The Reform of the European Court of Human Rights
Protocol No. 14 and Beyond
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 16764782 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Lucius Caflisch (Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2006 |
| Volume | 6 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 403-415 |
| Publication date | 2006-07-22 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Human Rights Law Review (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1461-7781 • E-ISSN: 1744-1021 |
| Publisher | Oxford University Press (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1093/hrlr/ngl007 |
| OpenAlex | W2169045162 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 4 |
Nothing was going to be quite the same again in Strasbourg after the coming into force, on 1 November 1998, seven years ago, of Additional Protocol No. 11 1 to the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights (ECHR or Convention). 2 That instrument provided for a complete overhaul of the Strasbourg system and included the following elements: The reform based on Additional Protocol No. 11 was accompanied by an enlargement of the circle of Contracting Parties to the Convention, which had long been confined to Western European nations. These nations were now being joined by virtually all States of the European continent (all European States are now parties, except Byelorussia). This meant that, from Greenland to Siberia, the Court would have a potential clientele of 800 million people. These elements have contributed to the situation with which the Court is now faced. With its 45 judges and about 250 Registry lawyers, the Court is presently confronted with an accumulated case-load of 82,600 applications, out of which 45,550 were made in 2005, the yearly capacity of absorption of the Court now being at around 28,000 cases. 3 This means that: (i) the yearly input exceeds the output by about 17,000 cases and (ii) if applications were stopped altogether from coming in at this very moment—an absurd supposition—it would take the Court a minimum of three years to dispose of its accumulated case-load.
Human rights · Political science · Protocol (science) · European and International Law Studies · European Criminal Justice and Data Protection · Law · Medicine
Adjudicating national contexts – Domestic particularity in the practices of the European Court of Human Rights
The Admissibility Criterion Under Article 35(3)(b) Echr
A path already travelled in domestic orders? From fragmentation to constitutionalisation in the global legal order
Mobilisation, Litigation and Democratic Governance
| Citations per year | 0.31 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2013 - 2022 (10) |
| Highly cited | No |