Introduction

Many applications to the European Court of Human Rights are declared inadmissible for procedural reasons or because they fall outside the Court’s jurisdiction. Checking the form, time limit and exhaustion of domestic remedies is essential before applying. The Court’s official guidance identifies common mistakes made by applicants and representatives. The following points explain those mistakes and how to avoid them.

Formal defects which can prevent examination

Failure to use and complete the application form required by Rule 47, or to attach the required documents, can prevent an application from being examined. The Court requires the official form, properly signed, together with relevant domestic decisions and documents supporting compliance with the admissibility requirements.

Complete all applicable sections, print and sign the form, and send it by post in accordance with the current instructions. Where an applicant is represented, check the authority section and the signature requirements for both applicant and representative. The rules contain limited exceptions; they should not be assumed to apply to an incomplete application.

Common procedural mistakes

Applicants sometimes fail to exhaust effective domestic remedies or lodge their application too late. The applicable period is generally four months. The starting point must be checked against the final domestic decision, its notification or the date it became known, and the rules applicable to the particular case. Do not rely on the former six-month period.

Failure to exhaust the necessary remedies or to comply with the time limit can make the application inadmissible. Substantially identical matters already examined by the Court, or submitted to another international investigation or settlement procedure, may also raise admissibility issues under the Convention.

Errors in the substance of the complaint

Some applicants essentially ask for a fresh assessment of the facts or evidence considered by the national courts. The European Court is not a “fourth-instance” appeal court. It does not simply replace domestic courts’ findings with its own. A complaint must identify an arguable violation of a right protected by the Convention.

An application may be rejected as manifestly ill-founded if it does not establish such a complaint. Other problems arise where the right invoked falls outside the Convention or the complaint is incompatible with its scope as regards the respondent, place, time or subject matter: ratione personae, loci, temporis or materiae.

Victim status and actio popularis

A general concern about an issue is not normally enough to apply. The applicant must establish the required victim status, whether direct, indirect or potential under the relevant case law. The Court does not generally permit an actio popularis challenging a situation in the abstract.

Particular forms of representative standing may be recognised in specific contexts, subject to strict conditions. An association cannot assume that it has standing merely because its aims concern a matter of public interest. The link to those represented and the applicable admissibility principles must be examined.

Administrative and representation errors

Common defects include missing signatures, unsigned authority sections, incomplete copies of domestic decisions and poorly organised supporting documents. Check any language requirements at the relevant stage rather than assuming that every domestic document requires a translation.

Sending an electronic copy does not replace the signed application and postal requirements applicable to lodging it. For large groups of applicants, follow the Court’s instructions about individual details and any required schedule. A request to correct or complete documents must not be treated as an extension of the time limit.

Abuse of the procedure and an incoherent case

Repeated complaints about the same facts, fabricated allegations, failure to disclose material developments and abusive language can create serious difficulties, including rejection for abuse of the right of application where the relevant criteria are met.

Keep the Court informed of important developments, such as a later favourable domestic decision. Present the facts consistently and accurately. A confused account makes it harder to establish the complaint, although inconsistency alone should not be treated as an automatic legal ground for rejection.

Practical ways to avoid common mistakes

A vague description of an “injustice” is insufficient. Supply the relevant domestic decisions and documents showing the remedies used. Put them in chronological order and clearly state the dates needed to assess compliance with the time limit.

Explain how the alleged act or omission of the State affected you and how it relates to the Convention right relied on. Where you are represented, ensure that the authority and signatures meet the Court’s requirements. Clear factual explanations and properly identified documents are more useful than general assertions.

Checklist before posting

  • Identify the relevant final domestic decision and the effective remedies which had to be exhausted.
  • Check the starting point and expiry of the four-month period for the particular complaint.
  • Complete the official Rule 47 application form and check all required signatures.
  • Attach the necessary domestic decisions, evidence and representation documents.
  • Send the complete signed application by post in time; a fax does not stop the time limit.
  • Explain victim status and the specific Convention complaint.
  • Avoid asking the Court merely to rehear the domestic dispute.
  • Use measured language and disclose important developments.

Conclusion

The main avoidable difficulties concern incomplete forms and missing documents, unexhausted domestic remedies, late applications, complaints seeking only a rehearing of the facts, failure to establish victim status and abuse of the procedure.

Following the official instructions and examining admissibility carefully reduces procedural risk, but does not guarantee that an application will be accepted. Consult the Court’s current application instructions, Rule 47 and Practical Guide on Admissibility Criteria when preparing the application.