Rules of Procedure of the European Court of Human Rights

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Basic data
Title: Rules of Procedure of the European Court of Human Rights
Short title: Rules of Procedure of the Court
Abbreviation: Ed
Type: Procedural rules
Scope: European Court of Human Rights
Issued on the basis of: Art. 25 lit. d ECHR
Legal matter: Procedural law
Issued on: November 04, 1998
Entry into force on: November 04, 1998
Last change by: August 01, 2018

Plenary session of the ECHR

Weblink: Liechtenstein: LR no. 0.101.4

Switzerland: SR 0.101.2
ECHR: Rules of Court

Please note the note on the applicable legal version.

The procedural rules of the European Court of Human Rights (VerfO) (abbreviated as the procedural rules of the court ) are called in the official languages ​​of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in English: "Rules of Court" and in French: "Règlement de la Cour".

It was drawn up by the plenum of the ECHR and contains provisions in which the procedure, responsibilities, organization, admissibility of complaints and other formal requirements at the ECHR are regulated.

The drafting of the Rules of Procedure by the plenary session of the ECHR is set out in Art. 25 lit. the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) , according to which the ECHR regulates its own procedures. The Rules of Procedure are revised by the ECHR at irregular intervals and after the decision of the plenary it becomes legally binding and legally binding.

The ECHR regulates in Section II: European Court of Human Rights the key points of the procedure at the ECHR, which are specified and expanded by the Rules of Procedure.

The constitution is not an international treaty and does not have to be ratified by the participating member states.

Content of the constitution

It consists of the introduction and 4 titles, which in turn are divided into chapters

  • Art. 1 Definitions
  • Title I Organization and functioning of the Court of Justice
  • Title II The Procedure
  • Title III Transitional Provisions
  • Title IV Final Provisions

Since the Rules of Procedure also specify the provisions in Section II of the ECHR, there are some overlaps. This can lead to contradictions and ambiguities. Both Art. 37 ECHR and Art. 43 Rules of Procedure regulate the deletion and re-entry of complaints in the register. The admissibility requirements are listed in Art. 35 ECHR and Art. 45 - 47 Constitution, the expert opinions in Art. 47 - 49 ECHR and Art. Art. 82 - Art. 95 Constitution, the single judge in Art. 26, Art. 27 ECHR and in Art. 27a, Art. 52a Rules of Procedure, the amicable settlement in Art. 39 ECHR and in Art. 62 Rules of Procedure etc.

Special features of the Rules of Procedure

Complaint form

Art. 47 of the Rules of Procedure has regulated since January 1st, 2014 that the ECHR form should be used for individual complaints to the ECHR. The complaint must contain all the information requested in the complaint form. This information can be supplemented by attaching a document of no more than twenty pages to the complaint form in which additional information on the matter is given. To this end, the ECHR created a leaflet for filling out the complaint form and a guide to the admissibility requirements . Furthermore, the Rules of Procedure, according to Art. 47 Paragraph 5.1, stipulate that complaints that have not been submitted using the form or for which the form is incomplete or incorrectly filled out can be rejected for this reason alone.

Art. 46 of the Rules of Procedure stipulates that this admissibility requirement does not apply to the member states; they can also submit their state complaints without a form.

Provisional measures

Article 39 of the Rules of Procedure allows the ECHR to take provisional measures (VM) if irreparable damage threatens. This essentially concerns the threat of deportation, extradition, the force-feeding of prisoners on hunger strike or child abduction. Even if these measures are only provided for in the Rules of Procedure and not in the ECHR, the states are obliged to comply with them.

In the request for a provisional measure, the reasons, the nature of the alleged risks and the provisions of the ECHR that are allegedly violated must be detailed. To this end, all necessary and supporting documents that can support the adoption of a provisional measure must be attached. It must be submitted to the ECHR immediately after the final domestic decision so that the ECHR has sufficient time to examine the matter.

However, the Court will only adopt a provisional measure if, after reviewing all relevant information, it considers that the applicant is exposed to a real risk of irreparable harm should the measure not be adopted. Applications for the adoption of a provisional measure according to Art. 39 Rules of Procedure should be sent by fax or post. Applications sent by email will not be processed by the Court. If possible, the application should be written in one of the official languages ​​of the contracting states. All requests should be marked in bold at the beginning with: Rule 39 - Urgent ; Contact person (name and contact details) and the reason for the request.

If the ECHR approves the request, it will ask the government concerned to suspend the intended coercive measure until the complaint has been examined. A violation of a measure ordered by the European Court of Human Rights is a violation of Art. 34 ECHR, since the states are obliged not to hinder the complainants from effectively exercising their rights (e.g. complaint 39806/05 in the context of Paladi against Moldova [GC]) , §§ 87-92).

Preliminary measures in the event of state complaints

States can also request provisional measures at the ECHR. Ukraine had demanded such measures in the state complaint against Russia (20958/14, Ukraine v. Russia). Thereupon the ECHR had in a provisional measure according to Art. 39 of the Constitution requires both parties to the dispute to refrain from all measures, especially those of a military nature, which are likely to cause violations of the rights guaranteed in the ECHR and their obligations, in particular from Art. 2 ECHR (right to life) and Art. 3 ECHR (Prohibition of inhumane treatment). The same in the two state complaints 13255/07 and 38263/08 in the context of Georgia v. Russia.

Amicable agreement

She's in Art. 62 Rules of Procedure (as desired incidence rule) and Art. 39 ECHR (as may provided incidence rule). It is also known as an out-of-court settlement because the court does not make a judgment.

If the ECHR has admitted a complaint, it submits a proposal for an amicable settlement to the defendant state. The procedure is confidential and if no agreement can be reached, this may not be used in the court hearing (Art. 62 Para. 2 Rules of Procedure, Art. 39 Para. 2 ECHR).

However, if an agreement is reached, this is recorded by the ECHR in a decision and the complaint is then deleted from the register (Art. 43 Para. 3 Rules of Procedure, Art. 75 Para. 4 Rules of Procedure). No violation of the Convention is found in this decision, only an agreement between the parties on redress, e.g. B. on the payment of compensation, lifting of coercive measures.

This decision of the ECHR is forwarded to the Committee of Ministers, which monitors the implementation of the amicable settlement (Art. 43 Par. 4 Rules of Procedure, Art. 39 Par. 4 ECHR). If the amicable settlement agreed on damages or the repeal of measures, the defendant state informs the Committee of Ministers about the implementation of the agreed measures (Art. 46 Para. 1 ECHR).

Legal aid, legal aid

It is listed in Chapter XII, Art. 105 - Art. 110 Rules of Procedure (English Legal Aid , French de l'assistance judiciaire ). In Germany and Switzerland it is referred to as “legal aid”, in Liechtenstein and Austria as “legal aid”.

Legal assistance is not required to file a complaint. If a complaint is declared admissible by the European Court of Human Rights, the President of the Chamber can order legal counsel (Art. 36 Rules of Procedure). Complainants who do not have sufficient financial means to pay the legal fees incurred in whole or in part can fill out a declaration form which shows their financial situation and the correctness of the information has been confirmed by the competent authority (Art. 107 Rules of Procedure).

Legal aid will only be granted if this aid is necessary for the proper examination of the complaint and the complainant does not have sufficient financial means to pay all or part of the costs (Art. 106 Rules of Procedure).

In some cases, in addition to the complainant, the human rights of third parties are also affected and can participate in the proceedings (Art. 36 ECHR). They can also submit a request for legal aid or legal aid.

Collective decisions

The reason is the chronic overload of the ECHR, since it is not provided with the necessary resources. For collective decisions, the Rules of Procedure stipulate that similar complaints can be summarized and assessed by the ECHR (judgment), declared inadmissible (inadmissible) or struck out of the list of pending cases. This mainly concerns:

  • Friendly settlements, Art. 62 Rules of Procedure (Art. 39 ECHR)
  • Admissibility checks by a committee or a chamber of the ECHR, Art. 45 - 47 Rules of Procedure (Art. 35 ECHR)
  • Pilot judgment procedure , Art. 61 Rules of Procedure

In September 2011, around 160,000 complaints were pending at the ECHR. In order to reduce this number, which has grown steadily in recent years, Art. 42, the connection and simultaneous examination of complaints , was introduced into the Rules of Procedure by the ECHR.

This includes smaller cases such as B. the judgment 48420/10 of the ECHR of January 15, 2013 in the sense of Eweida et al against England , in which 4 complaints were assessed together up to cases with over a thousand complaints.

In the 2017 statistical analysis of the European Court of Human Rights, it was pointed out that the Grand Chamber struck 12,148 complaints from the register in a single judgment on October 12, 2017. In the 2017 annual report of the ECHR, the reasons for this decision are given and it is pointed out that these complaints were intended for pilot judgment proceedings. Due to the significant structural deficiencies in Ukraine and the lack of will on the part of Ukraine to remedy these abuses (pilot judgment of October 15, 2009 in the name of Ivanov c. Ukraine), 12,148 complaints due to hopelessness were declared “inadmissible” and removed from the list of pending cases painted.

Pilot judgment process

In the two official languages ​​of the ECHR, this is referred to as “pilot judgment” in English and “l'arrêt pilote” in French (Art. 61 of the Rules of Procedure).

The principle of the ECHR is subsidiarity, thus the contractual obligation of the states to actually and effectively implement the ECHR on their national territory. The Court of Justice in Strasbourg should only take corrective action in exceptional cases.

However, failure of a state to meet its obligations will result in hundreds or even thousands of individual complaints relating to the same maladministration being brought to the Court of Justice on the same issue.

The main task of the ECHR is to ensure compliance with the contractual obligations of the member states (Art. 19 ECHR). If he discovers systemic errors or structural problems in a member state, he can oblige them in his judgments to remedy the cause (s) and to take effective remedial action (Art. 46 No. 1 ECHR). It is then the task of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to monitor the execution of judgments and the removal of the structural problems identified by the ECHR (Art. 46 ECHR). However, the ECHR does not provide for any coercive measures against a fallible state.

If the ECtHR has several such complaints of the same kind against a state, which can be traced back to the same structural cause, it can select one or more cases for priority treatment under the pilot judgment procedure. In the pilot assessment process, the ECHR's task is not only to decide whether there has been a violation of the ECHR in each case, but also to identify the structural problem and to provide the government with clear information on how the internal problem is to be resolved in accordance with the Convention.

For this reason, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in resolution 2004 (3) of May 12, 2004, instructed the ECHR to determine in its judgments which structural problems, in its opinion, are responsible for the violations of the Convention, what the causes are, and what the states are urged to do in order to remedy these internal causes within the deadline. At the same time, the Committee of Ministers issued Recommendation 2004 (6) of 12 May 2004, in which the member states were instructed to provide effective legal remedies in the event of structural or general deficits in national law or its implementation in order to deal with repeated complaints to the ECHR to prevent.

The pilot judgment procedure arose in the case of Broniowski against Poland concerning the compensation of those displaced from eastern Poland in 1945 (Art. 1 of the 1st ZP - ECHR). The ECtHR pointed out that at the time of the judgment at the ECtHR this case concerning 167 complaints was pending. Poland was committed to creating effective legal remedies and ensuring that property compensation claims were fairly regulated. A friendly settlement was then reached. In February 2011 the Court of Justice added Art. 46 pilot judgment procedure to its Rules of Procedure .

On September 23, 2008, based on the pilot judgment Broniowski against Poland , the case of EG and 175 other complaints against Poland were assessed.

See also

References of the rules of procedure

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b c Rules of Procedure of the European Court of Human Rights. (PDF) In: Federal Law - Systematic Legal Collection. The Federal Council - The Portal of the Swiss Government, August 1, 2018, accessed on January 26, 2019 (German translation).
  2. ↑ Rules of Court. (PDF) European Court of Human Rights, August 1, 2018, accessed on January 26, 2019 (ECHR Rules of Procedure in English).
  3. ^ Règlement de la Cour. (PDF) Cour Européenne des Droits de L'homme, August 1, 2018, accessed on January 26, 2019 (ECHR Rules of Procedure in French).
  4. ↑ a b c Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In: Federal Law - Systematic Collection of Laws. The Federal Council - The Portal of the Swiss Government, February 23, 2012, accessed on January 27, 2019 (German translation).
  5. ↑ Complaint form. (PDF) ECHR , accessed January 27, 2019 .
  6. ↑ Leaflet for completing the complaint form. (PDF) ECHR , accessed January 27, 2019 .
  7. ↑ Guide to the eligibility requirements. (PDF) ECHR , accessed January 27, 2019 .
  8. ↑ New form for complaints to the ECHR. Holger Hembach Attorney at Law, January 11, 2016, accessed on January 27, 2019 .
  9. ↑ Europ. Human Rights Convention and Court of Human Rights. Eligibility requirements and guidelines for complaints. German Institute for Human Rights , accessed on January 27, 2019 .
  10. ↑ a b Information sheet - Preliminary measures. (PDF) ECHR Press Unit, January 2013, accessed February 3, 2019 .
  11. ^ A b Philip Leach: Human rights work in Europe, the ECHR. Legal Process - File a Complaint, Paragraph 4. Friedrich Ebert Foundation (FES), accessed on February 3, 2019 .
  12. ↑ a b Requests for provisional measures. (PDF) Practical procedure arrangement. President of the ECHR in accordance with Art. 32 Rules of Procedure, September 19, 2016, accessed on February 3, 2019 .
  13. ^ Information sheet - Hunger strike in custody. (PDF) ECHR Press Unit, January 2013, accessed February 3, 2019 .
  14. ↑ Information sheet - International Child Abduction. (PDF) ECHR Press Unit, July 2014, accessed February 3, 2019 .
  15. ↑ Rule 39 requests granted and refused. (PDF) Art. 39 Rules of Procedure, provisional measures granted / not granted. Retrieved February 3, 2019 .
  16. ↑ Interim measure granted in inter-state case brought by Ukraine against Russia. Press release ECHR 073 (2014) from March 13, 2014. ECHR, March 13, 2014, accessed on February 3, 2019 (English, French, download link from the ECHR).
  17. ↑ Prof. Dr. Marten Breuer: The ECHR, crushed in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine? Verfassungsblog, March 18, 2014, accessed February 3, 2019 .
  18. ↑ Dr. Thomas Heidel: Complaint under the ECHR. Amicable agreement. In: Contribution from German lawyer Office Premium. Haufe.de, accessed on February 3, 2019 .
  19. ↑ Europ. Human Rights Convention and Court of Human Rights. Financial assistance for third parties in proceedings before the ECHR. German Institute for Human Rights , accessed on February 3, 2019 .
  20. ↑ Annual Reports - annual reports of the ECHR. Retrieved on February 3, 2019 : “The annual reports refer to the overload.
    JB 2010, p. 37 ff. Concerns (The Court's extremely high caseload has already had certain negative consequences.)
    JB 2011, p. 13 ff. Mounting pressure on the Convention system
    JB 2012, p. 48 ff. Violations should be remedied at home (The Court is overloaded.)
    JB 2013, p. 20 ff. Speech given by Mr Dean Spielmann, (We have managed to put together practical solutions to the problems caused by our excessive caseload)
    JB 2014, p. 13 ff. The Court In 2014
    JB 2016, p. 5 The Court continued its efforts to reduce the backlog of cases, but the real challenge remains the Chamber cases. "
  21. ↑ ECHR The most important points in brief. Overload of the ECHR. Humanrights information platform , accessed on February 3, 2019 .
  22. ^ Philip Leach: Current and Future Institutional Challenges. Human rights work in Europe, the ECHR. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES), accessed on February 3, 2019 .
  23. ↑ Interlaken Declaration on the Reform of the ECHR. Numbers that underline the overload of the court. Humanrights information platform , accessed on February 3, 2019 .
  24. ^ Decision Time on the European Court of Human. (PDF) Amnesty International et al., Accessed February 3, 2019 . Intern. NGO appeal to reform the ECHR
  25. ↑ European Court of Human Rights (Ed.): Annual Report 2012 . 2012, ISBN 978-92-871-9971-3 , pp. 8 (English, online [PDF; accessed on January 27, 2019] Annual Report 2012 of the ECHR). "The number of pending applications, had topped 160,000 in September 2011 and stood at 151,600 on January 1, 2012"
  26. ↑ a b Procedure at the ECHR. In: humanrights.ch. October 12, 2011, accessed January 28, 2019 .
  27. ↑ European court: nurse is not allowed to wear a crucifix. In: Spiegel Online . January 15, 2013, accessed January 27, 2019 (ECHR judgment on freedom of religion in Great Britain).
  28. ↑ CASE OF EWEIDA AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Applications nos. 48420/10, 59842/10, 51671/10 and 36516/10). ECHR , May 27, 2013, accessed on January 27, 2019 (English, "crucifix" - judgment 48420/10 of the ECHR of January 15, 2013 in the context of Eweida and others v. England).
  29. ↑ Analysis of statistics 2017. (PDF) Retrieved January 27, 2019 (English, statistical analysis 2017 of the ECHR). S. 5, above: "This difference in percentage is explained by the fact that in 2017 the Grand Chamber struck out 12,148 applications in a single judgment.
  30. ↑ Burmych and Others v. Ukraine (striking out) (GC) - 46852/13, 47786/13, 54125/13 et al. ECHR , October 12, 2017, accessed on January 27, 2019 (English, judgment of the Grand Chamber of October 12, 2017).
  31. ^ Case of Yuriy Nikolayevich Ivanov v. Ukraine. In: HUDOC . Retrieved on January 27, 2019 (ECHR pilot judgment 40450/04 of October 15, 2009 in the context of Ivanov c. Ukraine regarding effective legal remedies in the event of non-implementation of legally binding court judgments).
  32. ↑ ANNUAL REPORT 2017 - European Court of Human Rights. (PDF) Chapter: Execution of pilot judgments (Article 46) (of the ECHR ). P. 136 ff , accessed on January 28, 2019 (English, 2017 ECHR annual report). "By the date of the Grand Chamber's judgment, there were over 12,000 Ivanov-type cases pending before the Court, with approximately 200 introduced per month since the beginning of 2016." (p. 136 middle); "It proceeded to strike out all those applications (namely, the initial five applications as well as over 12,000 pending applications)." (P. 138 middle)
  33. ^ Strike-out and transmission to the Committee of Ministers of more than 12,000 Ukrainian cases. (PDF) In: HUDOC . October 12, 2017, accessed on January 28, 2019 (English, information from the Committee of Ministers about the deletion of the complaints in the case of Burmych et al v. Ukraine).
  34. ↑ Summary of the Burmych et al v. Ukraine. (PDF) Austrian Institute for Human Rights (ÖIM) , accessed on January 28, 2019 (republication of NLMR 5/2017 (Newsletter for Human Rights) for the HUDOC database).
  35. ↑ pilot judgments. (PDF) ECHR , July 2014, accessed on January 28, 2019 (information sheet on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)).
  36. ↑ RESOLUTION Res (2004) 3 of the Committee of Ministers on the judgments which reveal an underlying structural problem. (PDF) Retrieved January 27, 2019 (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on May 12, 2004 at its 114th session; unofficial translation from French).
  37. ↑ Recommendation Rec (2004) 6 of the Committee of Ministers to the Member States on improving domestic legal remedies. (PDF) Retrieved January 28, 2019 (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on May 12, 2004 at its 114th session).
  38. ↑ Case of Broniowski v. Poland. Application no. 31443/96. HUDOC , June 22, 2004, accessed on January 28, 2019 (English, judgment, p. 69 ff and p. 73, points 3 and 4, where Poland was obliged to provide effective legal remedies).
  39. ↑ Grand Chamber Judgment - Broniowski v. Poland. HUDOC , June 22, 2004, accessed on January 28, 2019 (English, ECHR press release on June 22, 2004 in the context of Broniowski v Poland).
  40. ↑ a b Case of Broniowski v. Poland. Judgment (Friendly settlement). HUDOC , September 28, 2005, accessed on January 28, 2019 (English, "Broniowski v. Poland": judgment, p. 16 No. 34 ff "Implications of a pilot judgment procedure").
  41. ↑ Fourth Section Decision - Pilot-Judgment Procedure - Application no. 50425/99 by EG against Poland. HUDOC , September 23, 2008, accessed on January 29, 2019 (English, first pilot judgment 50.425 / 99 of the ECHR from September 23, 2008 due to excessive length of the proceedings and insufficient compensation).