I. Errors that can cause an application not to be accepted by the Court

1. Errors in using the application form

• An outdated version of the form has been used; or
• the application has been lodged without using the form.

Exceptions are possible, but they are very limited. The Court may accept an application lodged without the form only in exceptional cases, in particular where, instead of a completed current form, the applicant submits a request for urgent interim measures that appears, at least at first sight, to be well founded. The decision remains entirely at the Court’s discretion, so I strongly recommend that you do not rely on this exception.

2. Errors in completing section “A. Applicant”

• If the applicant is an individual: fields 1–9 have not been completed or have been completed incorrectly.
• If the applicant is an organisation: fields 10–16 have not been completed or have been completed incorrectly.
• If there is more than one applicant:
  • the details of the second and each further applicant have not been provided on a separate sheet, with the applicants numbered;
  • if the applicants rely on different facts for their applications: one joint form has been submitted instead of separate forms for each applicant.
• If there are more than ten applicants:
  • the form is not accompanied by a table giving details of all the applicants;
  • if a representative who is a lawyer has been appointed: the electronic version of the table is not enclosed with the form.

3. Errors in completing section “B. State(s) against which the application is directed”

• In field 17, the name of each State against which the application is directed has not been ticked.

4. Errors in completing section “C. Representative(s) of the individual applicant”

• If the applicant is an individual and has appointed a representative:
  • fields 34 and 36 have not been completed or have been completed incorrectly; or
  • field 33 does not contain the applicant’s original signature; or
  • field 35 does not contain the representative’s original signature;
  • if the representative is not a lawyer: fields 18–25 have not been completed or have been completed incorrectly;
  • if the representative is a lawyer: fields 26–32 have not been completed or have been completed incorrectly.

Exceptions are possible. A separate authority form may be accepted if there is a convincing explanation of insurmountable practical obstacles that prevented the Authority section of the application form itself from being completed and signed. For fields 53–56, where the applicant is an organisation, a separate authority form may also be accepted if there is a convincing explanation of insurmountable practical obstacles.

5. Errors in completing section “D. Representative(s) of the applicant organisation”

• Whether or not section D.2 has been completed, fields 38–45 have not been completed or have been completed incorrectly.
• Если заявитель – организация и назначил представителя – адвоката или юриста:
  • fields 46–52 have not been completed or have been completed incorrectly;
  • если представитель при этом не является должностным лицом организации:
    • fields 54 and 56 have not been completed or have been completed incorrectly; or
    • field 53 does not contain the organisation official’s original signature; or
    • field 55 does not contain the representative’s original signature.

6. Errors in completing section “E. Statement of the facts”

• In fields 58–60, the facts that are key to the alleged violation are not set out in full, including where the statement continues beyond those fields.

If section F of the form sets out several alleged violations, compliance with the requirements in points 6–8 is checked separately for each of them.

Note. Key facts are usually identified through a systematic analysis of the Court’s case-law. Here and below, the Court’s case-law means the current case-law of the European Court of Human Rights on the relevant issue. The analysis usually begins with HUDOC Key cases, then cases assigned the Importance level “1 / High importance” or “2 / Medium importance” in the Court’s case-law database. It can also be useful to study cases assigned the Importance level “3 / Low importance”, especially in relation to the respondent State, so as not to miss important nuances. The full case-law database is available only in English and French, and translations into other languages are always incomplete and often inaccurate.

7. Errors in completing section “F. Statement of alleged violation(s) of the Convention and/or Protocols and relevant arguments”

• In fields 61–62:
  • the left-hand column does not specify the Articles of the Convention or Protocols on which the applicant relies; or
  • the right-hand column does not explain why the facts set out show a violation of those Articles.

Note. An alleged violation that is not properly set out in fields 61–62 may be treated as not having been raised. Explanations are useful only if they are consistent with the Court’s case-law.

8. Errors in completing section “G. Compliance with admissibility criteria laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention”

• Except where the applicant expressly states that he or she has not used any remedies for the violation, field 63 does not contain information:
  • about the remedies used; or
  • about the decisions given following their use, including the dates on which the final decision was given and served or received, case numbers, the authorities that gave the decisions, and the types of decisions.
• In field 64, neither “Yes” nor “No” has been ticked.
• If “Yes” has been ticked in field 64, field 65:
  • does not state which remedies the applicant did not use; or
  • does not explain why the applicant did not use them.

Note. The question of which remedies should have been used and which could be left unused generally requires a study of the Court’s case-law.

9. Errors in completing section “H. Information concerning other international proceedings”

• If the applicant has not raised any of these complaints in another procedure of international investigation or settlement, and has not previously lodged applications with the Court: fields 66 and 68 are not marked “No”.
• If any of these complaints have been raised in another such procedure:
  • field 66 is not marked “Yes”; or
  • field 67 does not describe which complaints were raised, in which procedure, and when and what decision was given.
• If the applicant has previously lodged applications with the Court:
  • field 68 is not marked “Yes”; or
  • field 69 does not contain the numbers of those applications.

10. Errors in completing section “I. List of accompanying documents”

• At least one accompanying document is not listed:
  • in field 70; or
  • if there is not enough space there: on a separate continuation sheet, continuing the numbering started in field 70.
• A copy, scan or photograph of any of the following decisions or other documents is missing, incomplete or illegible:
  • all decisions and documents recording the measures complained of;
  • if the applicant has used remedies:
    • all decisions given in the course of using those remedies, including separate documents giving reasons if these were issued separately;
    • all submissions to the domestic authorities that are needed to show that the substance of each alleged violation set out in the form was raised at the domestic level;
  • if the applicant calculates the time-limit for applying to the Court from the date of service or receipt of the final decision: documents confirming that date;
  • if another procedure of international investigation or settlement has been used: the relevant documents;
  • if the applicant is an organisation: documents confirming the authority of the organisation official.

Exceptions are possible. A copy of a decision or other document need not be enclosed if the form explains that obtaining the document was practically impossible.

Note. I strongly recommend that you:

• do not enclose storage media such as CD-ROMs, memory sticks and similar items containing audio and/or video recordings or other files with the form. Key facts based on such material must be set out in words, with a reference to the existence of the material. The Court will request it if necessary. By contrast, a storage medium containing the electronic version of the table referred to in point 2 above may be enclosed.
• arrange the accompanying documents chronologically, or by separate sets of proceedings if there are several, and within each set chronologically;
• number all pages of the accompanying documents consecutively and, in the right-hand part of field 70 and on any additional sheet, indicate the pages on which each accompanying document appears according to that numbering.

11. Errors in completing section “Declaration and signature”

• Field 72 does not contain a date; or
• field 73 does not contain:
  • for each applicant signing the form personally: the applicant’s original signature; or
  • for each applicant on whose behalf the form is signed by a representative: the representative’s original signature.

12. Errors in completing section “Contact person for correspondence”

• If there is more than one applicant:
  • field 74 does not state the surname, first name or names, and patronymic if any, and address of one contact person for correspondence;
  • if a representative has been appointed: field 74 gives the applicant’s details instead of the representative’s details.

13. Errors in completing the annex to the application form

• If an annex is attached to the form, it:
  • exceeds 20 pages; or
  • does not comply with the formatting requirements: A4 pages, margins at least 3.5 centimetres wide, a font size of at least 12 points in the main text and 10 points in footnotes, and consecutively numbered pages and paragraphs; or
  • contains key facts, the statement of alleged violations, or information on the exhaustion of remedies that is absent from sections E, F and G.

Note. The annex to the application form is intended only for additional information and explanations beyond what must be set out in sections E, F and G. It may contain more detailed information about the domestic proceedings and about how the national authorities examined the arguments submitted to them. It may also include clarifying facts and arguments concerning alleged violations already set out in the form itself.

14. Errors when the form is sent to the Court again

• After the Court has refused to accept an application, the form is sent again without copies of all the documents referred to in the renewed submission. Missing documents or information are instead sent separately, or copies of documents already sent to the Court are not enclosed again.

Note. Although the absence of this information will not necessarily lead the Court to refuse to accept the application, I strongly recommend the following. If the applicant has already applied to the Court about the same matter and has received barcode labels, place one of those labels in the relevant box in the top left-hand part of the first page of the form. If there are no such labels, give at least the number stated in the Court’s letter in the application-number box in the top right-hand part of the first page of the form.

II. Errors that increase the risk of the application, or part of it, being declared inadmissible

15. Substantive errors in the statement of alleged violations

• The statement of an alleged violation is critically inconsistent. If section F of the form sets out several alleged violations, critical inconsistency under points 15–17 is assessed separately for each of them. Here and below, “critically inconsistent” means that, in a part material to the Court’s findings:
  • the statement of the facts on the relevant issue:
    • is internally inconsistent; or
    • does not correspond to the contents of the accompanying documents; or
  • the statement of the alleged violation or the information about compliance with the relevant admissibility criterion is inconsistent with:
    • the statement of the facts; or
    • the Court’s case-law.

Note. Although this will not necessarily lead the Court to refuse to accept the application, I strongly recommend avoiding abbreviations, symbols and signs that may make the text in the form difficult to understand.

16. Substantive errors in the statement of information about remedies and the time-limit for applying to the Court

• The following are critically inconsistent:
  • information about the use of remedies or the reasons for not using them; or
  • information about compliance with the time-limit for applying to the Court.

17. Substantive errors in the statement of information about the other admissibility criteria

• The form alleges a violation of a Protocol to the Convention which the respondent State has not ratified.
• The form alleges a violation by a State which is not a Party to the Convention.
• If there are reasonable doubts about compliance with any of the following admissibility criteria, the form contains no information about compliance with the relevant criterion or the information provided is critically inconsistent:
  • the respondent State may be responsible for the alleged violation;
  • the applicant is entitled to apply to the Court under Article 34 of the Convention;
  • the representative is entitled to act without an authority form, if the form has been signed by the representative and the applicant has not signed it either in field 73 or in the Authority section;
  • the applicant was within the jurisdiction of the respondent State;
  • the alleged violation occurred during the period when the Convention was in force in respect of the respondent State and, if the rights and freedoms are secured in a Protocol, during the period when the relevant Protocol was in force;
  • the applicant had, and still has, victim status in respect of the alleged violation;
  • the applicant has suffered a significant disadvantage;
  • the application is not substantially the same as a matter already examined by the Court and is not the subject of another procedure of international investigation or settlement.
• The application shows signs of an abuse of the right of individual application.