20]

Architecture [ edit ]

Main article: European Court of Human Rights building

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 The building, which houses the court chambers and Registry (administration and
rfrendaires), was designed by the Richard Rogers Partnership and completed in
1995. The design is meant to reflect, amongst other things, the two distinct
components of the Commission and Court (as it was then). Wide scale use of glass
emphasises the openness of the court to European citizens.[citation needed]

Honours and awards [ edit ]

In 2010 the Court received the Freedom medal.[21] Main ECtHR building

Miscellanea [ edit ]

A statistical natural language processing method has been applied to automatically predict the outcome of cases tried by the European
Court of Human Rights (violation or no violation of a specific article) based on their textual contents, reaching a prediction accuracy of
79%.[22]

See also [ edit ]

African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights regional court established in 2006
European Court of Human Rights cases
Human rights in Europe
Inter-American Court of Human Rights regional court established in 1979
Margin of appreciation Legal doctrine of the European Court of Human Rights
Relationship between the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights

References [ edit ]

1. ^ "The court in brief" (PDF). European Court of Human Rights. 3. ^ "Details of Treaty No.155" . Council of Europe. Retrieved
Retrieved 11 February 2013. 31 October 2017.
2. ^ abcdefghij Smith, Rhona K.M.; van der Anker, Christien 4. ^ a b c d e f g h "Protocol no.14 Factsheet: The reform of the
(2005). The essentials of Human Rights . Hodder Arnold. p. 115. European Court of Human Rights" (PDF). Council of Europe. May
ISBN 0-340-81574-4. 2010. p. 1. Retrieved September 25, 2011.

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 5. ^ NY Times: Russia Ends Opposition to Rights Court 15. ^ : "
6. ^ Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. ..." (in Russian). Retrieved 4 November 2014.
7. ^ [1] 16. ^ . (29 October 2010). (in
8. ^ Brummer, Klaus (2008). Europischer Gerichtshof fr Russian). . Retrieved 4 November 2014.
Menschenrechte. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag. pp. 172173. 17. ^ Russia Today, Russia forced to accept 1.86bn compensation
9. ^ Helen Keller and Alec Stone Sweet, A Europe of Rights: The for former shareholders of oil giant , 17 December 2014
Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems (Oxford 18. ^ BBC, Russia ordered to pay $2.5bn to Yukos shareholders , 31
University Press, 2008). July 2014
10. ^ Loucaides L. Reflections of a Former European Court of Human 19. ^ Loucaides L. Reflections of a Former European Court of Human
Rights Judge on his Experiences as a Judge. Roma Rights 1, Rights Judge on his Experiences as a Judge // Roma Rights 1,
2010: Implementation of Judgments 2010: Implementation of Judgments
11. ^ Lord Hoffmann The Universality of Human Rights Archived 20. ^ "Roffee, J. A. (2014). No Consensus on Incest? Criminalisation
2011-12-19 at the Wayback Machine. Judicial Studies Board annual and Compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights".
lecture, 2009 doi:10.1093/hrlr/ngu023] .
12. ^ BBC News, "Judge attacks human rights court" , BBC News 21. ^ Four Freedoms Award#Freedom Medal
Online, (4 April 2009) 22. ^ N. Aletras; D. Tsarapatsanis; D. Preotiuc-Pietro; V. Lampos
13. ^ Stijn Smet President of Belgian Constitutional Court Criticises (2016). "Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of
European Court of Human Rights , 2010 Human Rights: a Natural Language Processing perspective" .
14. ^ Marc Bossuyt, Rechterlijk activisme in Straatsburg, Rechtskundig PeerJ Computer Science.
Weekblad, 2013-2014, nr. 19, 723-733.

External links [ edit ]

Official website of the European Court of Human Rights Wikimedia Commons has
Court judgments, decisions and case law website media related to European
Court of Human Rights.
Rules of the Court (PDF)
The European Unions accession to the European Convention on Human Rights

VTE Council of Europe [show]

VTE International human rights organisations and institutions [show]

WorldCat Identities VIAF: 130314390 LCCN: n80051793 ISNI: 0000 0001 2157 2700 GND: 1003803-6 SUDOC:
Authority control
028306317 BNF: cb12296982r (data)

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD
 Categories: Organizations based in France European Court of Human Rights Organizations based in Strasbourg
1998 establishments in France Human rights courts

This page was last edited on 31 October 2017, at 18:56.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy
Policy. Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Contact Wikipedia Developers Cookie statement Mobile view

Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD