A more recent version of these Case Load notes – written by Oxford students – is available here.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our European Human Rights Law Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Case load Case Load Issues 40k applications each year 800 judgments a year = 98% unjudicated Neither Protocol 11 which came into force in 1998 nor Protocol 14 which still requires Russia's permission to implement (correct in 2007) have addressed them. Wildhaber (2006) "rapid pace of change surpassed the ability to foresee and anticipate future trends". Protocol 11 judicialised the whole convention system. The right of individual petition and the jurisdiction of the court, which had been optional, now became compulsory. The non-binding, somewhat more political aspects of the system (namely the power of the committee of ministers to approve reports by the commission) were abolished. Protocol 14 - replace the 3 judge committee which decided on the admissibility of applications by a single judge supported by rapporteurs. Instead of the 7 judge chambers a mere 3 judges would now rule on manifestly well founded applications. Art 35 was amended so that those who had not suffered a significant disadvantage could be declared inadmissible, provided that the domestic courts had duly assessed such applications in the light of convention standards and the nature of the application did not necessitate an explanation. "indisputable that the current system of an unrestricted right of individual petition is no longer capable of attaining the right goals and priorities, that, as a result of the system, too many important applications go unsettled for too long and that the convention systems needs a new direction if it is not to be submerged by the flood of applications or lose all credibility" McKaskle (2005) "victim of its own success" "justice delayed is justice denied" "the proposals seem laudable, but do not seem to provide the real answer" - need more farreaching powers to decline to hear cases of relatively minor issues". Pilot judgments Broniowski v Poland - concerned compatibility with the convention of legislative provisions affecting a large number of people (80k), the court for the first time found a systemic violation.
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our European Human Rights Law Notes.