Overview1959-2015

ECHR

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, March 2016

European Court of Human RightsPublic Relations UnitCouncil of EuropeF-67075 Strasbourg cedex

3Overview 1959-2015

Violation judgments by State

Since it was established in 1959 the Court has delivered about 18,500 judgments. Nearly half of the judgments concerned 5 member States: Turkey (3,182), Italy (2,336), the Russian Federation (1,720), Romania (1,197) and Poland (1,099).

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 84% of cases.

United Kingdom 2.83% Bulgaria

3.10% Greece 4.74% France

5.18%

Ukraine 5.67%

Poland 5.91%

Romania 6.44%

Russian Federation 9.26%

Italy 12.57%

Turkey 17.13%

Other States 27.17%

Statistics 1959 to 2015

4 Overview 1959-2015

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.

Although the number of judgments delivered each year by the Court has decreased, more applications have been examined by it.

Since it was set up, the Court has decided on the examination of around 674,000 applications.

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

Year 2014

Year 2015

837

177

695

888

844

703

718

1,105

1,560

1,503

1,543

1,625

1,499

1,157

1,093

916

891

823

5Overview 1959-2015

Applications

allocated to a

judicial

formation

Applications

declared

inadmissible

or struck out

Applications in

which

judgment was

delivered

Total number

of applications

decided

1959-2015 1959-2015 1959-2015 1959-2015Albania 1,012 520 97 617Andorra 72 63 6 69Armenia 2,306 1,276 62 1,338Austria 8,901 8,215 385 8,600Azerbaijan 4,315 2,638 166 2,804Belgium 4,895 4,271 249 4,520Bosnia and Herzegovina 6,980 6,019 126 6,145Bulgaria 14,296 12,881 674 13,555Croatia 13,312 12,476 344 12,820Cyprus 1,080 939 91 1,030Czech Republic 11,939 11,560 251 11,811Denmark 1,722 1,638 47 1,685Estonia 2,951 2,827 54 2,881Finland 4,997 4,802 186 4,988France 30,618 28,765 1,060 29,825Georgia 5,846 3,631 64 3,695Germany 28,510 27,984 319 28,303Greece 7,801 5,799 1,131 6,930Hungary 13,859 8,805 466 9,271Iceland 218 180 16 196Ireland 947 908 31 939Italy 42,524 29,864 3,182 33,046Latvia 3,797 3,536 108 3,644Liechtenstein 135 122 8 130Lithuania 5,157 4,680 132 4,812Luxembourg 592 541 44 585Malta 320 209 72 281Republic of Moldova 11,787 10,204 393 10,597Monaco 83 75 4 79Montenegro 1,947 1,741 37 1,778Netherlands 9,461 8,952 170 9,122Norway 1,574 1,464 47 1,511Poland 62,839 60,123 1,110 61,233Portugal 3,477 2,550 465 3,015Romania 61,292 56,192 1,660 57,852Russian Federation 135,152 123,330 2,748 126,078San Marino 74 52 16 68Serbia 24,602 22,957 545 23,502Slovak Republic 7,403 6,864 352 7,216Slovenia 8,633 6,646 349 6,995Spain 10,579 10,312 200 10,512Sweden 9,704 9,471 146 9,617Switzerland 6,567 6,240 165 6,405'The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia'

4,598 4,236 123 4,359

Turkey 62,147 49,702 4,163 53,865Ukraine 76,585 57,982 4,815 62,797United Kingdom 23,408 21,239 1,795 23,034TOTAL 741,014 645,481 28,674 674,155

Throughput of applications 1959* - 2015

* This table includes cases dealt with by the European Commission of Human Rights prior to 1959.

6 Overview 1959-2015

Subject-matter of the Court’s violation judgments (1959-2015)

More than 41% of the violations found by the Court have concerned Article 6 of the Convention, whether on account of the fairness (17.63%) or the length of the proceedings (22.13%).

The second violation most frequently found by the Court has concerned the right to liberty and security (Article 5).

Lastly, in 14.72% of cases, the Court has found a serious violation of the Convention, concerning the right to life or the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment (Articles 2 and 3).

Right to life (Art. 2) 4.52%

Right to respect for private and family life

(Art. 8) 4.67%

Other violations 6.36%

Right to an effective remedy (Art. 13)

8.33%

Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading

treatment (Art. 3) 10.20%

Protection of property (P1-1) 12.18% Right to liberty and security

(Art. 5) 12.43%

Right to a fair trial (Art. 6) 41.31%

7Overview 1959-2015

Subject-matter of the Court’s violation judgments(Comparative Graph 1959-2015 & 2015)

The violation most frequently found by the Court concerns Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), particularly with regard to the excessive length of the proceedings. In 2015 a quarter of all violations found by the Court related to this provision.

For a number of years, however, other violations of the Convention have been found increasingly frequently. One example is the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3): in 2015 this provision also accounted for almost one quarter of all the violations found.

Right to life(Art. 2) Right to

respect forprivate andfamily life

(Art. 8)

Otherviolations Right to an

effectiveremedy (Art.

13)

Prohibitionof torture

and inhumanor degrading

treatment(Art. 3)

Protection ofproperty (P1-

1)Right to

liberty andsecurity (Art.

5)

Right to afair trial (Art.

6)

6.98% 5.26% 7.33% 9.48%

23.02%

8.10%

15.69%

24.14% 4.52% 4.67% 6.36% 8.33% 10.20%

12.18% 12.43%

41.31%

2015 1959-2015

8 Overview 1959-2015

Violations by Article and by State*

19

59

-20

15

Total number o

f judgments

Judgments finding at le

ast one

violationJudgments f

inding no violation

Friendly se

ttlements/

Striking-out

judgmentsOther ju

dgments1

Right to lif

e – depriv

ation of li

fe

Lack of effe

ctive in

vestigatio

n

Prohibition of to

rture

2

Inhuman or degrading tre

atment

Lack of effe

ctive in

vestigatio

n

Conditional violatio

ns3

Prohibition of sl

avery/force

d labour

Right to lib

erty and se

curity

Right to a fa

ir tria

l2

Length of proceedings

Non-enforcement

No punishment w

ithout la

w

Right to re

spect for p

rivate

and family lif

eFre

edom of thought, c

onscience and

religion Fre

edom of expressi

on

Freedom of a

ssembly and asso

ciatio

n

Right to m

arry

Right to an effe

ctive re

medy

Prohibition of d

iscrim

ination

Protection of p

roperty

Right to educatio

n

Right to fre

e elections

Right not to

be tried or p

unished tw

ice

Other Artic

les of th

e Convention

Tota

lTo

tal

Tota

lTo

tal

Tota

l2

23

33

34

56

66

78

910

11

12

13

14

P1-1

P1-2

P1-3

P7-4

Alb

ania

60

47

42

71

21

328

615

11

2023

2

And

orra

63

11

12

1

Arm

enia

60

55

32

19

223

221

23

18

31

121

9

Aus

tria

35

22

50

63

24

15

14

111

9196

171

341

1526

41

4

Aze

rbai

jan

10

61

02

22

21

1111

2438

615

24

97

2917

5

Belg

ium

21

81

59

26

17

16

21

182

147

5857

104

139

12

Bosn

ia a

nd H

erze

govi

na4

33

76

11

710

115

11

13

274

Bulg

aria

57

75

24

33

51

515

294

6537

125

977

179

958

711

1116

38

811

41

22

Cro

atia

31

52

57

29

26

32

713

1024

8693

335

11

132

421

2

Cyp

rus

69

57

53

41

31

112

935

17

112

34

11

Cze

ch R

epub

lic2

18

18

31

61

36

11

22

2966

7919

11

162

12

Den

mar

k4

31

41

71

11

11

82

11

21

Esto

nia

47

37

91

61

1012

74

27

1

Finl

and

18

51

38

34

94

12

3761

2419

102

6

Fran

ce9

62

70

81

54

64

36

63

227

112

6326

928

22

341

434

635

930

4

Geo

rgia

64

48

12

13

13

179

1711

51

42

11

46

61

4

Ger

man

y2

87

18

28

11

11

33

2922

102

19

219

224

123

Gre

ece

88

17

87

29

20

45

43

179

61

6512

949

511

812

117

214

1472

13

11

Hun

gary

40

73

88

10

63

21

184

3315

274

113

186

225

193

4

Icel

and

16

13

31

45

21

Irela

nd3

22

16

14

12

511

51

71

Italy

2,3

36

1,7

81

63

35

31

39

25

527

536

274

1189

144

151

83

855

358

117

129

Latv

ia1

07

89

13

32

12

1610

5516

111

263

41

41

13

8

Liech

tens

tein

87

11

23

11

Lithu

ania

11

89

01

88

23

37

119

2127

11

141

25

161

9Overview 1959-2015

Violations by Article and by State*

*

Thi

s ta

ble

has

been

gen

erat

ed a

utom

atic

ally

sin

ce 2

012,

usi

ng t

he c

oncl

usio

ns in

the

HU

DO

C d

atab

ase.

1.

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.

2.

Fig

ures

may

incl

ude

cond

ition

al v

iola

tions

.

3.

F

igur

es a

re a

vaila

ble

only

from

201

3.

**

Som

e ju

dgm

ents

con

cern

sev

eral

Sta

tes.

1959

-201

5

Total number o

f judgments

Judgments finding at le

ast one

violationJudgments f

inding no violation

Friendly se

ttlements/

Striking-out

judgmentsOther ju

dgments1

Right to lif

e – depriv

ation of li

fe

Lack of effe

ctive in

vestigatio

n

Prohibition of to

rture

2

Inhuman or degrading tre

atment

Lack of effe

ctive in

vestigatio

n

Conditional violatio

ns3

Prohibition of sl

avery/force

d labour

Right to lib

erty and se

curity

Right to a fa

ir tria

l2Length of p

roceedingsNon-enforce

ment

No punishment w

ithout la

w

Right to re

spect for p

rivate

and family lif

eFre

edom of thought, c

onscience and

religion Freedom of e

xpression

Freedom of a

ssembly and asso

ciatio

n

Right to m

arry

Right to an effe

ctive re

medy

Prohibition of d

iscrim

ination

Protection of p

roperty

Right to educatio

n

Right to fre

e elections

Right not to

be tried or p

unished tw

ice

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

Luxe

mbo

urg

4433

83

114

174

31

31

1M

alta

6646

1010

11

199

91

14

33

14Re

publ

ic o

f Mol

dova

316

288

43

212

99

7039

7011

811

2122

417

1446

410

42

9M

onac

o2

21

2M

onte

negr

o22

201

13

21

35

41

22

4N

ethe

rland

s14

685

3316

124

18

2825

817

72

31

Nor

way

4028

121

122

75

11

Pola

nd1,

099

925

116

4216

66

234

929

910

643

44

107

125

12

254

527

Portu

gal

309

232

1356

81

13

2813

14

1020

351

47Ro

man

ia1,

197

1,07

639

2557

933

217

863

107

410

121

453

751

245

2230

464

51

15Ru

ssia

n Fe

dera

tion

1,72

01,

612

8013

1525

928

550

548

152

211

663

674

178

721

137

827

1539

010

516

23

310

3Sa

n M

arin

o14

101

21

17

21

11

Serb

ia

132

117

96

23

47

2524

4112

617

251

Slov

ak R

epub

lic33

630

010

215

22

14

252

3719

82

199

342

91

Slov

enia

337

317

163

12

216

615

262

310

126

51

2Sp

ain

135

8643

33

28

542

134

104

14

21

Swed

en14

456

5628

41

14

12

2712

19

21

21

61

Switz

erla

nd16

297

575

31

11

216

317

221

161

12

4'T

he fo

rmer

Yug

osla

v Re

publ

ic

of M

aced

onia

'12

111

06

32

21

35

1014

3361

53

110

7

Turk

ey3,

182

2,81

267

204

9912

518

631

305

198

685

821

582

614

949

258

7026

511

647

59

32Uk

rain

e1,

053

1,03

611

24

940

1313

666

235

494

303

291

513

105

192

233

62

28Un

ited

King

dom

526

305

132

6722

220

217

11

6591

281

681

114

433

443

26

2Su

b-to

tal

15,5

701,

357

1,08

061

345

865

313

31,

670

662

396

3,05

34,

329

5,43

538

141

1,14

661

619

179

82,

045

242

2,99

213

7920

293

Tota

l18

,577

**

10 Overview 1959-2015

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 Commission and the Court 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, which were not yet in force in 2015.

Protocol No. 15, adopted in 2013, will insert references to the principle of subsidiarity and the doctrine of the margin of appreciation into the Convention’s preamble; it will also reduce from 6 to 4 months the time within which an application must be lodged with the Court after a final national decision.

2013 also saw 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

11Overview 1959-2015

Proceedings at national level

Proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights

Execution of judgments

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 remedies

Decision of the highest domestic court

Beginning of the dispute

Proceedings before the national courts

The life of an application

12 Overview 1959-2015

Relin

quis

hmen

t

Referral

Referral

SIN

GLE

JU

DG

E1

judg

e

Judg

men

t on

the

mer

its

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

its

Judg

men

t on

the

adm

issi

bilit

y

and

the

mer

its

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

Simplified flow chart of case-processing by the Court

w w w . e c h r . c o e . i n t