European Court of Human Rights

Presentation by Mr F. Pieters

By Isabelle Bratt

After seeing the old European Court of Human Rights building across the water, it was interesting to see inside the new building, opened in 1995 to accommodate the increasing number of cases bought to Strasbourg. The new structure with its huge glass windows and metal exterior is much more impressive. It is supposed to represent the 'openness' of the Court to European citizens.

Mr Pieters gave us a presentation on the work of the registry at the European Court of Human Rights. Firstly he showed us a video about the Court, and then he explained to us the working of the registry, the principal function of which is to process and prepare for adjudication applications lodged by individuals with the Court. This is done using various rules on admissibility of cases.

One of these, Mr Pieters explained the rule of exhaustion whereby an applicant must exhaust all national remedies before they can apply to the European Court of Human Rights. This includes making use of the right to appeal at national level. The applicant cannot make errors in the process; thus, they must operate within the set time limits. This is to give national authorities the opportunity to respond to allegations of violations of the European Convention of Human Rights in the national courts. The applicant must then lodge a complaint with the European Court within 6 months of the date of the final decision at national level.

He also explained the four complaints of incompatibility of applications to the Court. They are as follows: 1. If a complaint is about acts committed before the Treaty has entered into force in the State in question; 2. If a complaint is about acts committed outside the territory of the State in question, unless the state exercises effective control over the area; 3. If the complaint is against a non-signatory state, or the applicant is not a victim themselves, or if the rights are not covered by the Convention (e.g. the right to live in a certain area); 4. If the complaint is unsubstantiated and there is no objective information (e.g. stories are inconsistent, or there was a violation of the Convention but it is justified).

Finally, Mr Pieters explained the procedure of inadmissibility. A document is prepared containing the facts of the case and the complaint and the reasons for or against inadmissibility. . A court of 3 judges then decides if the case is admissible or not, and if not, the applicant receives a letter stating that his complaint was inadmissible. The reasoning of the court is not made public.

Mr Pieters is participating in a 6 year programme of training to become a judge in the Netherlands. He has to complete two years training outside of the judiciary and one person from the programme has the opportunity to complete part of their training in Strasbourg, dealing with Committee cases and a few Chamber cases. He enjoys working in the European Court of Human Rights, where the many Divisions combine the many nationalities, and there is a 'good ambience'.

Despite the fact that Mr Pieters only discovered upon our arrival about the international students participating in the trip, and that therefore he had to speak in English, he improvised well and his lecture was very informative. I especially enjoyed his illustration of the rules of incompatibility by using cases as examples.

Webdesign by Olena Goloborodko