Week 15

• Individual complaints are an effective means to ensure states respect human rights
• Admissibility is the first test to having an individual complaint considered by international human rights mechanisms (courts/committees/commissions etc.)
• Admissibility includes procedural, jurisdictional, and merit-based aspects
• Procedural admissibility factors include exhaustion of domestic remedies, time limits, duplication of proceedings, abuse of the right of application, and anonymous applications
• Before lodging an individual complaint with international human rights mechanisms, applicants must exhaust all domestic remedies
• Domestic remedies are considered exhausted when the same complaint was raised either expressly or at least in substance before the national courts in line with rules and procedures of domestic law
• Time limits for submitting applications before international human rights mechanisms vary, such as 4 months for the ECtHR, 6 months for IACommHR, and different limits for the UN system bodies
• The purpose of the time limits rule is to ensure the effective exercise of the right to individual petition
• Applications must be submitted without undue delay, and applicants must show diligence and initiative, especially in cases like enforced disappearances
• A complaint is generally inadmissible if the same body or another body has issued a decision concerning the same matter, with exceptions in certain cases
• The prohibition of abuse of the right of application aims to prevent harmful exercise of the right for purposes other than those for which it is established
• Anonymous applications are not possible; applicants must be duly identified in their application
• Rule 47 RoP ECtHR para 4 states that applicants who do not wish their identity to be disclosed to the public must indicate so and provide reasons justifying this departure from the normal rule of public access to information
• Applications lodged under fictitious names (pseudonyms) are addressed in the case of Shamayev and others v. Georgia and Russia (No. 36378/02)
• Admissibility of individual complaints involves procedural, jurisdictional, and merit-based considerations
• Grounds for inadmissibility related to the Court's jurisdiction include incompatibility ratione personae, loci, temporis, and materiae
• Jurisdiction under public international law is a key aspect of state sovereignty, involving authority over persons, legal relationships, and obligations
• State responsibility is the result of an internationally wrongful act
• The European Court of Human Rights has jurisdiction ratione personae to examine human rights violations by a Contracting State or acts attributable to it, including those by state organs, local governments, private contractors, and private actors
• States can be held responsible for their actions to implement Security Council resolutions or other international obligations
• A State is responsible for its actions exposing a person to a real risk of rights violation by another state, where the breach was foreseeable
• Jurisdictional competence is primarily territorial but can also be extraterritorial
• The ECtHR has confirmed the extraterritorial application of the ECHR in certain circumstances
• For the scope of human rights treaties, 'jurisdiction' can mean power, authority, or control over people or territory
• Two basic approaches to jurisdiction: spatial control over territory and personal control over individuals by state agents
• Jurisdiction ratione loci allows the Court to examine violations of the Convention within the jurisdiction of the respondent State on its territory or in territory effectively controlled by it
• Jurisdiction ratione temporis states that the provisions of the Convention do not bind a Contracting Party in relation to any act or fact which took place before the date of the entry into force of the Convention with respect to that Party
• The ECHR has jurisdiction ratione materiae to examine alleged violations of rights protected by the treaty that has come into force
• Individual complaints admissibility criteria include procedural, jurisdictional, and merit-based aspects
• Manifestly ill-founded complaints can be categorized as "fourth-instance" complaints, complaints disclosing no clear violation, unsubstantiated complaints, and confused or far-fetched complaints
• The ECHR system is based on the principle of subsidiarity, where national authorities are primarily responsible for implementing human rights
• The Court may not question domestic courts' findings unless they are flagrantly arbitrary and violate the Convention
• The Court applies a three-prong test to determine if state interference with human rights was necessary in a democratic society
• Unsubstantiated complaints lack evidence, while confused complaints present facts that are objectively impossible and contrary to common sense
• The Court may reject cases considered as "minor" under the criterion of no significant disadvantage, added with the entry into force of Protocol No. 14
• The level of severity for a "significant disadvantage" violation is assessed based on the financial impact and importance of the case for the applicant
• The safeguard clause prevents the Court from declaring an application inadmissible when respect for human rights requires an examination of the application on the merits