Application Requirements and Admissibility Criteria
Approximately 90% of applications submitted to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) are rejected on the grounds that they fail to meet one of the admissibility criteria.
This statistic shows that individual applicants, and even many lawyers representing them, do not have sufficient knowledge of the admissibility requirements.
Below is a summary of the basic requirements that must be met for the Court to examine an application.
1. Application Form and Rule 47 of the Rules of Court
For your application to be declared admissible, the requirements set out in Rule 47 of the Rules of Court must be fully complied with.
In this regard:
The Court’s current official application form must be used.
All information requested in the form must be completed in full.
The summary of the case, explanations regarding the Convention violations, and the handwritten signature of the applicant or lawyer must be included at the end of the form.
Copies of relevant documents, such as decisions concerning domestic remedies, must be attached to the form.
The application must not be anonymous; the Court must be able to clearly identify the applicant through their name and contact details.
Incomplete, unsigned or unidentified applications are rejected by the Court without examination.
**2. Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies and the Four-Month Time Limit**
(Article 35 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights)
There are two basic conditions for lodging an application with the ECtHR:
- 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies
- 2. Lodging the application within four months from the final decision.
Four-Month Time Limit
The application form must be sent to the Court within four months from the date of the final domestic decision.
For example, if the date of the final decision is 20 January, the application form must be posted to the Court no later than before midnight on 20 May.
If the last day of the time limit falls on a weekend or a public holiday, the time limit is not extended.
The form must be completed in full; submitting an incomplete form does not interrupt the four-month time limit.
Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies
The applicant must have applied to the national judicial authorities in relation to the alleged violation and must have used all available effective domestic remedies.
These remedies generally include the following stages:
Civil, criminal or administrative courts of first instance,
Appeal and cassation stages, such as the Court of Cassation or the Council of State,
Where necessary, an individual application before the Constitutional Court.
In addition, the applicant must have complied with the time limits and procedural rules laid down by national law.
If the national courts have decided that the application cannot be examined because it was lodged out of time, the application before the ECtHR may also be declared inadmissible.
Raising the Complaints Before National Courts
In applications made before national judicial authorities, the substance of the complaints to be raised before the ECtHR must have been clearly presented.
In other words, the event alleged to constitute a violation of the Convention must also have been clearly brought to the attention of the national courts.
**3. Abuse of the Right of Application**
(Article 35 § 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights)
An application may be declared inadmissible if it constitutes an abuse of the right of individual application.
This may arise in the following situations:
The application is made under a false identity,
Forgery or falsification is made in the documents submitted to the Court,
New and important developments arising during the proceedings are concealed from the Court,
A decision in your favour or an important change is not notified to the Court,
Insulting or aggressive language is used in the application,
The confidentiality of friendly settlement negotiations is breached.
Such conduct may lead the Court to consider the application as an “abuse of the right of application” and to declare it inadmissible.
4. Repetitive Application or Application Submitted to Another International Body
(Article 35 § 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights)
If an application concerning the same complaints and the same facts has previously been examined by the Strasbourg Court, the new application will be considered repetitive and will not be admitted.
Similarly, if an application concerning the same facts and complaints has previously been submitted to another international body, such as the United Nations Human Rights Committee or a similar body, this will also constitute a ground of inadmissibility.
In short, the same matter cannot be brought before more than one international body simultaneously or repeatedly.
5. Victim Status
(Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights)
Only persons who are directly or indirectly victims of a rights violation may lodge an application.
Direct Victim
The person’s own rights must have been violated. For example, where a person has been subjected to ill-treatment in prison and the national authorities have failed to investigate or compensate this effectively.
Indirect Victim
If the direct victim died before lodging an application, a close relative, such as a spouse, child or parent, may continue the application, provided that they have a sufficient interest.
Potential Victim
If a deportation order has been issued against a foreign national but has not yet been enforced, and enforcement of that order would expose the person to a risk of torture or inhuman treatment, the person may be considered a “potential victim.”
After the Applicant’s Death
If the applicant dies while the proceedings before the Court are ongoing, their heirs or close relatives may continue the case, provided that they have a sufficient interest.
However, if the complaint is not directly connected to the applicant’s death, the Court may reject victim status.
6. Incompatibility Ratione Personae
(Article 35 § 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights)
For an alleged violation to be considered admissible, the act in question must have been carried out by a Contracting State or be attributable to that State.
The application will be declared inadmissible in the following situations:
If it is lodged against an individual or a private institution,
If it is lodged against a state that has not ratified the Convention or its additional protocols,
If it is lodged against international organisations that are not parties to the Convention, such as European Union institutions.
However, in cases arising from the implementation of European Union law by member states, the responsibility of the relevant state continues, and the application may be admissible.
Every natural person, private company or non-governmental organisation, regardless of nationality, status or legal capacity, has the right to apply to the Court.
7. Incompatibility Ratione Loci
(Article 35 § 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights)
The violation must have occurred within an area under the jurisdiction or effective control of the respondent state.
For example:
The actions of officials serving in a state’s diplomatic or consular missions may be attributable to that state if authority and control were exercised over the individual, even if those actions took place outside the state’s territory.
In short, if the alleged violation occurred outside the area of control of the state, the application will be considered incompatible ratione loci.
8. Incompatibility Ratione Temporis
(Article 35 § 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights)
The event or act complained of must have occurred after the date on which the Convention entered into force in respect of the respondent state.
However, if the violation began before the Convention entered into force and concerns a continuing situation after that date, the Court may also examine the application.
For example, in missing person cases, “enforced disappearance” is not a one-off event, but a continuing violation. As long as the fate of the missing person has not been clarified, the obligation to investigate continues, and the application may be considered admissible.
9. Incompatibility Ratione Materiae
(Article 35 § 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights)
The right relied upon by the applicant must be a right protected by the Convention or its Additional Protocols.
Examples of protected rights include:
- Right to life (Article 2)
- Prohibition of ill-treatment and torture (Article 3)
- Right to a fair trial (Article 6)
- Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8)
- Right to property (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1)
If the complaint concerns matters falling outside the scope of the Convention, such as the right to obtain a driving licence or permission to enter a foreign country, the application will be declared incompatible ratione materiae.
In addition, certain rights do not apply to specific types of cases. For example, the right to a fair trial under Article 6 does not, as a rule, apply to asylum or tax cases.
10. Absence of a Significant Disadvantage
(Article 35 § 3 (b) of the European Convention on Human Rights)
An application may be declared inadmissible if the applicant has not suffered a significant disadvantage.
When assessing whether an alleged violation deserves examination, the Court takes into account the seriousness of the disadvantage suffered.
If the amount of damage is very low, or if the case does not reach the minimum level of importance required for examination by an international court, the application may be rejected.
Examples include:
Damage of EUR 34 due to the non-enforcement of a court judgment,
A loss of EUR 200 due to delayed salary payment.
In such cases, the Court may find that the alleged violation does not amount to a “significant disadvantage.”
However, there are two safeguard clauses:
Respect for human rights: If the case raises a new issue or a matter of public interest concerning the protection of human rights, the Court may examine the merits of the case. For example, although the financial loss amounted to only EUR 17, the Court examined the merits because the case had been brought following a change in domestic law.
Effectiveness of national judicial protection: If the applicant did not have access to an effective domestic remedy, the Court may accept the case even where the damage is minor. For example, in a case involving damage of EUR 70, the application was declared admissible because there was no effective remedy available under domestic law.
Note: Following the entry into force of Protocol No. 15, the second safeguard clause concerning the effectiveness of national judicial protection will be removed.
11. Manifestly Ill-Founded Applications
(Article 35 § 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights)
Even if your application satisfies all formal admissibility requirements, it may still be declared manifestly ill-founded.
This occurs where the Court finds no indication that a right guaranteed by the Convention has been violated.
An application may be considered manifestly ill-founded in the following situations:
- If your complaint does not even appear to indicate a violation of a Convention right,
- If many similar cases have already been examined and no violation has been found, meaning that settled case-law exists,
- If the facts have not been sufficiently substantiated or the allegations are based only on assumptions,
- If the events complained of are objectively impossible to understand, excessively complex or clearly irrational,
- If the facts appear to be fabricated or clearly contrary to common sense.
The Court is also not a “fourth-instance court.” This means that it does not have the authority to reassess whether national court decisions were correct, how domestic law was applied, or whether the applicant was guilty.
The Court’s role is limited to examining whether the rights guaranteed under the Convention have been violated. It does not review the fairness of domestic decisions or the assessment of evidence as such.
Admissibility of an Application to the ECtHR
Formal requirement under Rule 47 of the Rules of Court: The current official application form must be completed in full, the summary of the violation and legal grounds must be clearly set out, the necessary annexes such as final decisions must be attached, and the applicant or representative must provide handwritten signatures. Incomplete, unsigned or anonymous applications are rejected immediately.
Procedural preconditions under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention: Effective domestic remedies must have been exhausted in accordance with the applicable procedures and time limits. A complete application must be lodged within four months from the final decision. The substance of the complaints to be raised before the ECtHR must also have been raised before the national courts.
Incompatibility and victim status: The application must fall within the scope of the Convention in terms of person, place, time and subject matter — ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis and ratione materiae — and the alleged violation must be attributable to the state. The applicant must have victim status, whether direct, indirect or potential. Repetitive applications or applications concerning the same matter already submitted to another international body are not accepted.
Other filters: The application must not constitute an abuse of the right of application, such as through forgery, concealment of facts or insulting language. It may also be rejected if there is no significant disadvantage. In addition, manifestly ill-founded applications, such as those lacking evidence, contradicting settled case-law or merely seeking fourth-instance review, are not accepted.
For an application to the ECtHR to be declared admissible, it must be complete, submitted within the time limit, directed against the correct respondent, based on a violation falling within the scope of the Convention, and lodged by a victim.
Relevant Links
