a.
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
The European System is the most developed regional human rights system. The Convention con-
sists only of civil and political rights and is thus narrower in scope than the other regional human
rights treaties.140 Recognition of the right of individual application was optional until the Proto-
col No. 11141 to the European Convention replaced the existing two-tier system of a part-time
Court and a Commission by a single, full-time Court. The individual is now endowed with man-
datory direct access to the ECtHR. Hence, unlike the other two regional human rights courts (the
Inter-American and the African system), with the new system, private individuals have access to
the ECtHR without an additional filter. Moreover, individuals can now, in limited circumstances,
seek a re-hearing in a case decided by a ECtHR's Chamber (7 judges) before the ECtHR's Grand
Chamber (17 judges). This is not possible under the other two regional human rights courts.
Art. 34 of the Convention states that the “Court may receive applications from any person,142
non-governmental organization 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.“ The text thus allows explicitly for complaints by individual victims, by legal persons,
and for joinders,143 yet always requiring the complainant to be an alleged victim. If there is a
group of persons, all of them need to fulfil the victim requirement; there is thus no group com-
plaint or altruistic complaint of an NGO in the name or on behalf of the individuals of that
group.144 An NGO thus needs to be infringed in its own right in order to have standing.145 The
great majority of cases are terminated by inadmissibility or strike-off decisions (96% of cases disposed of in
2004). In the remaining cases, the Court gave 718 judgments in 2004, some 60% of which concerned
repetitive cases. Since the beginning of the function of the European system, there have been 341.501 lodged
applications and 117.058 taken decisions. See
<http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/EDocs/2004SURVEY(COURT).pdf>, at para. 36.
140 But see the rights and the collective complaint mechanism under the European Social Charter, Oct. 18, 1961,
529 U.N.T.S. 89. See for an overview Robin R. Churchill/Urfan Khaliq, “The Collective Complaints System
of the European Social Charter: An Effective Mechanism for Ensuring Compliance with Economic and
Social Rights?”, European Journal of International Law 15 (2004), 417-456.
141 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No. 11,
supra note 88.
142 Here person means natural person, including persons lacking legal capacity, e.g. minors. Jochen Abr.
Frowein/Wolfgang Peukert, Europaische Menschenrechtskonvention: EMRK-Kommentar, 1996, Kehl, § 25,
at 11.
143 In spite of similar cases in systemic violation cases, the Court does not use joinders frequently. It rather
decides on some of them as model cases and hopes that the state will comply. I would like to thank Rudolf
Bernhardt, former president of the ECtHR for this information. This practice was confirmed recently in Case
of Broniowski v. Poland, (Appl. No. 31443/96), Judgment of 22 June 2004, see at
<http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&key=35541&portal=hbkm&source=external&tabl
e=285953B33D3AF94893DC49EF6600CEBD49>.
144 See Zentralrat Deutscher Sinti und Roma and R. Rose v. Germany (App. No. 35208/97), Decision of 27 May
1997
<http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&key=3721&portal=hbkm&source=external&table
=285953B33D3AF94893DC49EF6600CEBD49>. See also Noël Narvii Tauira and 18 Others v. France
(Appl. No. 28204/95), Decisions and Reports No. 83-A, at 112 et seq. (petitions against the French nuclear
tests on Mururoa and Fangataufa Atolls in French Polynesia). For an overview see Zwart, supra note 102, at
45 et seqq.
145 For corporations that means that either share- or stakeholders may bring a petition, if they are personally
affected by measures against the corporation or the corporation as such needs to be the victim. See for details
Frowein/Peukert, supra note 142, § 25, at 23.
33