On October 23rd, 2014, we updated our
By continuing to use LinkedIn’s SlideShare service, you agree to the revised terms, so please take a few minutes to review them.
Facts & Figures - 20115Court’s statistics for 2011Pending allocated casesApproximately 151,600 applications were pending before a judicial formation on1 January 2012. More than half of these applications had been lodged against one offour countries: Russia,Turkey, Italy and Romania.on 1 January 201228,1 %6,34 %2.7%9.1%8.1%6.8%4.5%4.2%2.8%2.4%10.5%26.6%22.3%RussiaTurkeyItalyRomaniaUkraineSerbiaRepublic of MoldovaPolandBulgariaUnited KingdomOther States
European Court of Human Rights6Judgments by State in 2011In 2011, more than a third of the judgments delivered by the Court concerned fourof the Council of Europe’s forty-seven member States:Turkey (174), Russia (133),Ukraine (105) and Greece (73).Of the total number of judgments it has delivered in2011,in over 85% of cases the Court has found at least one violation of the Conven-tion by the respondent State.Since it was established in 1959, near the half of the judgments delivered by theCourt concerned four member States:Turkey (2,747), Italy (2,166), Russia (1,212)and Poland (945).15.04%11.50%9.08%58.08%UkraineGreeceRussiaTurkeyOther States6.3%
Facts & Figures - 20117Applications allocated to a judicial formationApplications which are allocated to a judicial formation are those for which theCourt has received a correctly completed form, accompanied by copies of relevantdocuments.These applications will be examined by a single judge, a Committee orby a Chamber of the Court.These figures do not include applications which are atthe pre-judicial stage (incomplete case file).on 1 January 201245,0008,400 10,50013,80028,20027,20032,50035,40039,40041,70049,90057,1001955-19981999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 201170,00060,00050,00040,00030,00020,00010,000061,30064,500
European Court of Human Rights8Judgments delivered by the CourtSince the reform of the Convention system on 1 November 1998, there has beena considerable increase in the Court’s caseload. Barely ten years after the reform,the Court delivered its 10,000th judgment. Its output is such that more than 91%of the Court’s judgments since its creation in 1959 have been delivered between1998 and 2011.In recent years the Court has concentrated on examining complex cases and hasdecided to join certain applications which raise similar legal questions so that it canconsider them jointly.Thus, although the number of judgments delivered each yearis not increasing as rapidly as in the past,the Court has examined more applications.In 2011,the Court delivered 1,157 judgments concerning 1,511 applications. A totalof 52,188 applications were decided in 2011.1959-19981999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20111,105837177695888844703 7181,5601,5031,5431,6252,0001,5001,00050001,4991,157
Facts & Figures - 20119Subject-matter of the Court’s violation judgments in 2011More than a third of the judgments in which the Court found a violation includeda violation of Article 6 (Right to a fair trial), whether on account of the fairness orthe length of the proceedings. Furthermore, 49% of violations found by the Courtconcern Article 6 and Article 3 (Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degradingtreatment).Lastly, more than 23% of violations found by the Court concern the right to life orthe prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment (Articles 2 and 3 ofthe Convention).15.10%33.72%4.60%Prohibition of torture andinhuman or degrading treatment (Art. 3)Right to liberty and security (Art. 5)Right to an effective remedy (Art. 13)Right to a fair trial(Art. 6)Protection of property (P1-1)Right to life (Art. 2)Other violations8.42%13.73%14.59%9.84%
Facts&Figures-201111INDIVIDUAL APPLICATIONSCOMMITTEECHAMBERSINGLE JUDGEGRANDCHAMBERINADMISSIBILITYDECISIONINADMISSIBILITYDECISIONADMISSIBILITYDECISIONJUDGMENTON THE MERITJUDGMENTON THEADMISSIBILITYAND THE MERITJUDGMENTON THEADMISSIBILITYAND THE MERITCOMMITTEEOF MINISTERSJUDGMENTRelinquishmentReferralRelinquishmentINADMISSIBILITYDECISIONReferralReferralSimplifiedcase-processingflowchartoftheCourt