European Commission & Court of HR — Functions & Jurisdiction — Human Rights Law Notes

European Commission & Court of HR — Functions & Jurisdiction

Before 1998 a European complaint had to clear two gates — first the Commission decided whether it was even worth hearing, then the Court decided the merits. Protocol 11 knocked down the first gate and left one permanent Court. Knowing that “before and after” is the fastest way to answer this frequent short note.

This topic focuses on the machinery of the European system — the old Commission, the Court, and the rules for getting in.

A. The old European Commission of Human Rights (1954–1998)

It filtered cases: it decided admissibility, established the facts, and tried a friendly settlement before a case could reach the Court. Protocol No. 11 abolished it in 1998, merging its filtering role into the single permanent Court.

B. The European Court of Human Rights (Strasbourg)

• Composition — one judge per contracting State, elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
• Jurisdiction — inter-State cases and, above all, individual applications under Article 34; it interprets and applies the Convention, and its judgments bind the respondent State.

C. Admissibility conditions (Article 35) — the marks in a short note

An application is admissible only if:

1. Domestic remedies have been exhausted — the applicant first used all effective local remedies.
2. It is filed within the time-limit (four months from the final domestic decision).
3. The applicant is a victim of a Convention violation (Art 34).
4. The application is not anonymous, and not substantially the same as a matter already examined.
5. It is not manifestly ill-founded or an abuse of the right of petition, and the applicant has suffered a significant disadvantage.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — an inadmissible application

Facts. An applicant rushes to Strasbourg without appealing through his national courts.

Rule. Article 35 requires exhaustion of domestic remedies before the Court can hear a case.

Apply. Because effective national remedies remain unused, the application fails the first admissibility gate, whatever its merits.

Conclusion. The Court declares it inadmissible; the applicant must first exhaust local remedies.

ECHR, 1950, Article 35(1): “The Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, and within a period of four months from the date on which the final decision was taken.”

In Simple Terms: You must climb your own country’s ladder of courts first, and come to Strasbourg promptly afterwards — otherwise the door is shut before the merits are even looked at.

flowchart TD
    A["EUROPEAN MACHINERY"]:::root
    A --> B["Old Commission 1954-1998<br/>filtered cases - ABOLISHED"]:::warn
    A --> C["Protocol 11 (1998)<br/>single permanent Court"]:::leaf
    C --> D["Jurisdiction<br/>individual (Art 34) + inter-State"]:::leaf
    C --> E["Admissibility - Art 35<br/>exhaust remedies + 4-month limit<br/>+ victim + significant disadvantage"]:::leaf
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef warn fill:#FDE7E7,stroke:#B00020,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

• Lawless v Ireland (1961) — the first case decided by the Court after the Commission’s referral.
• Ireland v United Kingdom (1978) — an inter-State case clarifying the line between torture and inhuman treatment under Article 3.

Back to Top

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Human Rights Law topics