How the Court works
Plenary Court
Plenary administrative sessions are convened by the President of the Court whenever the performance of its functions so requires. The plenary quorum shall be two-thirds of the elected judges in office.
The plenary Court performs a variety of different functions, such as election of the President of the Court, the two Vice-Presidents of the Court, Section Presidents, Registrar and Deputy Registrar of the Court, amendments to the Rules of Court or discussion and adoption of judicial policy decisions and plenary resolutions (see, for example, the Resolution on Judicial Ethics (21 June 2021) or the Resolution on the consequences of the cessation of membership of the Russian Federation to the Council of Europe (22 March 2022).
The Bureau
The Bureau of the Court is composed of the President of the Court, the two Vice-Presidents of the Court and the five Section Presidents. Its task is to assist the President in carrying out his or her function in directing the work and administration of the Court. To this end the President may submit to the Bureau any administrative or extra-judicial matter which falls within his or her competence, such as issuing practice directions under Rule 32 of the Rules of Court. The Bureau shall also facilitate coordination between the Court’s Sections and may report on any matter to the Plenary. (Rule 9A).
The Bureau is assisted in the performance of its tasks by the Registrar and the Deputy Registrar of the Court (Rule 9A § 2).
Case processing and working methods
The Court has developed a clear and consistent system of management of applications, involving a series of steps and procedures that are followed to ensure efficient processing of cases. The Court’s working methods are based on the Convention, the Rules of Court, specific rules developed following the adoption of successive protocols annexed to the Convention, practices and tools employed by the Judges and officials of the Registry to handle cases effectively.
Life of an application
The flow chart indicates the progress of a case through the different judicial formations. In the interests of readability, it does not include certain stages in the procedure – such as communication of an application to the respondent State, consideration of a re-hearing request by the Panel of the Grand Chamber and friendly settlement negotiations.
- Albanian
- Armenian
- Azerbaijani
- Bosnian
- Bulgarian
- Catalan
- Chinese
- Croatian
- Czech
- Danish
- Dutch
- Estonian
- Finnish
- French
- Georgian
- German
- Greek
- Hungarian
- Icelandic
- Italian
- Latvian
- Lithuanian
- Macedonian
- Montenegrin
- Polish
- Portugese
- Romanian
- Russian
- Serbian
- Slovak
- Slovenian
- Spanish
- Swedish
- Turkish
- Ukrainian
Case-processing flow chart before the Court's judicial formations
The applications are assigned to judicial formations, that is to say a single judge, Committee or Chamber. Some cases may also be relinquished or referred to the Grand Chamber.
Case-processing strategy
The Court has introduced a more targeted and more effective case-processing strategy, consisting in identifying potentially well-founded cases which address key issues of relevance for the State concerned or for the Convention system generally and which warrant speedier processing.
Summary-formula judgments and decisions
Since 1 September 2021 the Court’s judgments and decisions in cases falling within the competence of Committees of three judges are drawn up in a more concise and focused manner. This new “summary-formula” format aims to respond more quickly to applications which raise legal questions the subject of well-established case-law and to reduce the Court’s backlog.
Priority policy
In June 2009 the Court adopted a priority policy with a view to speeding up the processing and adjudication of the most important, serious and urgent cases. It established seven categories ranging from urgent cases concerning vulnerable applicants (Category I) to clearly inadmissible cases dealt with by a Single Judge (Category VII). It conducted a review of that policy and with effect from 22 May 2017 introduced some amendments to the priority categories.
Pilot-judgment procedure
The Court may initiate a pilot-judgment procedure where the facts of an application or applications reveal in the Contracting Party concerned the existence of a structural or systemic problem or other similar dysfunction which has given or which may give rise to similar applications. The procedure governing the pilot-judgment procedure is governed by Rule 61 of the Rules of Court.
Filtering Section and Rule 47 of the Rules of Court
The Court has established a Filtering Section to monitor the application of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court. Rule 47 contains a set of administrative requirements regarding the information and documents that must be provided by an applicant in order to lodge a valid application.
The Filtering Section is responsible for sorting applications in order to direct them to the appropriate judicial formation or for rejecting at administrative level those which do not comply with Rule 47. In exceptional cases, the Court may direct of its own motion or at the request of an applicant that an application not be rejected for this reason (Rule 47 § 5.1(c)).
Unilateral declarations
A respondent Government may make a declaration acknowledging the violation of the Convention and undertaking to provide the applicant with redress.
Jurisconsult
Role of the Jurisconsult
For the purpose of ensuring the quality and consistency of its case-law, the Court shall be assisted by a Jurisconsult who provides opinions and information, in particular to judicial formations and the members of the Court, with a view to assisting the Court to ensure the quality and consistency of its case-law. The Jurisconsult shall be a member of the Registry and shall be appointed by the plenary Court. He or she also manages the related activities of the directorate of the Jurisconsult.
The directorate of the Jurisconsult
The activities and responsibilities of the directorate of the Jurisconsult include:
- providing case-law support to judicial formations, members of the Court and members of the Registry;
- conducting research on ECHR case-law as well as on international and comparative law;
- creating and sharing case-law information via the Knowledge Sharing platform;
- ensuring the operation of the Court’s case-law database (HUDOC) and its Library;
- creating case-law tools to assist case-processing, such as standard citations drawn from key case-law;
- facilitating dialogue with national courts through the Superior Courts Network;
- facilitating exchanges with bodies of the Council of Europe and with academic institutions.
Reform of the Court
Since the Court was set up in 1959 the Council of Europe’s member States have adopted several Protocols to the Convention, aimed at improving and strengthening the control machinery established by it.
In addition, several high-level conferences on reform of the Convention system have been held in recent years.
Copenhagen Conference 2018
A high-level conference on reform of the Convention system was held in Copenhagen on 12 and 13 April 2018.
At the request of the Chair of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, the Court has examined the draft declaration and issued an opinion on the subject.
Brussels Conference 2015
A high-level conference was held in Brussels on 26 and 27 March 2015 on "The implementation of the European Convention of Human Rights, our shared responsibility".
Oslo Conference 2014
A conference on the long-term future of the Court was held in Oslo on 7 and 8 April 2014. Judges, government experts and researchers took part in the conference, which forms part of the Court’s reform process.
-
-
Brighton Conference 2012
A high-level conference on the future of the Court was held in Brighton, on 18-20 April 2012, during the British Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. The plenary Court has adopted a preliminary opinion for the preparation of the conference.
Izmir Conference 2011
The Turkish Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe organised a high-level conference on the future of the Court in Izmir on 26 and 27 April 2011.
-
-
Interlaken Conference 2010
The President of the Court, Jean-Paul Costa, accompanied by a delegation of Judges and members of the Registry, travelled to Interlaken on 18 and 19 February 2010 to attend a Ministerial Conference on the future of the European Court of Human Rights. A joint declaration was adopted at the close of the conference.
Reports and opinions
Reform work
The purpose of these reports was to present the situation in the Court with particular regard to the reform work set in motion after the Interlaken Declaration and Action plan, and the follow-up conferences in Izmir and Brighton.
Longer-term future of the Convention system
Report of the Group of Wise Persons to the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers
Working methods of the Court
Other reports and opinions
The process for the accession of the European Union to the Convention
Article 59, paragraph 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”), as amended by Protocol No. 14 to the Convention, which entered into force on 1 June 2010, authorises the European Union (EU) to accede to the Convention.
As to EU law, Article 6 § 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) provides that “[the EU] shall accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Such accession shall not affect the [EU]’s competences as defined in the Treaties [of the EU]”.
The accession of the EU to the Convention therefore involves a process whereby the EU would join the community of the 46 European States that have legally undertaken to comply with the Convention and have agreed that such compliance is subject to the supervision of the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”). The EU would thereby become the 47th Contracting Party to the Convention.
The EU’s accession to the Convention would allow individuals and firms to refer acts of the EU’s institutions for scrutiny by the Court. It would also enable the EU to participate in proceedings before the Court as a party in its own right. Currently, the EU can only be a party to such proceedings as a third-party intervener. EU accession to the Convention would enable the achievement of a coherent system for the protection of fundamental rights throughout all of Europe.
In the wake of the introduction of Article 6 § 2 TEU by the Treaty of Lisbon and the adoption of Protocol No. 14 to the Convention, accession negotiations were opened between the Council of Europe and the European Commission in 2010. A draft Accession Agreement, finalised in April 2013, gave rise to Opinion 2/13 delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on 18 December 2014. In that Opinion, the CJEU found that the draft Accession Agreement was not compatible with EU law. Negotiations resumed in 2020. To that end, on 15 January 2020, the Ministers’ Deputies of the Council of Europe approved the extension of the ad hoc mandate of the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) in order to elaborate and finalise, within the ad hoc group “47+1” (which became “46+1” following Russia’s expulsion in 2022), the legal instruments setting out the modalities of accession of the EU to the Convention.
At its 18th meeting, which was held from 14 to 17 March 2023, the CDDH reached a tentative agreement on virtually all the draft accession instruments. There are still several steps remaining in the accession process, in particular to resolve the issue of EU acts in the area of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, to obtain a favourable opinion from the CJEU and/or the Court and to secure ratification by the European Parliament and the national parliaments of the 27 EU member States.
Jurisconsult
Role of the Jurisconsult
For the purpose of ensuring the quality and consistency of its case-law, the Court shall be assisted by a Jurisconsult who provides opinions and information, in particular to judicial formations and the members of the Court, with a view to assisting the Court to ensure the quality and consistency of its case-law. The Jurisconsult shall be a member of the Registry and shall be appointed by the plenary Court. He or she also manages the related activities of the Directorate of the Jurisconsult.
The Directorate of the Jurisconsult
The activities and responsibilities of the Directorate of the Jurisconsult include:
- providing case-law support to judicial formations, members of the Court and members of the Registry;
- conducting research on ECHR case-law as well as on international and comparative law;
- creating and sharing case-law information via the Knowledge Sharing platform;
- ensuring the operation of the Court’s case-law database (HUDOC) and its Library;
- creating case-law tools to assist case-processing, such as standard citations drawn from key case-law;
- facilitating dialogue with national courts through the Superior Courts Network;
- facilitating exchanges with bodies of the Council of Europe and with academic institutions.
Organisational chart of the Directorate
EU Accession Process
The process for the accession of the European Union to the Convention
Article 59, paragraph 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”), as amended by Protocol No. 14 to the Convention, which entered into force on 1 June 2010, authorises the European Union (EU) to accede to the Convention.
As to EU law, Article 6 § 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) provides that “[the EU] shall accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Such accession shall not affect the [EU]’s competences as defined in the Treaties [of the EU]”.
The accession of the EU to the Convention therefore involves a process whereby the EU would join the community of the 46 European States that have legally undertaken to comply with the Convention and have agreed that such compliance is subject to the supervision of the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”). The EU would thereby become the 47th Contracting Party to the Convention.
The EU’s accession to the Convention would allow individuals and firms to refer acts of the EU’s institutions for scrutiny by the Court. It would also enable the EU to participate in proceedings before the Court as a party in its own right. Currently, the EU can only be a party to such proceedings as a third-party intervener. EU accession to the Convention would enable the achievement of a coherent system for the protection of fundamental rights throughout all of Europe.
In the wake of the introduction of Article 6 § 2 TEU by the Treaty of Lisbon and the adoption of Protocol No. 14 to the Convention, accession negotiations were opened between the Council of Europe and the European Commission in 2010. A draft Accession Agreement, finalised in April 2013, gave rise to Opinion 2/13 delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on 18 December 2014. In that Opinion, the CJEU found that the draft Accession Agreement was not compatible with EU law. Negotiations resumed in 2020. To that end, on 15 January 2020, the Ministers’ Deputies of the Council of Europe approved the extension of the ad hoc mandate of the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) in order to elaborate and finalise, within the ad hoc group “47+1” (which became “46+1” following Russia’s expulsion in 2022), the legal instruments setting out the modalities of accession of the EU to the Convention (ETS no. 5).
At its 18th meeting, which was held from 14 to 17 March 2023, the CDDH reached a tentative agreement on virtually all the draft accession instruments. There are still several steps remaining in the accession process, in particular to resolve the issue of EU acts in the area of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, to obtain a favourable opinion from the CJEU and/or the Court and to secure ratification by the European Parliament and the national parliaments of the 27 EU member States.