Admissiability

Question 1

ECHR art. 1

Answer 1

Obligation to respect Human Rights:
The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention.

Question 2

ECHR art. 33

Answer 2

Inter-State cases:
Any High Contracting Party may refer to the Court any alleged breach of the provisions of the Convention and the Protocols thereto by another High Contracting Party.

Question 3

ECHR art. 34

Answer 3

Individual applications:
The Court may receive applications from any person, non- governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. The High Contracting Parties undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right.

Question 4

ECHR art. 35

Answer 4

Admissibility criteria:

1. all remedies must be exhausted
2. Individual application cannot be anonymous or a case that has already been brought
3. Induviduall applications cannot be: manifestly ill-founded/abusive, without significant disadvantage

Question 5

Norris v. Ireland

Answer 5

• Homosexual man considered victim to law against homosexuals, even though he had never been prosecuted
• It was not actio popularis, because he was forced to modify his behaviour because of the law
• He was a direct victim

Question 6

Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania

Answer 6

VC was never appointed a guardian/representative, had no next of kin, as the complaint was of ‘right to life’ it would be paradoxical to not allow someone else to represent him, since he was now dead, no one in the domestic courts had denied CLR to represent him after his death, when CLR became VC’s representatives he was still alive but unable to express his wishes

Question 7

Soering v. United Kingdom

Answer 7

Due to the long possible wait on death row, and because no lawful guarantees could be given by USA it was ruled that an extradition to USA would be in breach of Soerings right not to be tortured (art. 3)

Question 8

Eon v. France

Answer 8

• Violation of freedom of expression
• Eon was prosecuted for insulting the head of state 30 Euro fine
• significant disadvantage, because politic expression enjoy higher protection
• Dissending judge said there was no significant disadvantage