Commission qualified e.g. Saami Villages as NGOs having standing, as the villages, not the in-
dividual Saamis, had the right under the respective Swedish law.146
The ECtHR requires that an individual applicant claims to have been actually affected by the
violation he alleges, that is only applicants who can claim to be a victim of a violation can exer-
cise the right of individual petition. Thus, an actio popularis is inadmissible;147 it does not permit
individuals to complain against a law in abstracto simply because they feel that a legislative
measures or administrative practices contravene the ECHR.148 In principle, it does not suffice for
an individual applicant to claim that the mere existence of a law violates his rights under the
ECHR; it is necessary that the law has been applied to his detriment.149 But Art. 34 entitles indi-
viduals to contend that a law violates their rights by itself, in the absence of an individual meas-
ure of implementation, if they run the risk of being directly affected by it. This compromises not
only self-executing laws150 but also laws which are most probably applied to the petitioner. The
ECtHR has accordingly accepted a potential threat to the applicant in the following cases:151
where the applicant was not in a position to demonstrate that the legislation he complained of
had actually been applied to him because of the secret nature of the measures it authorized;152
where a law punishing certain acts was likely to be applied to a certain category of the popula-
tion, to which the applicant belonged;153 and, lastly, where a measure had already been decided
on but not yet executed and the enforcement of the measure would have exposed the persons
concerned to a violation.154 In order for an applicant to claim to be a victim in such a situation,
he must, however, produce reasonable and convincing evidence of the likelihood that a violation
affecting him personally will occur; mere suspicion or conjecture is insufficient in this respect.155
146 Konkama and 38 other Saami Villages v. Sweden (Appl. No. 27033/95), Decision of 25 November 1996,
available at:
<http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&key=3389&portal=hbkm&source=external&table
=285953B33D3AF94893DC49EF6600CEBD49>.
147 But see e.g. Case of Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland (Case No. 64/1991/316/387-388),
Judgment of October 29, 1992, 246-A Eur. Ct. H. R. (ser. A), at para. 44.
148 See Case of Conf. des Syndicats Médicaux Francais et la Fédération Nationale des Infirmiers v. France
(Appl. No. 10983/84), Decision of the Commission of 12 May 1986, available at
<http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&key=8401&portal=hbkm&source=external&table
=285953B33D3AF94893DC49EF6600CEBD49>.
149 Christian Federation of Jehovah’s Witnesses in France v. France (Appl. No. 53430/99) Decision of 06
November 2001, 2001-XI Eur. Ct. H.R. and Noël Narvii Tauira and 18 Others v. France, supra note 144.
150 See, e.g. Johnston and Others v. Ireland (Appl. No. 9697/82), Judgment of 18 December 1986, 112 Eur Ct.
H.R. (ser. A), at para. 42 and Marckx v. Belgium (Appl. No. 6833/74), Judgment of 13 June 1979, 31 Eur Ct.
H.R. (ser. A), at para. 27.
151 See for an overview Frowein/Peukert, supra note 142, § 25, at 24 and Zwart, supra note 102, at 51 et seq.
152 Klass and Others v. Germany (Appl. No. 5029/71), Judgment of 6 September 1978, 28 Eur Ct. H.R. (ser. A),
at para. 33.
153 See e.g. Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom (Appl. No. 7525/76), Judgment of 22 October 1981, 45 Eur. Ct.
H.R. (ser. A) and Norris v. Ireland (Appl. No. 10581/83), Judgment of 29 September 1988, 142 Eur Ct. H.R.
(ser. A), at para. 33.
154 Soering v. the United Kingdom (Appl. No. 14038/88), Judgment of 7 July 1989 (concerning extradition of
aliens, resulting in a threat of a violation of Art. 3 ECHR) 161 Eur Ct. H.R. (ser. A) and Beldjoudi v. France
(Appl. No. 12083/86), Judgment of 26 March 1992, 234 Eur Ct. H.R. (ser. A) where dismissal would have
infringed the right to respect for family life.
155 See Noël Narvii Tauira and 18 Others v. France, supra note 144.
34