Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Overview1959-2015
ECHR
This document has been prepared by the Public Relations Unit of the Court, and does not bind the Court. It is intended to provide basic general information about the way the Court works.For more detailed information, please refer to documents issued by the Registry, available on the Court’s website: www.echr.coe.int.
© European Court of Human Rights, March 2016
European Court of Human RightsPublic Relations UnitCouncil of EuropeF-67075 Strasbourg cedex
3Overview 1959-2015
Violation judgments by State
Since it was established in 1959 the Court has delivered about 18,500 judgments. Nearly half of the judgments concerned 5 member States: Turkey (3,182), Italy (2,336), the Russian Federation (1,720), Romania (1,197) and Poland (1,099).
Of the total number of judgments it has delivered since 1959, the Court has found at least one violation of the Convention by the respondent State in 84% of cases.
United Kingdom 2.83% Bulgaria
3.10% Greece 4.74% France
5.18%
Ukraine 5.67%
Poland 5.91%
Romania 6.44%
Russian Federation 9.26%
Italy 12.57%
Turkey 17.13%
Other States 27.17%
Statistics 1959 to 2015
4 Overview 1959-2015
Judgments delivered by the Court
In recent years the Court has concentrated on examining complex cases, and has decided to join certain applications which raise similar legal questions so that it can consider them jointly.
Although the number of judgments delivered each year by the Court has decreased, more applications have been examined by it.
Since it was set up, the Court has decided on the examination of around 674,000 applications.
Years 1959-1998
Year 1999
Year 2000
Year 2001
Year 2002
Year 2003
Year 2004
Year 2005
Year 2006
Year 2007
Year 2008
Year 2009
Year 2010
Year 2011
Year 2012
Year 2013
Year 2014
Year 2015
837
177
695
888
844
703
718
1,105
1,560
1,503
1,543
1,625
1,499
1,157
1,093
916
891
823
5Overview 1959-2015
Applications
allocated to a
judicial
formation
Applications
declared
inadmissible
or struck out
Applications in
which
judgment was
delivered
Total number
of applications
decided
1959-2015 1959-2015 1959-2015 1959-2015Albania 1,012 520 97 617Andorra 72 63 6 69Armenia 2,306 1,276 62 1,338Austria 8,901 8,215 385 8,600Azerbaijan 4,315 2,638 166 2,804Belgium 4,895 4,271 249 4,520Bosnia and Herzegovina 6,980 6,019 126 6,145Bulgaria 14,296 12,881 674 13,555Croatia 13,312 12,476 344 12,820Cyprus 1,080 939 91 1,030Czech Republic 11,939 11,560 251 11,811Denmark 1,722 1,638 47 1,685Estonia 2,951 2,827 54 2,881Finland 4,997 4,802 186 4,988France 30,618 28,765 1,060 29,825Georgia 5,846 3,631 64 3,695Germany 28,510 27,984 319 28,303Greece 7,801 5,799 1,131 6,930Hungary 13,859 8,805 466 9,271Iceland 218 180 16 196Ireland 947 908 31 939Italy 42,524 29,864 3,182 33,046Latvia 3,797 3,536 108 3,644Liechtenstein 135 122 8 130Lithuania 5,157 4,680 132 4,812Luxembourg 592 541 44 585Malta 320 209 72 281Republic of Moldova 11,787 10,204 393 10,597Monaco 83 75 4 79Montenegro 1,947 1,741 37 1,778Netherlands 9,461 8,952 170 9,122Norway 1,574 1,464 47 1,511Poland 62,839 60,123 1,110 61,233Portugal 3,477 2,550 465 3,015Romania 61,292 56,192 1,660 57,852Russian Federation 135,152 123,330 2,748 126,078San Marino 74 52 16 68Serbia 24,602 22,957 545 23,502Slovak Republic 7,403 6,864 352 7,216Slovenia 8,633 6,646 349 6,995Spain 10,579 10,312 200 10,512Sweden 9,704 9,471 146 9,617Switzerland 6,567 6,240 165 6,405'The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia'
4,598 4,236 123 4,359
Turkey 62,147 49,702 4,163 53,865Ukraine 76,585 57,982 4,815 62,797United Kingdom 23,408 21,239 1,795 23,034TOTAL 741,014 645,481 28,674 674,155
Throughput of applications 1959* - 2015
* This table includes cases dealt with by the European Commission of Human Rights prior to 1959.
6 Overview 1959-2015
Subject-matter of the Court’s violation judgments (1959-2015)
More than 41% of the violations found by the Court have concerned Article 6 of the Convention, whether on account of the fairness (17.63%) or the length of the proceedings (22.13%).
The second violation most frequently found by the Court has concerned the right to liberty and security (Article 5).
Lastly, in 14.72% of cases, the Court has found a serious violation of the Convention, concerning the right to life or the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment (Articles 2 and 3).
Right to life (Art. 2) 4.52%
Right to respect for private and family life
(Art. 8) 4.67%
Other violations 6.36%
Right to an effective remedy (Art. 13)
8.33%
Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading
treatment (Art. 3) 10.20%
Protection of property (P1-1) 12.18% Right to liberty and security
(Art. 5) 12.43%
Right to a fair trial (Art. 6) 41.31%
7Overview 1959-2015
Subject-matter of the Court’s violation judgments(Comparative Graph 1959-2015 & 2015)
The violation most frequently found by the Court concerns Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), particularly with regard to the excessive length of the proceedings. In 2015 a quarter of all violations found by the Court related to this provision.
For a number of years, however, other violations of the Convention have been found increasingly frequently. One example is the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3): in 2015 this provision also accounted for almost one quarter of all the violations found.
Right to life(Art. 2) Right to
respect forprivate andfamily life
(Art. 8)
Otherviolations Right to an
effectiveremedy (Art.
13)
Prohibitionof torture
and inhumanor degrading
treatment(Art. 3)
Protection ofproperty (P1-
1)Right to
liberty andsecurity (Art.
5)
Right to afair trial (Art.
6)
6.98% 5.26% 7.33% 9.48%
23.02%
8.10%
15.69%
24.14% 4.52% 4.67% 6.36% 8.33% 10.20%
12.18% 12.43%
41.31%
2015 1959-2015
8 Overview 1959-2015
Violations by Article and by State*
19
59
-20
15
Total number o
f judgments
Judgments finding at le
ast one
violationJudgments f
inding no violation
Friendly se
ttlements/
Striking-out
judgmentsOther ju
dgments1
Right to lif
e – depriv
ation of li
fe
Lack of effe
ctive in
vestigatio
n
Prohibition of to
rture
2
Inhuman or degrading tre
atment
Lack of effe
ctive in
vestigatio
n
Conditional violatio
ns3
Prohibition of sl
avery/force
d labour
Right to lib
erty and se
curity
Right to a fa
ir tria
l2
Length of proceedings
Non-enforcement
No punishment w
ithout la
w
Right to re
spect for p
rivate
and family lif
eFre
edom of thought, c
onscience and
religion Fre
edom of expressi
on
Freedom of a
ssembly and asso
ciatio
n
Right to m
arry
Right to an effe
ctive re
medy
Prohibition of d
iscrim
ination
Protection of p
roperty
Right to educatio
n
Right to fre
e elections
Right not to
be tried or p
unished tw
ice
Other Artic
les of th
e Convention
Tota
lTo
tal
Tota
lTo
tal
Tota
l2
23
33
34
56
66
78
910
11
12
13
14
P1-1
P1-2
P1-3
P7-4
Alb
ania
60
47
42
71
21
328
615
11
2023
2
And
orra
63
11
12
1
Arm
enia
60
55
32
19
223
221
23
18
31
121
9
Aus
tria
35
22
50
63
24
15
14
111
9196
171
341
1526
41
4
Aze
rbai
jan
10
61
02
22
21
1111
2438
615
24
97
2917
5
Belg
ium
21
81
59
26
17
16
21
182
147
5857
104
139
12
Bosn
ia a
nd H
erze
govi
na4
33
76
11
710
115
11
13
274
Bulg
aria
57
75
24
33
51
515
294
6537
125
977
179
958
711
1116
38
811
41
22
Cro
atia
31
52
57
29
26
32
713
1024
8693
335
11
132
421
2
Cyp
rus
69
57
53
41
31
112
935
17
112
34
11
Cze
ch R
epub
lic2
18
18
31
61
36
11
22
2966
7919
11
162
12
Den
mar
k4
31
41
71
11
11
82
11
21
Esto
nia
47
37
91
61
1012
74
27
1
Finl
and
18
51
38
34
94
12
3761
2419
102
6
Fran
ce9
62
70
81
54
64
36
63
227
112
6326
928
22
341
434
635
930
4
Geo
rgia
64
48
12
13
13
179
1711
51
42
11
46
61
4
Ger
man
y2
87
18
28
11
11
33
2922
102
19
219
224
123
Gre
ece
88
17
87
29
20
45
43
179
61
6512
949
511
812
117
214
1472
13
11
Hun
gary
40
73
88
10
63
21
184
3315
274
113
186
225
193
4
Icel
and
16
13
31
45
21
Irela
nd3
22
16
14
12
511
51
71
Italy
2,3
36
1,7
81
63
35
31
39
25
527
536
274
1189
144
151
83
855
358
117
129
Latv
ia1
07
89
13
32
12
1610
5516
111
263
41
41
13
8
Liech
tens
tein
87
11
23
11
Lithu
ania
11
89
01
88
23
37
119
2127
11
141
25
161
9Overview 1959-2015
Violations by Article and by State*
*
Thi
s ta
ble
has
been
gen
erat
ed a
utom
atic
ally
sin
ce 2
012,
usi
ng t
he c
oncl
usio
ns in
the
HU
DO
C d
atab
ase.
1.
Oth
er ju
dgm
ents
: jus
t sa
tisfa
ctio
n, r
evis
ion,
pre
limin
ary
obje
ctio
ns a
nd la
ck o
f jur
isdi
ctio
n.
2.
Fig
ures
may
incl
ude
cond
ition
al v
iola
tions
.
3.
F
igur
es a
re a
vaila
ble
only
from
201
3.
**
Som
e ju
dgm
ents
con
cern
sev
eral
Sta
tes.
1959
-201
5
Total number o
f judgments
Judgments finding at le
ast one
violationJudgments f
inding no violation
Friendly se
ttlements/
Striking-out
judgmentsOther ju
dgments1
Right to lif
e – depriv
ation of li
fe
Lack of effe
ctive in
vestigatio
n
Prohibition of to
rture
2
Inhuman or degrading tre
atment
Lack of effe
ctive in
vestigatio
n
Conditional violatio
ns3
Prohibition of sl
avery/force
d labour
Right to lib
erty and se
curity
Right to a fa
ir tria
l2Length of p
roceedingsNon-enforce
ment
No punishment w
ithout la
w
Right to re
spect for p
rivate
and family lif
eFre
edom of thought, c
onscience and
religion Freedom of e
xpression
Freedom of a
ssembly and asso
ciatio
n
Right to m
arry
Right to an effe
ctive re
medy
Prohibition of d
iscrim
ination
Protection of p
roperty
Right to educatio
n
Right to fre
e elections
Right not to
be tried or p
unished tw
ice
Other Artic
les of th
e Convention
Tota
lTo
tal
Tota
lTo
tal
Tota
l2
23
33
34
56
66
78
910
1112
1314
P1-1
P1-2
P1-3
P7-4
Luxe
mbo
urg
4433
83
114
174
31
31
1M
alta
6646
1010
11
199
91
14
33
14Re
publ
ic o
f Mol
dova
316
288
43
212
99
7039
7011
811
2122
417
1446
410
42
9M
onac
o2
21
2M
onte
negr
o22
201
13
21
35
41
22
4N
ethe
rland
s14
685
3316
124
18
2825
817
72
31
Nor
way
4028
121
122
75
11
Pola
nd1,
099
925
116
4216
66
234
929
910
643
44
107
125
12
254
527
Portu
gal
309
232
1356
81
13
2813
14
1020
351
47Ro
man
ia1,
197
1,07
639
2557
933
217
863
107
410
121
453
751
245
2230
464
51
15Ru
ssia
n Fe
dera
tion
1,72
01,
612
8013
1525
928
550
548
152
211
663
674
178
721
137
827
1539
010
516
23
310
3Sa
n M
arin
o14
101
21
17
21
11
Serb
ia
132
117
96
23
47
2524
4112
617
251
Slov
ak R
epub
lic33
630
010
215
22
14
252
3719
82
199
342
91
Slov
enia
337
317
163
12
216
615
262
310
126
51
2Sp
ain
135
8643
33
28
542
134
104
14
21
Swed
en14
456
5628
41
14
12
2712
19
21
21
61
Switz
erla
nd16
297
575
31
11
216
317
221
161
12
4'T
he fo
rmer
Yug
osla
v Re
publ
ic
of M
aced
onia
'12
111
06
32
21
35
1014
3361
53
110
7
Turk
ey3,
182
2,81
267
204
9912
518
631
305
198
685
821
582
614
949
258
7026
511
647
59
32Uk
rain
e1,
053
1,03
611
24
940
1313
666
235
494
303
291
513
105
192
233
62
28Un
ited
King
dom
526
305
132
6722
220
217
11
6591
281
681
114
433
443
26
2Su
b-to
tal
15,5
701,
357
1,08
061
345
865
313
31,
670
662
396
3,05
34,
329
5,43
538
141
1,14
661
619
179
82,
045
242
2,99
213
7920
293
Tota
l18
,577
**
10 Overview 1959-2015
Since the Court was set up in 1959, the member States of the Council of Europe have adopted a number of protocols to the European Convention on Human Rights with the aim of improving and strengthening its supervisory mechanism. In 1998 Protocol No. 11 thus replaced the original two-tier structure, comprising the Commission and the Court on Human Rights, sitting a few days per month, by a single full-time Court. This change put an end to the Commission’s filtering function, enabling applicants to bring their cases directly before the Court.
A second major reform to address the considerable increase in the number of applications and the Court’s backlog was brought about by the entry into force of Protocol No. 14 in 2010. This Protocol introduced new judicial formations for the simplest cases and established a new admissibility criterion (existence of a “significant disadvantage” for the applicant); it also extended the judges’ term of office to 9 years (not renewable).
Since 2010, three high-level conferences on the future of the Court have been convened to identify methods of guaranteeing the long-term effectiveness of the Convention system. These conferences have, in particular, led to the adoption of Protocols Nos. 15 and 16 to the Convention, which were not yet in force in 2015.
Protocol No. 15, adopted in 2013, will insert references to the principle of subsidiarity and the doctrine of the margin of appreciation into the Convention’s preamble; it will also reduce from 6 to 4 months the time within which an application must be lodged with the Court after a final national decision.
2013 also saw the adoption of Protocol No. 16, which will allow the highest domestic courts and tribunals to request the Court to give advisory opinions on questions of principle relating to the interpretation or application of the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention or the protocols thereto. Protocol No. 16 is optional.
History of the Court’s reforms
11Overview 1959-2015
Proceedings at national level
Proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights
Execution of judgments
Adoption of general measures (amendment to the legislation)
Examination by the Committee of Ministers
Final resolution = case concluded
Payment of compensation(just satisfaction)
Satisfactory execution
Adoption of individual measures(restitution, reopening of the proceedings...)
Unsatisfactory execution
Transmission of the case file to the Committee of Ministers
Obligations of the State in question
Inadmissibility decision = case concluded
Final judgment finding a violation Judgment finding no violation = case concluded
Request accepted = referral to the Grand Chamber
Request dismissed = case concluded
Request for re-examination of the case
Judgment finding a violation Judgment finding no violation
Examination of the admissibility and merits
Initial analysis
Exhaustion of domestic remedies
Complaints against a contracting State to the Convention
Applicant has suffered a significant
disadvantage
6-month deadline for applying to the Court
(from the final domestic judicial decision)
Admissibility criteria
Admissibility decision
Application to the Court
Exhaustion of domestic remedies
Decision of the highest domestic court
Beginning of the dispute
Proceedings before the national courts
The life of an application
12 Overview 1959-2015
Relin
quis
hmen
t
Referral
Referral
SIN
GLE
JU
DG
E1
judg
e
Judg
men
t on
the
mer
its
Judg
men
t
CO
MM
ITTE
E3
judg
esCH
AM
BER
7 ju
dges
Inad
mis
sibi
lity
deci
sion
Adm
issi
bilit
yde
cisi
on
COM
MIT
TEE
OF
MIN
ISTE
RS
Judg
men
t on
the
adm
issi
bilit
y
and
the
mer
its
Judg
men
t on
the
adm
issi
bilit
y
and
the
mer
its
Inad
mis
sibi
lity
deci
sion
GRA
ND
CH
AM
BER
17 ju
dges
Inad
mis
sibi
lity
deci
sion
IND
IVID
UA
L A
PPLI
CA
TIO
N
Sim
plifi
ed c
ase
-pro
cess
ing fl
ow
chart
by ju
dic
ial f
orm
ation
Simplified flow chart of case-processing by the Court
w w w . e c h r . c o e . i n t