the european court of human rights: overview 1959-2013
TRANSCRIPT
Overview1959-2013
ECHR
3Overview 1959-2013
Violation judgments by State
Since it was established in 1959 the Court has delivered about 17,000 judgments. Nearly half of the judgments concerned 5 member States: Turkey (2,994), Italy (2,268), the Russian Federation (1,475), Poland (1,042) and Romania (1,026).
Of the total number of judgments it has delivered since 1959, the Court has found at least one violation of the Convention by the respondent State in 83% of cases.
This document has been prepared by the Public Relations Unit of the Court, and does not bind the Court. It is intended to provide basic general information about the way the Court works.
For more detailed information, please refer to documents issued by the Registry, available on the Court’s website www.echr.coe.int.
© European Court of Human Rights, February 2014
Other Sates 25.96%
United Kingdom 2.96%
Bulgaria 3.12%
Greece 4.62%
France 5.43%
Ukraine 5.70% Romania
6.08%
Poland 6.18%
Russian Federation 8.75%
Italy 13.45%
Turkey 17.75%
Statistics 1959 to 2013
4 5Overview 1959-2013 Overview 1959-2013
Judgments delivered by the Court
In recent years the Court has concentrated on examining complex cases and has decided to join certain applications which raise similar legal questions so that it can consider them jointly. Thus, although the number of judgments delivered each year is not increasing as rapidly as in the past, the Court has examined more applications.
Subject-matter of the Court’s violation judgments
Nearly half of the judgments in which the Court found a violation include a violation of Article 6, whether on account of the fairness or the length of the proceedings. Furthermore, 55% of the violations found by the Court concern Article 6 or Protocol No. Article 1 (Protection of property).
Lastly, more than 13% of the violations found by the Court concern the right to life or the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment (Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention).
Years 1959-1998
Year 1999
Year 2000
Year 2001
Year 2002
Year 2003
Year 2004
Year 2005
Year 2006
Year 2007
Year 2008
Year 2009
Year 2010
Year 2011
Year 2012
Year 2013
837
177
695
888
844
703
718
1,105
1,560
1,503
1,543
1,625
1,499
1,157
1,093
916
Right to life
(Art. 2) 4.34%
Protection of property
(P1-1) 12.64%
Right to an effective remedy (Art. 13)
8.16%
Other violations 10.43%
Right to liberty and security (Art. 5)
12%
Prohibition of torture
and inhuman or degrading treatment
(Art.3) 8.98%
Right to a fair trial (Art. 6) 43.13%
6 7Overview 1959-2013 Overview 1959-2013
Violations by Article and by State1 Violations by Article and by State1
1.
Thi
s ta
ble
has
been
gen
erat
ed a
utom
atic
ally,
usi
ng t
he c
oncl
usio
ns r
ecor
ded
in t
he m
etad
ata
for
each
judg
men
t co
ntai
ned
in H
UD
OC
, the
Cou
rt’s
case
-law
dat
abas
e.
2.
Oth
er ju
dgm
ents
: jus
t sa
tisfa
ctio
n, r
evis
ion,
pre
limin
ary
obje
ctio
ns a
nd la
ck o
f jur
isdi
ctio
n.
3.
C
ases
in w
hich
the
Cou
rt h
eld
ther
e w
ould
be
a vi
olat
ion
of A
rtic
le 3
if t
he a
pplic
ant
was
rem
oved
to
a St
ate
whe
re h
e/sh
e w
as a
t ri
sk o
f ill-
trea
tmen
t. 4.
F
igur
es in
thi
s co
lum
n m
ay in
clud
e co
nditi
onal
vio
latio
ns.
*
So
me
judg
men
ts a
re a
gain
st m
ore
than
one
Sta
te: A
lban
ia a
nd It
aly;
Rom
ania
and
Ital
y; an
d Po
land
and
Gre
ece.
1959
-201
3
Total number of ju
dgments
Judgments finding at le
ast one v
iolation
Judgments finding no vio
lation
Friendly set
tlements/Strik
ing-out judgments
Other judgments
1
Right to life
– depriva
tion of life
Lack of ef
fective
investigation
Prohibitio
n of torture
2
Inhuman or degrading treatment
Lack of ef
fective
investigation
Conditional vio
lations3
Prohibitio
n of slaver
y/forced labour
Right to lib
erty and sec
urityRight to
a fair trial2Len
gth of proceedings
Non-enforce
ment
No punishment without la
w
Right to res
pect for priva
te and family
life2
Freedom of th
ought, conscie
nce and rel
igion
Freedom of ex
pression
Freedom of asse
mbly and asso
ciation
Right to marryRight to
an effecti
ve rem
edy
Prohibitio
n of discrimination
Protect
ion of propertyRight to
education
Right to fre
e elect
ions
Right not to be p
unished twice
Other Artic
les of th
e Conven
tion
Tota
lTo
tal
Tota
lTo
tal
Tota
l2
23
33
34
56
66
78
910
1112
1314
P1-1
P1-2
P1-3
P7-4
Alb
ania
4736
42
51
21
127
48
11
1416
2
And
orra
63
11
12
1
Arm
enia
4843
32
17
120
171
13
17
11
71
9
Aus
tria
337
242
5824
131
41
1090
9116
134
114
264
14
Aze
rbai
jan
7672
22
11
95
1032
615
46
526
102
Belg
ium
186
132
2216
162
112
131
4956
104
99
11
Bosn
ia a
nd H
erze
govi
na33
303
11
610
111
11
12
231
Bulg
aria
527
478
315
1315
263
4827
251
7017
96
525
1011
152
773
21
22
Cro
atia
263
217
1726
31
410
717
7391
323
11
314
172
Cyp
rus
6352
53
31
31
14
835
17
111
24
11
Cze
ch R
epub
lic20
617
911
106
11
22
2966
7916
11
152
11
Den
mar
k41
1415
111
11
82
11
21
Esto
nia
3629
61
51
910
44
4
Finl
and
166
129
249
41
237
5923
1810
21
Fran
ce91
367
414
063
364
32
247
258
262
281
13
344
302
349
294
Geo
rgia
5745
91
21
316
817
115
13
11
14
16
14
Ger
man
y26
317
367
1013
328
1810
21
920
52
2312
3
Gre
ece
780
694
2220
444
31
476
5112
344
99
811
105
166
1370
31
Hun
gary
313
297
76
31
114
2612
223
111
115
73
61
4
Icel
and
1411
31
43
21
Irela
nd31
206
14
25
115
16
1
Italy
2,26
81,
721
5835
313
62
44
202
2925
61,
187
103
144
73
813
335
117
26
Latv
ia81
6711
31
113
745
1210
119
33
13
11
38
Liech
tens
tein
65
11
12
11
Lithu
ania
9978
147
33
61
1920
271
131
24
91
Luxe
mbo
urg
4332
83
112
174
31
31
1
1959
-201
3
Total number of judgments
Judgments finding at le
ast one vio
lation
Judgments finding no violation
Friendly settle
ments/Striking-out ju
dgments
Other judgments
1
Right to life
– deprivation of lif
e
Lack of ef
fective
investigation
Prohibition of to
rture2
Inhuman or degrading treatment
Lack of ef
fective
investigation
Conditional vio
lations3
Prohibition of sla
very/force
d labour
Right to lib
erty and sec
urityRight to
a fair trial2Len
gth of proceedings
Non-enforce
ment
No punishment without la
w
Right to res
pect for priva
te and family
life2
Freedom of th
ought, conscie
nce and rel
igion
Freedom of ex
pression
Freedom of asse
mbly and asso
ciation
Right to marryRight to
an effecti
ve remedy
Prohibition of discr
imination
Protection of property
Right to ed
ucationRight to
free e
lections
Right not to be p
unished twice
Other Artic
les of th
e Convention
Tota
lTo
tal
Tota
lTo
tal
Tota
l2
23
33
34
56
66
78
910
1112
1314
P1-1
P1-2
P1-3
P7-4
Mal
ta57
407
101
169
91
33
311
Repu
blic
of M
oldo
va27
324
93
219
26
861
3461
111
1115
174
1713
413
962
9
Mon
aco
22
12
Mon
tene
gro
1716
13
44
12
24
Net
herla
nds
142
8233
1611
31
826
258
167
23
1
Nor
way
3525
101
102
65
11
Pola
nd1,
042
885
101
4115
55
286
288
103
421
310
01
211
220
444
4
Portu
gal
271
198
1056
72
2411
21
818
231
43
Rom
ania
1,02
693
032
2440
723
212
245
9237
910
837
261
121
419
2745
13
14
Russ
ian
Fede
ratio
n1,
475
1,38
170
1311
232
249
4545
412
32
154
963
116
953
111
85
2512
338
848
62
33
93
San
Mar
ino
139
12
11
72
11
Serb
ia
9785
75
12
25
2423
1711
516
230
Slov
ak R
epub
lic30
827
49
214
22
14
240
2719
42
177
332
71
Slov
enia
292
275
143
26
22
724
93
724
31
1
Spai
n12
580
393
32
55
4013
410
44
11
Swed
en13
054
4626
41
14
12
2612
19
21
21
6
Switz
erla
nd13
486
415
21
11
1328
721
113
11
24
“The
form
er Y
ugos
lav
Repu
blic
of
Mac
edon
ia”
100
934
31
21
612
2756
52
17
5
Turk
ey2,
994
2,63
963
204
8811
416
229
279
171
626
770
563
604
877
224
6125
49
639
47
32
Ukra
ine
962
948
92
39
2712
105
4818
547
729
721
141
39
317
32
325
224
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m49
929
711
367
222
192
171
164
9127
166
111
44
3344
22
42
Sub-
tota
l14
,121
1,15
61,
068
552
410
551
119
1,33
951
912
52,
659
4,04
95,
214
289
381,
014
5254
415
18
1,80
722
02,
800
1062
1126
5
Tota
l16
,863
*
8 9Overview 1959-2013 Overview 1959-2013
Applications
allocated to a
judicial
formation
Applications in
which
judgment w
as
delivered
Applications
declared
inadmissible or
struck out
Total number
of applications
decided
1959-2013 1959-2013 1959-2013 1959-2013Albania 782 54 312 366Andorra 61 6 55 61Armenia 2,028 49 1,042 1,091Austria 8,315 287 7,570 7,857Azerbaijan 3,682 125 2,270 2,395Belgium 4,518 149 3,926 4,075Bosnia and Herzegovina 5,417 105 4,044 4,149Bulgaria 12,339 614 9,324 9,938Croatia 11,410 286 10,153 10,439Cyprus 992 68 759 827Czech Republic 11,229 234 10,422 10,656Denmark 1,603 36 1,529 1,565Estonia 2,573 42 2,195 2,237Finland 4,634 161 4,274 4,435France 28,382 876 26,332 27,208Georgia 5,666 57 3,161 3,218Germany 26,691 250 25,897 26,147Greece 6,758 766 4,575 5,341Hungary 7,221 318 5,178 5,496Iceland 180 11 152 163Ireland 896 20 841 861Italy 35,103 2,845 15,801 18,646Latvia 3,252 80 2,645 2,725Liechtenstein 110 6 98 104Lithuania 4,391 106 4,046 4,152Luxembourg 546 42 491 533Malta 257 56 147 203Republic of Moldova 9,674 348 7,937 8,285Monaco 1,662 29 843 872Montenegro 70 4 62 66Netherlands 8,287 96 7,604 7,700Norway 1,361 38 1,228 1,266Poland 57,928 1,048 55,302 56,350Portugal 2,991 406 2,195 2,601Romania 52,265 1,271 44,916 46,187Russian Federation 120,273 2,370 101,203 103,573San Marino 65 15 45 60Serbia 20,584 361 9,039 9,400Slovak Republic 6,725 321 6,166 6,487Slovenia 8,059 304 5,987 6,291Spain 9,386 137 8,853 8,990Sweden 9,214 88 8,949 9,037Switzerland 5,950 95 5,516 5,611'The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia'
3,854 101 3,416 3,517
Turkey 58,481 3,846 43,858 47,704Ukraine 56,427 3,661 39,538 43,199United Kingdom 22,065 576 18,734 19,310TOTAL 644,357 22,764 518,630 541,394
Since the Court was set up in 1959, the member States of the Council of Europe have adopted a number of protocols to the European Convention on Human Rights with the aim of improving and strengthening its supervisory mechanism. In 1998 Protocol No. 11 thus replaced the original two-tier structure comprising the Court and the Commission on Human Rights, sitting a few days per month, by a single full-time Court. This change put an end to the Commission’s filtering function, enabling applicants to bring their cases directly before the Court.
A second major reform to address the considerable increase in the number of applications and the Court’s backlog was brought about by the entry into force of Protocol No. 14 in 2010. This Protocol introduced new judicial formations for the simplest cases and established a new admissibility criterion (existence of a “significant disadvantage” for the applicant); it also extended the judges’ term of office to 9 years (not renewable).
Since 2010, three high-level conferences on the future of the Court have been convened to identify methods of guaranteeing the long-term effectiveness of the Convention system. These conferences have, in particular, led to the adoption of Protocols Nos. 15 and 16 to the Convention.
Protocol No. 15, adopted in 2013, inserts references to the principle of subsidiarity and the doctrine of the margin of appreciation into the Convention’s preamble; it also reduces from 6 to 4 months the time within which an application must be lodged with the Court after a final national decision.
2013 has also seen the adoption of Protocol No. 16, which will allow the highest domestic courts and tribunals to request the Court to give advisory opinions on questions of principle relating to the interpretation or application of the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention or the protocols thereto. Protocol No. 16 is optional.
History of the Court’s reforms Throughput of applications 1959* - 2013* This table includes those cases dealt with by the European Commission of Human Rights prior to 1959.
10 11Overview 1959-2013 Overview 1959-2013
Relin
quis
hmen
t
Referral
Referral
SIN
GLE
JU
DG
E1
judg
e
Judg
men
t on
the
mer
it
Judg
men
t
CO
MM
ITTE
E3
judg
esCH
AM
BER
7 ju
dges
Inad
mis
sibi
lity
deci
sion
Adm
issi
bilit
yde
cisi
on
COM
MIT
TEE
OF
MIN
ISTE
RS
Judg
men
t on
the
adm
issi
bilit
y
and
the
mer
it
Judg
men
t on
the
adm
issi
bilit
y
and
the
mer
it
Inad
mis
sibi
lity
deci
sion
GRA
ND
CH
AM
BER
17 ju
dges
Inad
mis
sibi
lity
deci
sion
IND
IVID
UA
L A
PPLI
CA
TIO
N
Sim
plifi
ed c
ase
-pro
cess
ing fl
ow
chart
by ju
dic
ial f
orm
ation
Proceedings at national level
Proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights
Execution of judgment
Adoption of general measures (amendment to the legislation)
Examination by the Committee of Ministers
Final resolution = case concluded
Payment of compensation(just satisfaction)
Satisfactory execution
Adoption of individual measures(restitution, reopening of the proceedings...)
Unsatisfactory execution
Transmission of the case file to the Committee of Ministers
Obligations of the State in question
Inadmissibility decision = case concluded
Final judgment finding a violation Judgment finding no violation = case concluded
Request accepted = referral to the Grand Chamber
Request dismissed = case concluded
Request for re-examination of the case
Judgment finding a violation Judgment finding no violation
Examination of the admissibility and merits
Initial analysis
Exhaustion of domestic remedies
Complaints against a contracting State to the Convention
Applicant has suffered a significant
disadvantage
6-month deadline for applying to the Court
(from the final domestic judicial decision)
Admissibility criteria
Admissibility decision
Application to the Court
Exhaustion of domestic court
Decision of the highest domestic court
Beginning of the dispute
Proceedings before the national courts
The life of an application
February 2014
European Court of Human RightsPublic Relations UnitCouncil of EuropeF-67075 Strasbourg cedex
w w w . e c h r . c o e . i n t