UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM
SCHOOL OF LAW
2020
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
READING MATERIALS
1 Recommended Book:
Mowbray, Cases, Materials and Commentary on the European Convention on Human
Rights (3rd ed.) (hereafter referred to as Mowbray).
2 Background Reading:
Mowbray, The Development of Positive Obligations Under the ECHR by the European
Court of Human Rights (hereafter referred to as Mowbray PO).
3 Case Reports:
European Human Rights Reports (EHRR)/WESTLAW
Official Series A/Reports of Judgments and Decisions
4 Textbooks:
D J Harris et al, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (4th ed.)
Jacobs, White & Ovey, The European Convention on Human Rights (7th ed.)
5 Internet Site:
http://www.echr.coe.int
HUDOC (most comprehensive ECtHR database)
6 Assessment:
A two-hour examination (answer THREE questions out of FIVE: Similar format to last
year). Feedback on your performance in the examination will be provided via individual
written forms.
1
,TUTORIAL 1
2
, Application Procedure of European Convention on Human Rights
The original system (1950-1998)
Application by a State Application by an individual
European Commission of Human Rights
Is application admissible?
Yes No Case closed
Is a friendly settlement between
the parties possible?
No Yes Case closed
Commission finds facts
Does Commission think there is a violation of the convention?
Yes No
Is case referred to the Court by the
Commission or person under
Protocol 9 or a State? Commission reports to The
Committee of Ministers of the
Yes No Council of Europe
European Court of Human Rights
Is Convention violated?
Yes No Case closed
Is there a violation of the convention? Committee indicates what
measures should be taken
Yes No Case closed by the State.
Does the State comply?
Judgement of Court, which is
binding on State. (May also afford just No Yes Case closed
satisfaction to injured party).
Committee decides what effect
Case closed. is to be given to its Report.
- A very complicated / elaborate system, because States were cautious about signing up to a
European system
- Proved to be insufficiently efficient
- The determination of applications was the shared responsibility of 3 institutions: European
Commission of Human Rights, ECtHR, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
3
,- Came into effect in 1998
- A single court system
- But even the reformed system couldn”t cope
- Significant changes:
Abolished the Committee’s original decision-making role in respect of applications which
had been subject to a report by the Commission & had not been referred to the ECtHR
Created a new full-time ECtHR
4
, Retained the definition of inter-State applications (Art 33) / individual applications (Art
34); the admissibility criteria (Art 35); the Committee’s responsibility for supervising the
execution of the ECtHR’s judgments (Art 46)
Committees (composed of 3 judges) were empowered unanimously to declare
inadmissible individual applications; Chambers (composed of 7 judges) would determine
the admissibility & merits of inter-State applications & the merits of admissible individual
applications
When the ECtHR found a violation of the Convention it could award “just satisfaction”
(Art 41)
5
SCHOOL OF LAW
2020
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
READING MATERIALS
1 Recommended Book:
Mowbray, Cases, Materials and Commentary on the European Convention on Human
Rights (3rd ed.) (hereafter referred to as Mowbray).
2 Background Reading:
Mowbray, The Development of Positive Obligations Under the ECHR by the European
Court of Human Rights (hereafter referred to as Mowbray PO).
3 Case Reports:
European Human Rights Reports (EHRR)/WESTLAW
Official Series A/Reports of Judgments and Decisions
4 Textbooks:
D J Harris et al, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (4th ed.)
Jacobs, White & Ovey, The European Convention on Human Rights (7th ed.)
5 Internet Site:
http://www.echr.coe.int
HUDOC (most comprehensive ECtHR database)
6 Assessment:
A two-hour examination (answer THREE questions out of FIVE: Similar format to last
year). Feedback on your performance in the examination will be provided via individual
written forms.
1
,TUTORIAL 1
2
, Application Procedure of European Convention on Human Rights
The original system (1950-1998)
Application by a State Application by an individual
European Commission of Human Rights
Is application admissible?
Yes No Case closed
Is a friendly settlement between
the parties possible?
No Yes Case closed
Commission finds facts
Does Commission think there is a violation of the convention?
Yes No
Is case referred to the Court by the
Commission or person under
Protocol 9 or a State? Commission reports to The
Committee of Ministers of the
Yes No Council of Europe
European Court of Human Rights
Is Convention violated?
Yes No Case closed
Is there a violation of the convention? Committee indicates what
measures should be taken
Yes No Case closed by the State.
Does the State comply?
Judgement of Court, which is
binding on State. (May also afford just No Yes Case closed
satisfaction to injured party).
Committee decides what effect
Case closed. is to be given to its Report.
- A very complicated / elaborate system, because States were cautious about signing up to a
European system
- Proved to be insufficiently efficient
- The determination of applications was the shared responsibility of 3 institutions: European
Commission of Human Rights, ECtHR, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
3
,- Came into effect in 1998
- A single court system
- But even the reformed system couldn”t cope
- Significant changes:
Abolished the Committee’s original decision-making role in respect of applications which
had been subject to a report by the Commission & had not been referred to the ECtHR
Created a new full-time ECtHR
4
, Retained the definition of inter-State applications (Art 33) / individual applications (Art
34); the admissibility criteria (Art 35); the Committee’s responsibility for supervising the
execution of the ECtHR’s judgments (Art 46)
Committees (composed of 3 judges) were empowered unanimously to declare
inadmissible individual applications; Chambers (composed of 7 judges) would determine
the admissibility & merits of inter-State applications & the merits of admissible individual
applications
When the ECtHR found a violation of the Convention it could award “just satisfaction”
(Art 41)
5
