¹ Hereinafter, “the Court.”Google Scholar

² See for example, European Court of Human Rights Overwhelmed by Applications: Problems and Solutions (Rüdiger Wolfrum & Ulrike Deutsch eds., 2009).Google Scholar

³ With some notable exceptions, see Marie-Benedicte Dembour, Who Believes in Human Rights? (2006); Steven Greer, The European Convention on Human Rights: Achievements, Problems and Prospects (2006).Google Scholar

⁴ Jerry Mashaw, Bureaucratic Justice: Managing Social Security Disability Claims 26 (1983).Google Scholar

⁵ Denis Galligan, Discretionary Powers: A Legal Study of Official Discretion 13 (1983). ₆ Totaling 12,090 applications in absolute terms.Google Scholar

⁷ 404 judgments against the United Kingdom.Google Scholar

⁸ European Court of Human Rights, Country Statistics on 1 January 2009, (2009) available at http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/B21D260B-3559-4FB2-A629-881C66DC3B2F/0/CountryStatistics01012009.pdf (last accessed: 27 September 2011).Google Scholar

⁹ European Court of Human Rights, FAQ: The ECHR in 50 Questions, Question 45 (2010), available at http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/5C53ADA4-80F8-42CB-B8BD-CBBB781F42C8/0/FAQ_ENG_A4.pdf (last accessed: 27 September 2011).Google Scholar

¹⁰ The metaphor deployed by President Costa to describe the Court's institutional predicament in his remarks to the Interlaken Conference, 18 and 19 February 2010.Google Scholar

¹¹ Michael O'Boyle, Question and Answer Session at University College Dublin after His Keynote Address, The Legacy and Future of the European Court of Human Rights (Apr. 1, 2011).Google Scholar

¹² A phrase used by the Court's former Irish judge, John Hedigan in his paper. See John Hedigan, Lecture at University College Dublin, The European Court of Human Rights, Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow (Apr. 2, 2011).Google Scholar

¹³ Id. Google Scholar

¹⁴ Id. Google Scholar

¹⁵ Lord Woolf of Barnes, Report on the Working Practices of the European Court of Human Rights 25 (2005).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Former Registrar of the Court, Paul Mahoney has described the Registry as “a kind of factory with production lines to process the mass of committee cases through standardized procedures and standardized solutions,” continuing “I always used to explain this approach as being a bit like the food-production procedures imposed by McDonald's so as to ensure the same quality, the same taste and the same service in every McDonald's wherever you go in the world.” See European Court of Human Rights Overwhelmed by Applications, supra note 2, at 48.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Leech, Philip, On Reform of the European Court of Human Rights, 6 European Human Rights Law Review (EHRLR) 725, 726 (2009).Google Scholar

¹⁸ European Court of Human Rights, Practical Guide on Admissibility Criteria 7 (2010), available at http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/91AEEEBC-B90F-4913-ABCC-E181A44B75AD/0/Practical_Guide_on_Admissibility_Criteria.pdf (last accessed: 27 September 2011).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Assumptions made by the construction of the ‘problem’ of admissibility decision-making are reflected in solutions proposed. For example, during Protocol No. 14's formulation, it was suggested that Registry personnel or a new category of “quasi-judicial” figure could make admissibility decisions. The legitimacy of transferring these decisions from judges to officials in the Court's bureau was premised on assumptions that admissibility decision-making is mechanical, affording decision-makers no discretion to admit or exclude cases and hence, fit work for a bureaucrat.Google Scholar

²⁰ Pre-eminently, see the following three: Council of Europe, Three Years’ Work for the Future (2002); Woolf, supra note 15; Group of Wise Persons, Report of The Group of Wise Persons to the Committee of Ministers (2006).Google Scholar

²¹ Adam Tomkins, Civil liberties in the Council of Europe: A critical survey, in European Civil Liberties and the European Convention on Human Rights: A Comparative Study 1, 14 (Conor Gearty ed., 1999).Google Scholar

²² Id. Google Scholar

²³ Zwart, Tom, The Admissibility of Human Rights Petitions: The Case Law of The European Commission of Human Rights and the Human Rights Committee (1994), and earlier, Laurids Mikaelsen, European Protection of Human Rights: The Practice and Procedures of the European Commission of Human Rights on the Admissibility of Applications from Individuals and States (1980).Google Scholar

²⁴ The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, art. 34, Sept. 3, 1953, 213 U.N.T.S. 221 [hereinafter “the ECHR”], as amended by Protocol No. 14.Google Scholar

²⁵ Id., art. 33.Google Scholar

²⁶ Id., art. 35(1).Google Scholar

²⁷ Id., art. 35(2)(a).Google Scholar

²⁸ Id., art. 35(2)(b).Google Scholar

²⁹ Id., art. 35(3)(a).Google Scholar

³⁰ Id. Google Scholar

³¹ Id. Google Scholar

³² Id., art. 35(3)(b).Google Scholar

³³ With Protocol No. 14's long-delayed ratification by the Russian Federation.Google Scholar

³⁴ Discursively speaking, this is a decidedly strange phrase, originating in Protocol No. 14 to the Convention. A single judge, you might think, is a single judge. A “formation” implies the absent presence of their colleagues, implying, however implausibly, some sort of collegiate judicial atmosphere, invisibly hovering around the single judge, doggedly disposing of inadmissible applications.Google Scholar

³⁵ See the ECHR, supra note 24, art. 27(1).Google Scholar

³⁶ Id., art. 28(1)(a).Google Scholar

³⁷ Id., art. 29(1).Google Scholar

³⁸ Id., art. 30.Google Scholar

³⁹ With respect to the “single judge formation,” see the ECHR, supra note 24, art. 27(2); with respect to Committees, see the ECHR, supra note 24, art. 28(2).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See the ECHR, supra note 24, art. 35(4).Google Scholar

⁴¹ “[T]here is no separate paper decision for each application, merely a minute of a packet of decisions taken by a Committee at one meeting and an individual letter of notification to each applicant;” See the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH), Impact Assessment of Some of the Reform Proposals under Consideration, CDDH-GDR 17 (2003). Lester has argued: “Even though the giving of reasons is an important safeguard encouraging a rational and fair process of decision-making, there is no duty for the three-judge committee to give reasons for rejecting an application without communicating it to the government. The applicant is informed of the decision by a peremptory letter reminiscent of the reply to the young narrator in Ring Lardner's novel, The Young Immigrants, who asked her father tenderly whether he was lost on the journey to their new home. ‘Shut up,’ he explained.” See Anthony Lester, The European Court of Human Rights after 50 years, EHRLR 462, 470 (2009).Google Scholar

⁴² Typically fewer than 30 oral hearings are heard in the examination of any case, in any year. In 2010, the Court held only 26 hearings in total. European Court of Human Rights, Annual Report of the European Court of Human Rights, 53 – 5 (2011).Google Scholar

⁴³ See the Interlaken Declaration of 19 February 2010, at para. 4, available at: http://www.eda.admin.ch/etc/medialib/downloads/edazen/topics/europa/euroc.Par.0133.File.tmp/final_en.pdf (last accessed: 27 September 2011).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Mashaw, supra note 4.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ See generally Keith Hawkins, Using legal discretion: Perspectives from Law and Social Science, in The Uses of Discretion 11 (Keith Hawkins ed., 1992); Galligan, supra note 5; Judicial Review and Bureaucratic Impact (Marc Hertogh & Simon Halliday eds., 2004). Particular studies include: Simon Halliday, Judicial Review and Compliance with Administrative Law (2004); David Cowan, Homelessness: The (In)Appropriate Applicant (1997); David Cowan & Simon Halliday, The Appeal of Internal Review: Law, Administrative Justice and the (Non-) Emergence of Disputes (2003); Richardson, Genevra & Machin, David, Judicial review and Tribunal Decision-Making: A Study of the Mental Health Review Tribunal, in Public Law (PL) 736 (2000); Maurice Sunkin and Andrew Le Sueur, The Changing Impact of Judicial Review: The Independent Review Service of the Social Fund, in PL 736 (2001).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ See in particular, Genevra Richardson & David Machin, Judicial review and Tribunal Decision-Making: A Study of the Mental Health Review Tribunal, in PL 736 (2000).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See Hawkins, supra note 45, at 11 and Galligan, supra note 5, at 13.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Mashaw's third administrative justice model, “professional treatment,” is strongly situated in the empirical field of his study: the administration of disability social security rights, and associated therapeutic medical knowledge-claims. It is thus not immediately applicable to understandings of the Court's admissibility decision-making.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Mashaw, supra note 4, at 26 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Id. at 25.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Id. at 26.Google Scholar

⁵² Id. at 26.Google Scholar

⁵³ Halliday, supra note 45, at 118 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Id. at 118.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Mashaw, supra note 4, at 31.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Halliday, supra note 45, at 118.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Woolf, supra note 15, at 25 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ See the Interlaken Declaration, supra note 43, at para 4.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Woolf, supra note 15, at 25 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Mashaw, supra note 4, at 26.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Id. Google Scholar

⁶² Greer, supra note 3, at 144-5.Google Scholar

⁶³ Helen Keller, Andreas Fischer & Daniela Kuhne, Debating the future of the European Court of Human Rights after the Interlaken Conference: Two Innovative Proposals, 21 European Journal of International Law 1025, 1046 (2011).Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Practical Guide on Admissibility Criteria, supra note 18, at 7.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Updated Joint Response to Proposals to Ensure the Future Effectiveness of the European Court of Human Rights, 28 March 2003, Signed by 114 NGOs. Available at: http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/IOR61/008/2003/en/26340e19-d656-11dd-ab95-a13b602c0642/ior610082003en.pdf (last accessed: 27 September 2011).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Draft Protocol no. 14 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Amending the Control System of the Convention, Opinion no. 251, at para. 11 (2004).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ See for example, lonescu v. Romania, Eur. Ct. H. R., 51 E.H.R.R. SE7 (2010); Russia, Korolev v., Eur. Ct. H. R., 51 E.H.R.R. SE15 (2010); Zátkové v. Czech Republic, Eur. Ct. H. R. (2011); Holub v. Czech Republic, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2010); Germany, Dudek v., Eur. Ct. H. R. (2010); Moldova, Fedotov v., Eur. Ct. H. R.(2011); Moldova, Burov v., Eur. Ct. H. R. (2011); Romania, Gaftoniuc v., Eur. Ct. H. R. (2011).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Korolev, supra note 67.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Ruedin, Xavier-Baptiste, De minimis non curat the European Court of Human Rights: the introduction of a new admissibility criterion (Article 12 of Protocol No. 14), EHRLR 80, 105 (2008).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Dembour, Marie-Benedicte, “Finishing off” cases: the radical solution to the problem of the expanding ECtHR caseload, EHRLR 604, 613 (2002).Google Scholar

⁷¹ Id. Google Scholar

⁷² While Simor and Emmerson note that the Court has some discretion about the six-month rule, they simply note that this is rather exercised in the applicant's favor, and do not examine the jurisprudence of the Court in detail. See Human Rights Practice (Ben Emmerson & Jessica Simor eds., 2000).Google Scholar

⁷³ Henry Schermers, The Eleventh Protocol to the ECHR, 19 European Law Review 367, 370 (1994).Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Council of Europe, Annual Report 2010 of the European Court of Human Rights 11, 136 (2011).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Based on a HUDOC database search for ‘decisions’ delivered between 01.01.09 and 31.12.09, available at: http://www.echr.coe.int/echr/en/header/case-law/hudoc/hudoc+database/ (last accessed: 27 September 2011).Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Three Years’ Work for the Future, supra note 20.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Decision letter in Sukharev v. Georgia, Eur. Ct. H. R. (2010). Unpublished, on file with the author.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ See the ECHR, supra note 24, art. 35(1)(1).Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Otto v. Germany, Eur. Ct. H. R. (2009).Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Sapeyan v. Armenia, 41 Eur. Ct. H. R., at para. 26 (2009).Google Scholar

⁸¹ Id. at para. 27.Google Scholar

⁸² Assanidze v. Georgia, Eur. Ct. H. R., 39 E.H.R.R. 32 (2004); Kadiķis v. Latvia (No 2.), Eur. Ct. H. R. (2003).Google Scholar

⁸³ Garnham v. the United Kingdom, Eur. Comm'n H. R. (1991).Google Scholar

⁸⁴ P.M. v the United Kingdom, Eur. Ct. H. R., 39 E.H.R.R. SE21 (2004).Google Scholar

⁸⁵ See the European Court of Human Rights, Rules of Court, Rule 47(5) (2009).Google Scholar

⁸⁶ European Court of Human Rights, Rules of Court: Practice Direction, Institution of Proceedings at para. 4(2009). The European Commission on Human Rights afforded a shorter period of six weeks. Nee v. Ireland, Eur. Ct. H. R. (2004).Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Registry letter to the representative of the applicant, quoted in Kemevuako v. the Netherlands, Eur. Ct. H. R., 51 E.H.R.R. SE8 (2010). (Emphasis added).Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Garnham, supra note 83.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ De Bono v. Malta, Eur. Comm'n H. R. (1992). Unpublished.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ G.H. v. the United Kingdom, Eur. Comm'n H. R. (1992). Unpublished.Google Scholar

⁹¹ P.M., supra note 84.Google Scholar

⁹² Id., citing Kirk v. the United Kingdom, Eur. Comm'n H. R. (1986).Google Scholar

⁹³ P.M., supra note 84 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Id. Google Scholar

⁹⁵ As a consequence of which, the case resulted in a judgment on the merits in favor of the applicant and finding a violation of Article 14 of the Convention in P.M. v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 19 July 2005, 42 E.H.R.R. 45 (2006).Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Nee, supra note 86.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Id. Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Chalkley v. the United Kingdom, Eur. Ct. H. R. (2002) [hereinafter “Chalkley (I)].Google Scholar

⁹⁹ And subsequently found to violate Article 8 and 13 in Chalkley v. the United Kingdom, 37 E.H.R.R. 30 (2003) [hereinafter “Chalkley (II)”].Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Chalkley I, supra note 98.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Chalkley I, supra note 98.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Id. Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Kemevuako, supra note 87.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Id. at para 23.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Id. at para 22.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Id. at para 24, citing Arslan v. Turkey, 2002-X Eur. Ct. H. R. (2002).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Hawkins, supra note 45, at 13.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Mashaw, supra note 4, at 26.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ See the ECHR, supra note 24, art. 35 § (2)(a)Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ X v. Ireland, Eur. Comm'n H. R, App. no. 361/58, (1958) quoted in Pieter Van Dijk & Freid Van Hoof, Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights 109 (1998).Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Kuznetsova v. Russia, Eur. Ct. H. R. (2006).Google Scholar

¹¹² Last amended in July 2009.Google Scholar

¹¹³ Rule 47 § 3 provides that “…. applicants who do not wish their identity to be disclosed to the public shall so indicate and shall submit a statement of reasons justifying such a departure from the normal rule of public access to information before the Court. The President of the Chamber may authorize anonymity or grant it of his or her own motion.”Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, Eur. Ct. H. R. (2003) [hereinafter “Shamayev (I)”]; upheld in Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, Eur. Ct. H. R. (2005) [hereinafter “Shamayev (II)” at para 275.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ See Shamayev (I) and (II), supra note 114, the latter albeit subject to a dissenting judgment by Judge Kovler, who argued that the case was inadmissible under Article 35.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Shamayev (I), supra note 114.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Blondje v. the Netherlands, Eur. Ct. H. R. (2009).Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Id. Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Id. Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Shamayev (I) supra note 114.Google Scholar

¹²¹ Id. Google Scholar

¹²² Mashaw, supra note 4, at 26.Google Scholar

¹²³ Hedigan, supra note 12.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Galligan, supra note 5, at 13.Google Scholar