How to Avoid Rejection of Your Complaint

To minimize the risk of rejection and increase your chances of successful consideration, follow these recommendations:

1. Thoroughly Review ECHR Requirements
   Familiarize yourself with the rules for submitting complaints and ensure all documents are completed correctly. Even the smallest mistake can affect the outcome of your case.
2. Exhaust All National Legal Remedies
   Before filing a complaint with the ECHR, it is essential to go through all available judicial instances in your country. This is a mandatory step for filing a complaint.
3. Gather All Necessary Evidence
   To support your claim, provide sufficient evidence, including court rulings, medical certificates, photos and videos, correspondence, and other documents.

---

The Importance of Choosing a Qualified Lawyer for ECHR Cases

Paradoxically, the choice of a qualified lawyer can be the decisive factor for the success of your case at the ECHR. Even with strong evidence and arguments, a poorly prepared complaint or a flawed strategy can lead to rejection. A lawyer specializing in ECHR cases not only has the necessary legal knowledge but also possesses the experience that can significantly increase your chances of success.

How a Lawyer Can Help

A lawyer plays a key role at every stage of the complaint process:

• Preparing the Complaint: A lawyer helps correctly complete the complaint form, avoiding common mistakes.
• Gathering Evidence: The lawyer organizes the collection of necessary documents and materials to support your claims.
• Developing a Defense Strategy: The lawyer designs a strategy to protect your rights and interests before the court.

Example of Successful Legal Work

A successful example is the case of Khachatryan v. Russia, where the lawyer was able to prove a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (protection from torture), which led to a successful outcome. According to ECHR data, around 70% of cases submitted with the help of professional lawyers have a higher chance of being considered.

---

Criteria for Choosing a Lawyer

When selecting a lawyer to file a complaint with the ECHR, consider the following key criteria:

• Experience with the ECHR: The lawyer should have a successful track record of handling cases specifically before the European Court of Human Rights.
• Specialization: It is preferable that the lawyer specializes in the specific articles of the Convention relevant to your case.
• References and Ratings: Pay attention to client reviews, professional association ratings, and successful case outcomes.

Successful Cases

1. Hirst v. the United Kingdom

Case Summary:
In this landmark case, John Hirst, a convicted prisoner in the UK, challenged the UK’s blanket ban on prisoners voting in elections. The applicant argued that the UK’s law violated his rights under Article 3 of Protocol 1 (the right to free elections).

Outcome:
The Court ruled in favor of Hirst, stating that the UK’s blanket ban on prisoners voting was a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. This ruling led to major debates within the UK regarding the rights of prisoners and eventually resulted in calls for reform in the country’s electoral laws. The case is a prime example of how the ECHR can push for changes in national legislation to align with international human rights standards.

Key Lesson:
This case shows how a clear violation of specific rights, backed by appropriate evidence and legal reasoning, can lead to a successful outcome, even when the national authorities initially resist change.

---

2. McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom

Case Summary:
This case involved the deaths of three individuals in Gibraltar in 1988, who were shot by British security forces while they were suspected of planning a bombing. The applicants, the relatives of the victims, claimed that their right to life, under Article 2 of the Convention, had been violated.

Outcome:
The ECHR ruled that the UK’s actions had violated the right to life, stating that the use of force was not justified in this case under the conditions provided by the Convention. The ruling emphasized the need for a thorough investigation into such incidents to determine whether the use of force was absolutely necessary and proportionate.

Key Lesson:
This case highlights the Court’s responsibility to scrutinize the proportionality of state action in cases of lethal force and the importance of ensuring that proper investigations are carried out following any loss of life in such circumstances.

---

3. Ocalan v. Turkey

Case Summary:
Abdullah Öcalan, leader of the Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK), was arrested in 1999 and subsequently convicted of treason and sentenced to death (later commuted to life imprisonment) by Turkish authorities. He appealed, claiming that his arrest and trial violated his rights under several articles, particularly Article 3 (prohibition of torture) and Article 6 (right to a fair trial).

Outcome:
The Court ruled that Turkey had violated Article 3, finding that Öcalan had been subjected to inhumane and degrading treatment during his detention. The Court also found that his trial had not been conducted fairly, violating Article 6. This ruling led to changes in Turkey’s legal practices and prompted improvements in conditions of detention for those accused of political crimes.

Key Lesson:
This case demonstrates how the ECHR can hold states accountable for mistreatment during arrest and imprisonment, and the importance of ensuring fair trials for individuals facing serious charges.

---

Unsuccessful Cases

1. X v. Germany

Case Summary:
The applicant, a German citizen, claimed that the country’s domestic legal system had failed to provide effective protection of his right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention. He argued that his personal data had been disclosed without his consent, in violation of his rights.

Outcome:
The ECHR rejected the complaint, stating that the applicant had not exhausted all domestic legal remedies available in Germany. The Court emphasized the requirement for claimants to use national legal channels to seek redress before bringing the matter to Strasbourg.

Key Lesson:
This case highlights the importance of exhausting all national legal avenues before filing a complaint with the ECHR. The Court requires applicants to first seek justice at home, ensuring that domestic legal systems have been fully utilized.

---

2. A, B and C v. Ireland

Case Summary:
In this case, three women from Ireland challenged the country’s abortion laws under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention. They argued that Ireland’s strict abortion laws violated their rights by denying them the ability to make decisions about their own bodies.

Outcome:
The Court ruled against the applicants, stating that while the situation was regrettable, the issue fell within the competence of the national authorities to regulate. The Court recognized the sensitive nature of the issue but upheld the right of the Irish state to determine its own legal framework concerning abortion.

Key Lesson:
This case shows how the ECHR can defer to the sovereignty of states in certain areas where there is significant political or social controversy. Even if a human rights violation is claimed, the Court may decide not to intervene in cases involving sensitive issues where the state’s legal framework is considered adequate.