What Is the ECtHR? How to Apply to the European Court of Human Rights | ECtHR Lawyer Guide

What Is the ECtHR? A Guide to Applying to the European Court of Human Rights

Table of Contents

1. What Is the ECtHR? Establishment and Historical Background
2. How Is the ECtHR Structured?
3. Who Can Apply to the ECtHR?
4. ECtHR Application Deadline and Procedure
5. The Requirement to Exhaust Domestic Remedies
6. Excessive Length of Pre-Trial Detention and Domestic Remedies
7. Examination of an ECtHR Application and the Decision-Making Process
8. Urgent Applications and Requests for Interim Measures
9. Rights Protected by the European Convention on Human Rights
10. The Legal Nature and Implementation of ECtHR Judgments
11. Payment of Compensation Awarded by the ECtHR
12. Frequently Asked Questions
13. Conclusion: Why Should You Work with an ECtHR Lawyer?

What Is the ECtHR? Establishment and Historical Background

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is an international judicial body based in Strasbourg, France, to which individuals, legal entities and, under certain circumstances, States may bring applications alleging violations of rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights.

Established in the aftermath of the Second World War, the broader European human rights system was developed against the background of the need to establish lasting peace in Europe, prevent similar atrocities from recurring, and safeguard democratic institutions against future authoritarian regimes.

The Council of Europe was formally established on 5 May 1949, when ten European States signed the Treaty establishing the organisation. Its headquarters are located in Strasbourg, France.

One of the Council of Europe's most significant achievements is the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which was opened for signature on 4 November 1950 and entered into force on 3 September 1953. The judicial body responsible for supervising compliance with the Convention is the European Court of Human Rights.

Türkiye ratified the Convention on 18 May 1954, thereby becoming a Contracting State. Türkiye subsequently took two important steps in relation to the Strasbourg system:

• 1987: Türkiye recognised the right of individual petition to the ECtHR.
• 1990: Türkiye accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the ECtHR.

These developments enabled individuals alleging violations of Convention rights in Türkiye to bring applications before the ECtHR, subject to the admissibility requirements laid down by the Convention.

Since the Convention entered into force, a number of Protocols have been adopted, introducing additional substantive rights and amending procedural and institutional aspects of the Convention system.

How Is the ECtHR Structured?

The European Court of Human Rights consists of one judge in respect of each Contracting State to the Convention.

The system for the election and appointment of judges is designed to preserve their independence and impartiality:

• Each Contracting State submits a list of three candidates.
• Judges are elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE).
• Judges are elected for a non-renewable term and may not be re-elected.
• Judges exercise their functions in an individual capacity and do not represent the State from which they were elected.

The independence and impartiality of the judges are fundamental to the legitimacy of the Strasbourg Court. For that reason, judges are subject to strict requirements concerning incompatible activities and enjoy certain privileges and immunities necessary for the independent exercise of their functions.

Who Can Apply to the ECtHR?

Under the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to lodge an application with the ECtHR is not limited to natural persons. Depending on the circumstances, applications may also be lodged by legal entities, non-governmental organisations and groups of individuals.

States

A Contracting State may bring an inter-State application against another Contracting State alleging a violation of Convention rights.

Individuals

Any natural person who claims to be a victim of a violation of a right protected by the Convention may lodge an individual application, provided that the admissibility requirements are satisfied.

Private Legal Entities

Private-law legal entities, including companies and other incorporated bodies, may lodge applications where they have themselves been directly affected by a Convention violation.

Children

Children may be represented in proceedings by a parent or another person legally authorised to act on their behalf, depending on the circumstances.

Non-Governmental Organisations and Groups of Individuals

Non-governmental organisations, associations, trade unions, political parties, religious organisations and, under certain circumstances, informal groups of individuals may also bring applications. However, they must generally demonstrate that they themselves are victims of the alleged violation. An organisation cannot ordinarily use the Strasbourg procedure simply to litigate alleged violations suffered individually by its members.

Applications Concerning Deceased Persons

A deceased person cannot ordinarily lodge a new individual application personally. Nevertheless, depending on the circumstances, heirs or close relatives may have standing to continue an application already pending before the Court or, in appropriate cases, to bring an application concerning a violation affecting the deceased person.

The issue of victim status and the succession of proceedings after the death of an applicant is highly fact-specific and must be assessed under the Court's case-law.

Is a Lawyer Required?

An application to the ECtHR may initially be lodged without legal representation.

However, once an application has been communicated to the respondent Government, representation by a lawyer may be required under the Court's procedural rules, subject to the circumstances of the case.

Although legal representation is not mandatory at the initial filing stage, obtaining professional assistance from an ECtHR lawyer from the outset is strongly advisable. The admissibility system is highly technical, and errors concerning deadlines, domestic remedies, victim status, factual presentation or the identification of Convention issues can result in an otherwise arguable application being declared inadmissible.

ECtHR Application Deadline and Procedure

One of the most important admissibility requirements is the four-month time limit.

As a general rule, an application must be lodged within four months of the date of the final domestic decisionfollowing the exhaustion of effective domestic remedies.

Where no effective domestic remedy exists, the calculation of the four-month period may operate differently depending on the circumstances and the nature of the alleged violation.

The four-month rule is a strict admissibility requirement. An application lodged out of time will generally be declared inadmissible.

Language of the Application

The official languages of the Court are English and French.

At the initial stage, however, an application may be lodged in the official language of a Contracting State. Accordingly, an applicant in Türkiye may initially submit the application in Turkish.

Documents attached to the application do not generally have to be translated at the initial stage unless the Court specifically requests a translation.

Once the application has been communicated to the respondent Government, correspondence will normally be conducted in English or French. In appropriate circumstances, the President of the relevant formation of the Court may authorise the continued use of the applicant's official language.

The Court's own correspondence and judgments are ordinarily issued in English or French.

Documents and Formal Requirements

An ECtHR application should comply strictly with the Court's procedural requirements, including:

• The official application form must be completed accurately and signed.
• Where the applicant acts through a representative, the relevant authority form must be duly completed and signed.
• Relevant judgments and supporting documents should be listed and numbered chronologically.
• The applicant's identity documents should be included where required.

The completed application and its supporting documents should be sent to the Court in accordance with its current filing requirements.

ECtHR postal address:

European Court of Human Rights
Council of Europe
67075 Strasbourg Cedex
FRANCE

Because procedural requirements may change over time, the Court's current application instructions should always be checked before filing.

The Requirement to Exhaust Domestic Remedies

As a general rule, an application may be lodged with the ECtHR only after effective domestic remedies have been exhausted.

This principle is a cornerstone of the Convention system. The ECtHR is intended to act as a subsidiary international mechanism, rather than as a first-instance court.

The exhaustion requirement may not apply where the alleged remedy is not effective in practice or is unavailable in the circumstances of the case. The assessment, however, is case-specific.

In Türkiye, a typical sequence in a constitutional rights case may involve:

1. Proceedings before the first-instance court;
2. Appeal to the regional appellate court (istinaf), where available;
3. Cassation before the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay), where available;
4. An individual application to the Constitutional Court of Türkiye (AYM) where the alleged violation falls within the scope of that remedy.

Where ordinary appeal or cassation is unavailable, an individual application to the Constitutional Court may have to be lodged within the applicable statutory time limit.

If the Constitutional Court does not provide an effective remedy in the particular circumstances, the applicant may then consider applying to the ECtHR within the applicable four-month period.

This requirement may also arise in cases concerning decisions such as the refusal of an objection to a decision to defer the announcement of the verdict (HAGB) or the rejection of an objection against a decision of non-prosecution.

The exact route depends on the nature of the complaint and the remedies available under domestic law. It is therefore essential to identify the alleged Convention violation at an early stage and determine which domestic remedy is legally and practically effective.

Excessive Length of Proceedings

Where domestic proceedings have become unreasonably lengthy, applicants do not necessarily have to wait indefinitely for the final judgment before seeking a remedy.

Depending on the circumstances, the alleged violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention may be raised before the Constitutional Court through the appropriate individual application mechanism.

The Strasbourg Court's assessment will then depend on whether the domestic remedies relied upon by the applicant were effective and properly exhausted.

Excessive Length of Pre-Trial Detention and Domestic Remedies

Pre-trial detention is one of the areas in which violations of the right to liberty and security are frequently alleged.

Where the applicant argues that detention has exceeded a reasonable period, the available domestic remedies must be carefully examined.

Depending on the procedural posture of the case, the domestic process may involve:

1. Challenging the continuation of detention;
2. Appealing against the rejection of that challenge through the available judicial channels;
3. Seeking compensation under the relevant provisions of the Turkish Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK), particularly Articles 141 and 142, where those provisions constitute an effective remedy in the circumstances.

The ECtHR has considered the effectiveness of such remedies in a number of cases concerning Türkiye.

In Şefik Demir v. Türkiye and Fuat Balca v. Türkiye, the Court addressed the availability of compensation following detention where domestic criminal proceedings had ultimately concluded.

The Constitutional Court of Türkiye has also developed its case-law regarding the relationship between Article 141 of the CMK and individual applications concerning excessive detention.

In the Hamit Kaya case, the Constitutional Court held, in circumstances where the criminal proceedings had become final, that the compensation remedy under Articles 141 et seq. had to be pursued before an individual application could properly be examined.

The Constitutional Court subsequently revised aspects of its earlier approach in İrfan Gerçek (Application No. 2014/6500) and recognised that the compensation mechanism under Articles 141 and 142 could, in appropriate circumstances, be regarded as an effective remedy even before the criminal proceedings had concluded.

Accordingly, the precise domestic remedy must be identified by reference to the procedural stage of the proceedings and the specific complaint being advanced.

Where the complaint concerns the lawfulness of continuing detention itself, particularly where the applicant seeks release rather than solely compensation, an individual application to the Constitutional Court may be required after the relevant detention challenges have been exhausted.

The Erdem Gül and Can Dündar judgment of the Constitutional Court (Application No. 2015/18567) is one of the well-known Turkish constitutional cases concerning pre-trial detention and the protection of the right to liberty and security under Article 19 of the Constitution.

Because detention cases often involve rapidly changing circumstances, strict time limits and potentially irreversible consequences, they should be assessed without delay by counsel familiar with both Turkish constitutional procedure and the Strasbourg case-law.

Examination of an ECtHR Application and the Decision-Making Process

After an application is received, the Court generally sends correspondence confirming its registration and may request that formal deficiencies be remedied.

Initial Examination

An application may be declared inadmissible for a number of reasons, including:

• Failure to comply with the four-month time limit;
• Failure to exhaust effective domestic remedies;
• Lack of victim status;
• Incompatibility with the provisions of the Convention;
• The application being manifestly ill-founded;
• The alleged violation being insufficiently substantial under the Court's admissibility criteria;
• Other procedural or jurisdictional grounds.

Inadmissibility decisions are generally final and cannot be appealed in the ordinary sense.

Because certain single-judge or committee decisions may be expressed in concise terms, applicants should not assume that the absence of a detailed factual discussion means that every substantive argument was accepted or rejected on its merits.

Friendly Settlement Procedure

Where the application is not rejected at the initial stage, the Court may invite the parties to explore a friendly settlement.

The applicant and the respondent Government may negotiate terms, including a financial payment and, where relevant, other measures intended to resolve the dispute.

Where a friendly settlement is reached and approved by the Court, the case will ordinarily be struck out of the Court's list in accordance with the Convention and the relevant procedural rules.

If settlement negotiations fail, the Court may proceed to examine the admissibility and merits of the application.

Practical Warning

Every communication sent to the Court should clearly state the application number and the applicant's name.

Copies of all correspondence and supporting documents should be retained carefully. Applicants should also comply strictly with the Court's current rules concerning methods of communication and filing.

Communication to the Government and Written Observations

Where the Court considers the application sufficiently arguable, it may communicate the case to the respondent Government and invite observations.

The Government then submits its observations, which are transmitted to the applicant.

The applicant may be invited to respond and, where appropriate, to submit:

• Observations in reply to the Government's submissions;
• Claims for just satisfaction;
• Documentary evidence supporting pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage;
• Reimbursement of costs and expenses;
• A claim for legal fees, where justified and supported by appropriate documentation.

A Common and Costly Mistake

A frequent procedural mistake is to mention compensation in the initial application form but fail to formulate the claim properly when responding to the Government's observations.

A claim for just satisfaction must comply with the Court's procedural requirements and be submitted at the appropriate stage, together with supporting evidence.

Failure to substantiate a claim for damage, costs or legal expenses may result in the Court declining to make an award even where a violation of the Convention is ultimately established.

The same principle applies to legal fees and other expenses: documentary support is essential.

Urgent Applications and Requests for Interim Measures

Where there is an imminent risk of irreparable harm, an applicant may request an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

Such measures are particularly relevant in cases involving serious and irreversible risks to rights protected under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, such as:

• A real and imminent risk to life;
• A risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment;
• Certain removal or extradition situations;
• Other circumstances in which immediate international intervention may be necessary to prevent irreversible harm.

In appropriate cases, the Court may deal with such requests urgently and may indicate an interim measure to the respondent State.

A Rule 39 request is exceptional in nature. It is not a substitute for an ordinary application and does not eliminate the need to satisfy the Convention's admissibility requirements.

Rights Protected by the European Convention on Human Rights

The European Convention on Human Rights protects a broad range of fundamental rights and freedoms.

Among the principal rights protected by the Convention are:

• The right to life;
• The prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment;
• The prohibition of slavery and forced labour;
• The right to liberty and security;
• The right to a fair hearing;
• The principle of legality in criminal matters;
• The right to respect for private and family life;
• Freedom of thought, conscience and religion;
• Freedom of expression;
• Freedom of assembly and association;
• The right to marry;
• The right to an effective remedy;
• The prohibition of discrimination.

Rights Protected by the Additional Protocols

Protocol No. 1

Protocol No. 1 protects, among other rights:

• The protection of property;
• The right to education;
• The right to free elections.

Protocol No. 4

Protocol No. 4 includes:

• The prohibition of imprisonment for debt;
• Freedom of movement;
• The prohibition on the expulsion of nationals;
• Procedural safeguards concerning the collective expulsion of aliens.

Protocol No. 6

Protocol No. 6 concerns the abolition of the death penalty, subject to the scope and reservations permitted under the Protocol.

Protocol No. 7

Protocol No. 7 includes:

• Procedural safeguards relating to the expulsion of aliens;
• The right of appeal in criminal matters;
• Compensation for wrongful conviction;
• The principle of ne bis in idem;
• Equality between spouses.

Protocol No. 12

Protocol No. 12 establishes a broader and more general prohibition of discrimination.

The rights created by the Additional Protocols may be invoked only against States that have become parties to the relevant Protocol.

The Legal Nature and Implementation of ECtHR Judgments

The ECtHR is not a court of appeal, cassation or constitutional review over national courts.

It does not act as a superior appellate court capable of simply quashing or replacing a domestic judgment because it considers the national court's interpretation of domestic law to be incorrect.

Its role is to determine whether the respondent State has complied with its obligations under the Convention.

Where the Court finds a violation, the State is required to comply with the judgment in accordance with its obligations under the Convention.

The implementation of ECtHR judgments is supervised at the international level, principally by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

Depending on the nature of the violation, implementation may require:

• Payment of just satisfaction;
• Individual measures to remedy the applicant's situation;
• Reopening or reconsideration of domestic proceedings where necessary and legally possible;
• Legislative amendments;
• Administrative or judicial reforms;
• Changes in established practice.

Accordingly, an ECtHR judgment is not merely a finding of historical wrongdoing. It may require the respondent State to take concrete measures to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future.

There have been cases involving Türkiye in which compliance with an ECtHR judgment has remained subject to continuing supervision.

For example, in Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey (9 October 2007, application no. 1448/04), the Court found a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 concerning the right to education in relation to compulsory religious culture and ethics classes.

Similarly, in cases such as Kaytan v. Turkey (15 September 2015, application no. 27422/05) and Gurban v. Turkey(15 December 2015, application no. 4947/04), the Court examined the compatibility of aggravated life imprisonment regimes with Article 3 of the Convention.

The implementation of Strasbourg judgments is therefore a broader legal and institutional process extending beyond the payment of compensation in an individual case.

Payment of Compensation Awarded by the ECtHR

Where the ECtHR awards just satisfaction, the relevant amount becomes payable in accordance with the terms of the final judgment.

In Türkiye, applications relating to the payment of amounts awarded by the ECtHR are handled through the competent authorities, including the Human Rights Department of the Ministry of Justice.

The applicant must comply with the applicable administrative procedure and provide the necessary banking details.

Under the Convention framework, sums awarded by the Court are generally required to be paid within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final, subject to the terms of the judgment.

Where payment is delayed, default interest may become applicable in accordance with the judgment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the deadline for applying to the ECtHR?

As a general rule, an application must be lodged within four months from the final domestic decision following the exhaustion of effective domestic remedies. Special rules may apply in particular circumstances.

Can I apply to the ECtHR without a lawyer?

Yes. A person may generally lodge an initial application without legal representation. However, legal representation may become necessary at a later stage. Given the technical nature of admissibility requirements, professional assistance from an ECtHR lawyer is strongly recommended.

Can the ECtHR overturn a judgment of a Turkish court?

No. The ECtHR is not a higher domestic appellate court. It cannot simply quash a Turkish court judgment. It determines whether the State has violated rights protected by the Convention and, where appropriate, awards just satisfaction and requires the State to take measures necessary to comply with the judgment.

Must I apply to the Constitutional Court before applying to the ECtHR?

In many cases involving Turkey, yes, where an individual application to the Constitutional Court constitutes an effective domestic remedy for the alleged violation.

The precise domestic procedural route depends on the nature of the complaint, the type of proceedings and the remedies available. A failure to exhaust an effective Constitutional Court remedy may result in the ECtHR declaring the application inadmissible.

Is it enough to claim compensation in the initial application form?

Not necessarily.

A claim for just satisfaction, costs and expenses must be submitted in accordance with the Court's procedural requirements and supported by appropriate evidence at the relevant stage of the proceedings.

Simply mentioning a figure in the original application does not guarantee that the Court will make an award.

Conclusion: Why Should You Work with an ECtHR Lawyer?

Proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights involve a highly technical admissibility system, strict deadlines and detailed procedural requirements.

The success of an application may depend on matters that appear procedural but are, in practice, decisive: identifying the correct Convention complaint, exhausting the appropriate domestic remedies, calculating the four-month deadline correctly, completing the application form accurately, demonstrating victim status, presenting the factual and legal arguments coherently, and submitting claims for just satisfaction and costs at the appropriate stage.

A legally arguable complaint may still be declared inadmissible because of a failure to comply with these requirements.

For this reason, obtaining assistance from an experienced ECtHR lawyer, particularly one familiar with both Turkish domestic law and the Strasbourg Court's case-law, may be critically important for the effective protection of Convention rights.

The ECtHR procedure should not be approached as a conventional appeal against a domestic court judgment. It is a distinct international human rights mechanism with its own admissibility rules, procedural structure and substantive jurisprudence.

Careful case analysis at the domestic stage is therefore often just as important as the application to Strasbourg itself.

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or replace an assessment of the specific facts of an individual case. Because ECtHR admissibility rules, domestic remedies and case-law may change over time, legal advice should be obtained from a qualified lawyer before any application is submitted.