Individuals who believe their rights under the Convention have been violated under the European convention on human rights (1950), (ECHR) may petition the European Court of Human Rights. Since Protocol 11 of the ECHR came into force in November 1998 the European Court has operated as a single full-time Court. As set out in Article 27 of the ECHR, the Court sits in Committees, Chambers and a Grand Chamber. Decisions on the admissibility of applications are taken by Committees; Chambers take decisions on admissibility and merits; cases, which raise serious questions affecting the interpretation of the Convention, may be relinquished by Chambers in order for the Grand Chamber to issue a judgement. Prior to Protocol 11 admissibility decisions were made by the European Commission and then referred to the European Court if a friendly settlement was not reached.

The ECHR sets out the circumstances in which applications may be made. Article 34 provides that any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals who are the victim of a violation by a signatory state may make an application to the European Court. Therefore interested individuals who believe that state practice is violating people's rights under the Convention are not able to make applications. In cases where the right to life under Article 2 has been violated individuals have been allowed to make applications under the ECHR where they are considered indirect victims because a family member has been killed.[1]

Under Article 35, which sets out the admissibility criteria for individual applications, states that the Court may only deal with applications when all domestic remedies have been exhausted. This requires individuals to appeal against the decision affecting them and seek all forms of recourse against a violation of their rights at the domestic level. If they have not done so their claim may be found to be inadmissible. Article 35(2) states that applications which are anonymous or substantially the same as cases previously considered will not be declared admissible. Article 35(3) states that claims will be inadmissible if considered incompatible with the provisions of the Convention; manifestly unfounded, or an abuse of the right of application. In the case of Boyle and Rice v UK the Court stated that manifestly unfounded claims are those where there is not even a prima facie claim against the respondent state.[2] Applications are considered an abuse of the right of petition very rarely and this has applied to situations where multiple claims are filed without foundation resulting in time wasting.[3]

Under Article 33 States Parties may refer cases to the Court if they believe there has been a breach of the Convention. In practice there are few inter-state complaints and they usually concern large-scale violations of human rights. In the case of Ireland v UK in 1978 an application was made regarding interrogation techniques used to interrogate suspected terrorists in Northern Ireland, this case was referred to the European Court.[4]

The compliance of a number of other instruments of the Council of Europe is assessed by reporting procedures to Council of Europe Committees (see 8.10 - Other mechanisms of recourse).

[1] For example: Mrs W v UK No 9348/81, 32 DR 190

[2] A 131 (1988)

[3] M v UK /no 13284/87, 4 DR 214 (1987)

[4] Ireland v UK A 25 (1978) Full case report.