Every year, tens of thousands of people turn to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg as a last resort after their own governments failed to protect their fundamental rights. But how many of those cases actually result in a judgment? How often does the Court find a violation? Which countries face the most cases — and which Articles of the Convention are most frequently breached? This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the latest ECHR statistics for 2024, drawing on data from the Court’s annual reports.
The Big Picture: ECHR Caseload in 2024
According to the ECHR’s 2024 Annual Report, the Court allocated 28,800 new applications to judicial formations during 2024 — a 17% decrease from the previous year. This reduction reflects the Court’s ongoing structural reforms aimed at managing its substantial backlog more efficiently.
As of 31 December 2024, 60,350 cases remained pending before the Court — down from approximately 68,450 at the end of 2023 and 74,650 at the end of 2022. This is the most significant backlog reduction in recent years and brings the total pending caseload to its lowest level in over a decade.
Despite this progress, the pending figure still represents years of work ahead. The average case that survives initial admissibility screening takes three to seven years from filing to judgment.
How Many Cases Are Won? The Judgment Statistics
In 2024, the ECHR delivered 1,102 judgments addressing a total of 10,829 applications. Of those judgments:
- 1,000 judgments (91%) found at least one violation of the Convention
- Approximately 9% of judgments found no violation or struck the case off the list
This 91% violation rate is striking — and perhaps surprising. It does not mean that 91% of all applications result in a finding of violation. The key distinction is that this rate applies only to cases that have already survived the admissibility stage and been communicated to the government. The vast majority of applications never reach this stage.
When considering all applications (including those declared inadmissible), only approximately 1–2% of total applications result in a judgment finding a violation. This underscores the importance of ensuring your application is properly prepared and meets all admissibility requirements before submission.
ECHR Judgments by Country: Who Faces the Most Violations?
The ECHR’s caseload is not evenly distributed. Certain countries consistently account for a disproportionate share of violation findings. According to 2024 data:
| Country | Judgments in 2024 | Violations Found |
|---|---|---|
| Russia | 302 | 302 (100%) |
| Ukraine | 158 | 153 |
| Turkey | 73 | 67 |
| Italy | approx. 60 | 51 |
| Romania | approx. 55 | 49 |
| Georgia | 18 | 16 |
| Country | Applications Lodged (2023) | Pending Cases | Judgments Finding Violation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Russia* | ~16,000 (historical avg) | 0 (expelled Mar 2022) | Suspended |
| Ukraine | 3,490 | ~9,500 | 43 |
| Turkey | 3,750 | 18,464 | 276 |
| Romania | 2,210 | 8,700 | 82 |
| Hungary | 1,890 | 5,200 | 34 |
| Italy | 1,540 | 5,900 | 51 |
| Poland | 1,320 | 4,100 | 29 |
Russia tops the list with 302 judgments — all finding violations. It is important to note that Russia was expelled from the Council of Europe in March 2022 following its invasion of Ukraine. However, the ECHR retained jurisdiction over all applications lodged before 16 September 2022, meaning the backlog of Russian cases continues to be processed and will continue for years to come.
Turkey remains a major source of ECHR cases, with a particularly high number of applications relating to freedom of expression (Article 10), the right to a fair trial (Article 6), and detention without adequate grounds (Article 5). The Turkish government has been repeatedly found to violate the rights of journalists, academics, civil society members, and political figures.
Ukraine cases have surged sharply since the full-scale Russian invasion in February 2022, with applications arising from wartime conditions, displacement, and alleged violations by both Russian and Ukrainian authorities.
Most Frequently Violated Articles of the Convention
Certain articles of the European Convention on Human Rights are violated far more often than others. The most commonly breached provisions, based on historical and recent ECHR data, are:
- Article 6 — Right to a Fair Trial: By far the most frequently invoked article. Violations include excessive length of proceedings, lack of access to court, absence of an independent tribunal, and failure to provide adequate reasons for judicial decisions.
- Article 3 — Prohibition of Torture: Covers torture, inhuman and degrading treatment. Frequently arises in cases involving prison conditions, police violence, and treatment of detainees and asylum seekers.
- Article 5 — Right to Liberty and Security: Violations involve unlawful arrest, excessive pre-trial detention, absence of judicial review, and arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
- Article 8 — Right to Respect for Private and Family Life: Common violations include surveillance without legal basis, unlawful deportations splitting families, and interference with correspondence.
- Article 13 — Right to an Effective Remedy: Often found alongside other violations — the state failed not only to protect a right but also to provide any effective domestic remedy for the breach.
- Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 — Protection of Property: Violations involving expropriation without compensation, interference with possessions, and failure to enforce court judgments awarding property rights.
- Article 10 — Freedom of Expression: Frequent in cases involving press freedom, political speech, internet content, and criminal prosecutions of journalists or activists.
| Article | Right Protected | Violations Found | % of Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Art. 6 | Right to Fair Trial | 398 | 36% |
| Art. 5 | Right to Liberty | 198 | 18% |
| Art. 3 | Prohibition of Torture | 156 | 14% |
| Art. 13 | Right to Effective Remedy | 134 | 12% |
| Art. 2 | Right to Life | 89 | 8% |
| Art. 8 | Right to Privacy | 72 | 7% |
| Other | — | 55 | 5% |
The Admissibility Filter: Why Most Cases Are Rejected
To understand ECHR statistics, one must understand the admissibility filter. The Court receives tens of thousands of applications annually but examines only a small fraction on the merits. The principal reasons applications are declared inadmissible include:
- Failure to exhaust domestic remedies — the applicant did not pursue all available national court appeals
- Out of time — application filed more than four months after the final domestic decision
- Manifestly ill-founded — the complaint does not raise any arguable claim of a Convention violation
- Incompatibility ratione personae — the applicant lacks victim status or the respondent is not a state party
- No significant disadvantage — a threshold introduced by Protocol No. 14 to filter out trivial claims
Understanding these filters — and avoiding them — is the primary challenge for anyone seeking to bring a successful ECHR application.
Inter-State Cases: A Growing Dimension
The ECHR is primarily known for individual applications, but it also handles inter-state cases — applications lodged by one Council of Europe member state against another. These cases have grown significantly in recent years, particularly in the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. As of end-2024, 14 inter-state cases were pending, involving approximately 10,500 linked individual applications.
Inter-state cases typically arise from large-scale systemic violations — conflicts, mass deportations, or institutional human rights abuses — and their resolution can take many years.
Trends and Outlook
The 2024 statistics reveal several encouraging trends. The Court’s backlog has declined for the third consecutive year, falling below 65,000 for the first time since the pre-COVID period. The Court delivered more judgments per year in 2024 than in several previous years, reflecting improved internal efficiency and the impact of structural reforms agreed at the 2022 Reykjavik Summit.
However, challenges remain. The conflict in Ukraine is generating thousands of new applications annually. Countries like Turkey and Romania continue to produce high volumes of repetitive cases — cases raising the same structural problems year after year — which strains the Court’s resources and can delay resolution of individual applications.
For applicants, the key takeaway is this: the ECHR remains a functional, effective last-resort mechanism for human rights protection. But navigating it successfully requires meeting strict procedural requirements, filing within deadlines, and presenting a legally coherent application. The 91% violation rate among judged cases shows that when applications are properly prepared and do reach the merits stage, they very often succeed.
Is Your Case One That Can Succeed?
The statistics show that properly prepared ECHR applications — those that meet all admissibility criteria and identify genuine Convention violations — have a strong chance of success once admitted. The challenge is getting there.
If you believe your rights have been violated by a Council of Europe member state, our team of ECHR specialists is here to help. We offer a free 30-minute initial consultation to assess your case, calculate your deadline, and advise on whether an ECHR application is the right step for you. Contact us today.
Just Satisfaction Awards: What Financial Compensation Can You Expect?
When the ECHR finds a violation, it may award “just satisfaction” to the applicant under Article 41 of the Convention. Just satisfaction typically comprises pecuniary damage (financial losses directly caused by the violation), non-pecuniary damage (compensation for distress, suffering, and loss of quality of life), and legal costs and expenses incurred in pursuing the case.
The amounts awarded vary significantly by country and type of violation. The ECHR does not function as a punitive court and does not award exemplary or punitive damages. Awards for non-pecuniary damage in cases of Article 3 violations (torture and inhuman treatment) are typically in the range of €10,000–€40,000 or more, depending on severity. Article 6 violations (excessive length of proceedings) often attract lower awards, particularly in countries with many repetitive cases, as the Court uses standardised scales.
In some cases — particularly where the violation arose from a systemic problem addressed by a pilot judgment — individual applicants may receive compensation through domestic mechanisms rather than a direct ECHR award. Understanding what compensation to realistically expect is an important part of the strategic decision to file.
What Do ECHR Statistics Mean for Your Case?
Understanding ECHR statistics is not just an academic exercise — it has direct practical implications for anyone considering an application. The 91% violation rate among judged cases demonstrates that the Court is not a rubber-stamp body that dismisses cases on formalities; when it examines a case on the merits, it very often finds a genuine violation. The challenge is getting your case to that stage. With approximately 1–2% of all applications resulting in a violation finding, the admissibility filter is the decisive battleground — which is precisely why professional legal assistance at the drafting and filing stage matters so much.
