Overview1959-2018

ECHR

3Overview 1959-2018

Judgments by State

Since it was established in 1959 the Court has delivered more than 21,600 judgments. Around 40% of these concerned 3 member States of the Council of Europe: Turkey (3,532), the Russian Federation (2,501) and Italy (2,396).

In 84% of the judgments it has delivered since 1959, the Court has found at least one violation of the Convention by the respondent State.

This document has been prepared by the Public Relations Unit of the Court, and does not bind the Court. It is intended to provide basic general information about the way the Court works.For more detailed information, please refer to documents issued by the Registry, available on the Court’s website: www.echr.coe.int.

© European Court of Human Rights, March 2019

European Court of Human RightsPublic Relations UnitCouncil of EuropeF-67075 Strasbourg cedex

Hungary 2.53%

United Kingdom 2.36%

Greece 4.61% France

4.68% Poland 5.39%

Ukraine 6.02%

Romania 6.62%

Italy 11.55%

Russian Federation 11.07%

Turkey 16.31%

Other States 28.87%

Statistics 1959 to 2018

4 5Overview 1959-2018 Overview 1959-2018

Judgments delivered by the Court

In recent years the Court has concentrated on examining complex cases, and has decided to join certain applications which raise similar legal questions so that it can consider them jointly.

Although in some years the number of judgments delivered each year by the Court has decreased, more applications have been examined by it.

Since it was set up, the Court has decided on the examination of around 841,300 applications through a judgment or decision, or by being struck out of the list.

1959-98

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

837

177

695

888

844

703

718

1,105

1,560

1,503

1,543

1,625

1,499

1,157

1,093

916

891

823

993

1,068

1,014

Applications

allocated to a

judicial

formation

Applications

declared

inadmissible or

struck out

Applications in

which

judgment was

delivered

Total number

of applications

decided

1959-2018 1959-2018 1959-2018 1959-2018

Albania 1,352 665 128 793Andorra 81 72 8 80Armenia 3,583 1,590 106 1,696Austria 8,322 8,946 431 9,377Azerbaijan 5,631 3,246 356 3,602Belgium 4,466 4,788 286 5,074Bosnia and Herzegovina 9,774 8,747 183 8,930Bulgaria 16,534 15,251 816 16,067Croatia 15,466 14,519 436 14,955Cyprus 1,196 1,045 105 1,150Czech Republic 13,004 12,655 280 12,935Denmark 1,736 1,787 57 1,844Estonia 3,445 3,316 65 3,381Finland 5,548 5,346 189 5,535France 33,163 31,324 1,141 32,465Georgia 6,108 4,152 90 4,242Germany 26,028 29,741 380 30,121Greece 8,978 7,012 1,277 8,289Hungary 22,280 20,601 683 21,284Iceland 270 216 26 242Ireland 971 998 35 1,033Italy 45,977 36,788 3,377 40,165Latvia 4,581 4,259 148 4,407Liechtenstein 161 153 9 162Lithuania 6,401 6,013 228 6,241Luxembourg 642 650 46 696Malta 397 257 101 358Republic of Moldova 14,152 12,445 481 12,926Monaco 101 92 5 97Montenegro 2,568 2,379 70 2,449Netherlands 10,559 10,484 188 10,672North Macedonia 5,587 5,106 164 5,270Norway 1,814 1,765 56 1,821Poland 69,248 66,814 1,183 67,997Portugal 3,959 3,159 521 3,680Romania 79,343 68,230 2,651 70,881Russian Federation 160,828 143,841 5,457 149,298San Marino 102 75 17 92Serbia 28,869 26,995 693 27,688Slovak Republic 8,527 7,979 399 8,378Slovenia 9,512 9,066 376 9,442Spain 12,439 11,980 244 12,224Sweden 10,014 9,935 154 10,089Switzerland 7,078 6,998 193 7,191Turkey 103,114 90,596 5,592 96,188Ukraine 92,800 67,898 17,659 85,557United Kingdom 22,342 22,464 1,843 24,307TOTAL 889,051 792,438 48,933 841,371

Throughput of applications 1959* - 2018

* This table includes cases dealt with by the European Commission of Human Rights prior to 1959.

6 7Overview 1959-2018 Overview 1959-2018

Subject-matter of the Court’s violation judgments(Comparative Graph 1959-2018 & 2018)

The violation most frequently found by the Court concerns Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), particularly with regard to the excessive length of the proceedings. In 2018 almost a quarter of all violations found by the Court related to this provision.

For a number of years, however, other violations of the Convention have been found increasingly frequently. In 2018 this was particularly the case with regard to the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3) and the right to liberty and security (Article 5).

Article 2Article 8

Otherviolations Article 13

Article 3Protocol

1-1 Article 5Article 6

3.71% 6.55% 11.42% 11.55%

17.74%

8.59%

16.34%

24.10%

4.49%

4.83% 7.11% 8.71% 11.25%

11.59% 13.11%

38.91%

2018 1959-2018

Subject-matter of the Court’s violation judgments (1959-2018)

Nearly 40% of the violations found by the Court have concerned Article 6 of the Convention, whether on account of the fairness (17.01 %) or the length (20.06 %) of the proceedings.

The second most frequently found violation has concerned the right to liberty and security (Article 5).

Lastly, in more than 15% of cases, the Court has found a serious violation of the Convention, concerning the right to life or the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment (Articles 2 and 3).

Right to life (Art. 2) 4.49%

Right to respect for private and family life

(Art. 8) 4.83%

Other violations 7.11%

Right to an effective remedy

(Art. 13) 8.71%

Prohibition of torture and inhuman or

degrading treatment (Art. 3) 11.25%

Protection of property (P1-1)

11.59%

Right to liberty and security (Art. 5) 13.11%

Right to a fair hearing (Art. 6) 38.91%

8 9Overview 1959-2018 Overview 1959-2018

Violations by Article and by State

19

59

-20

18

Total

num

ber o

f jud

gmen

ts

Judg

ments

findin

g at

least

one v

iolati

onJu

dgmen

ts fin

ding

no vi

olatio

nFr

iendly

settle

ments/

Striki

ng-o

ut jud

gmen

tsO

ther

judg

ments1

Right

to life

– de

priva

tion

of lif

eLa

ck of

effec

tive i

nves

tigati

on

Prohib

ition o

f tortu

re2

Inhum

an o

r deg

radin

g tre

atmen

t

Lack

of ef

fectiv

e inv

estig

ation

Condit

ional

violat

ions3

Prohib

ition o

f slav

ery/

force

d lab

our

Right

to lib

erty a

nd se

curity

Right

to a f

air tr

ial2

Leng

th of

proc

eedin

gs

Non-e

nforce

ment

No pun

ishmen

t with

out la

w

Right

to res

pect

for p

rivate

and

family

life2

Freed

om o

f thou

ght,

cons

cienc

e and

relig

ion

Freed

om o

f exp

ressio

n

Freed

om o

f asse

mbly

and

asso

ciatio

nRight

to mar

ry

Right

to an

effec

tive r

emed

y

Prohib

ition o

f disc

rimina

tion

Protec

tion o

f pro

perty

Right

to ed

ucati

on

Right

to fre

e elec

tions

Right

not to

be tr

ied

or pu

nishe

d twice

Other A

rticles

of

the C

onve

ntion

Tota

lTo

tal

Tota

lTo

tal

Tota

l2

23

33

2/3

45

66

67

89

10

11

12

13

14

P1-1

P1-2

P1-3

P7-4

Alb

ania

79

65

52

71

32

335

724

12

3131

2A

ndor

ra8

42

11

21

11

Arm

enia

10

39

45

43

41

116

3738

16

24

19

51

221

9A

ustr

ia3

91

27

57

62

41

61

41

1395

113

181

351

1827

41

4A

zerb

aija

n1

57

15

11

23

16

116

1454

617

173

530

832

2321

Belg

ium

25

21

75

43

18

16

31

223

349

6358

112

14

149

12

Bosn

ia a

nd

62

55

71

19

115

231

11

14

367

Bulg

aria

68

26

15

43

51

915

294

8039

127

097

180

1477

917

1518

58

114

15

122

Cro

atia

40

13

16

53

26

62

1014

121

2810

397

31

445

11

337

362

Cyp

rus

80

67

63

42

84

115

1135

17

112

34

11

Cze

ch R

epub

lic2

34

19

02

21

39

11

22

3269

8020

11

162

13D

enm

ark

51

15

24

11

11

18

21

12

11

Esto

nia

58

42

15

16

210

157

43

17

1Fi

nlan

d1

88

14

03

59

41

237

6224

2010

26

Fran

ce1

,01

37

36

17

56

43

89

32

3413

270

272

284

23

494

386

359

306

Geo

rgia

90

70

16

13

35

120

1023

205

17

31

14

76

26

Ger

man

y3

40

19

51

17

13

15

41

3226

102

110

239

224

134

1G

reec

e9

98

89

43

82

04

64

51

115

101

380

136

534

1313

1315

726

315

751

32

1H

unga

ry5

10

48

31

46

72

128

743

2030

21

2026

1035

649

34

Icel

and

25

17

53

14

17

21

1Ir

elan

d3

62

38

14

12

512

52

81

Italy

2,3

96

1,8

30

69

35

51

42

36

932

1342

284

1,19

417

516

78

394

736

81

171

30La

tvia

14

01

11

24

32

12

1913

5919

181

293

41

51

23

9Li

echt

enst

ein

98

11

34

12

Lith

uani

a1

94

14

04

01

22

34

227

2429

272

121

12

16

530

11

Violations by Article and by State

19

59

-20

18

Total

num

ber o

f jud

gmen

ts

Judg

ments

findin

g at

least

one v

iolati

onJu

dgmen

ts fin

ding

no vi

olatio

nFr

iendly

settle

ments/

Striki

ng-o

ut jud

gmen

tsO

ther

judg

ments1

Right

to life

– de

priva

tion

of lif

eLa

ck of

effec

tive i

nves

tigati

on

Prohib

ition o

f tortu

re2

Inhum

an o

r deg

radin

g tre

atmen

t

Lack

of ef

fectiv

e inv

estig

ation

Condit

ional

violat

ions3

Prohib

ition o

f slav

ery/

force

d lab

our

Right

to lib

erty a

nd se

curity

Right

to a f

air tr

ial2

Leng

th of

proc

eedin

gs

Non-e

nforce

ment

No pun

ishmen

t with

out la

w

Right

to res

pect

for p

rivate

and

family

life2

Freed

om o

f thou

ght,

cons

cienc

e and

relig

ion

Freed

om o

f exp

ressio

n

Freed

om o

f asse

mbly

and

asso

ciatio

nRight

to mar

ry

Right

to an

effec

tive r

emed

y

Prohib

ition o

f disc

rimina

tion

Protec

tion o

f pro

perty

Right

to ed

ucati

on

Right

to fre

e elec

tions

Right

not to

be tr

ied

or pu

nishe

d twice

Other A

rticles

of

the C

onve

ntion

Tota

lTo

tal

Tota

lTo

tal

Tota

l2

23

33

2/3

45

66

67

89

10

11

12

13

14

P1-1

P1-2

P1-3

P7-4

Luxe

mbo

urg

46

34

93

11

1417

43

13

11

Mal

ta8

96

51

31

11

326

119

12

45

44

221

Repu

blic

of M

oldo

va3

87

34

61

53

23

29

991

4794

130

1123

127

418

1655

411

32

10M

onac

o3

31

3M

onte

negr

o5

04

63

11

32

28

206

32

51

6N

ethe

rlan

ds1

64

92

44

16

12

41

1030

298

177

23

1N

orth

Mec

edon

ia1

53

13

61

23

22

23

511

1744

645

52

510

91

Nor

way

48

30

18

112

28

61

1Po

land

1,1

66

97

81

29

42

17

66

253

1030

511

443

84

116

132

12

274

557

Port

ugal

34

52

62

19

56

82

37

3714

36

1424

432

47Ro

man

ia1

,43

41

,27

35

73

56

911

462

263

9012

044

714

350

392

128

625

3547

66

115

Russ

ian

Fede

ratio

n2

,50

12

,36

59

91

42

329

032

462

818

199

321

1,03

182

020

413

72

198

1053

3559

016

629

36

313

4Sa

n M

arin

o1

51

02

21

17

21

11

Serb

ia

19

21

73

13

63

35

833

4264

137

182

721

1Sl

ovak

Rep

ublic

36

93

29

11

22

72

21

43

5440

208

221

1038

319

1Sl

oven

ia3

63

33

42

34

23

216

622

263

31

112

266

26

Spai

n1

67

11

24

83

41

125

5016

14

168

24

23

Swed

en1

53

61

59

28

51

14

52

2812

19

21

31

61

Switz

erla

nd1

89

11

07

15

31

21

418

357

241

181

12

5Tu

rkey

3,5

32

3,1

28

81

21

31

10

137

219

3132

721

575

591

960

366

411

212

321

9527

919

660

611

33U

krai

ne1

,30

41

,27

41

94

712

5515

184

9132

555

039

436

178

413

61

284

634

82

151

Uni

ted

King

dom

54

73

15

14

16

82

32

202

171

169

9330

170

112

44

3444

32

72

Sub-

tota

l1

8,1

87

1,7

30

1,1

14

68

35

18

77

71

52

2,2

52

83

76

19

3,7

78

4,9

02

5,7

78

52

94

91

,39

37

57

77

26

29

2,5

09

28

33

,33

91

59

52

53

79

TOTA

L42

1,6

51

This

tabl

e ha

s be

en g

ener

ated

aut

omat

ical

ly, u

sing

the

conc

lusi

ons

reco

rded

in th

e m

etad

ata

for

each

judg

men

t con

tain

ed in

HU

DO

C, t

he C

ourt’

s ca

se-la

w d

atab

ase.

1. O

ther

judg

men

ts: ju

st sa

tisfa

ctio

n, r

evis

ion,

pre

limin

ary

obje

ctio

ns a

nd la

ck o

f jur

isdi

ctio

n.2.

Fig

ures

in th

is c

olum

n m

ay in

clud

e co

nditi

onal

vio

latio

ns.

3. C

ases

in w

hich

the

Cou

rt he

ld th

ere

wou

ld b

e a

viol

atio

n of

Arti

cle

2 an

d/or

3 if

the

appl

ican

t was

rem

oved

to a

Sta

te w

here

he/

she

was

at r

isk.

Fig

ures

in th

is c

olum

n ar

e av

aila

ble

only

from

201

3 on

war

ds.

4. In

clud

ing

fifty

-five

judg

men

ts w

hich

con

cern

two

or m

ore

resp

onde

nt S

tate

s.

10 11Overview 1959-2018 Overview 1959-2018

Since the Court was set up in 1959, the member States of the Council of Europe have adopted a number of protocols to the European Convention on Human Rights with the aim of improving and strengthening its supervisory mechanism.

In 1998 Protocol No. 11 thus replaced the original two-tier structure, comprising the Commission and the Court on Human Rights, sitting a few days per month, by a single full-time Court. This change put an end to the Commission’s filtering function, enabling applicants to bring their cases directly before the Court.

A second major reform to address the considerable increase in the number of applications and the Court’s backlog was brought about by the entry into force of Protocol No. 14 in 2010. This Protocol introduced new judicial formations for the simplest cases and established a new admissibility criterion (existence of a “significant disadvantage” for the applicant); it also extended the judges’ term of office to 9 years (not renewable).

Since 2010, several high-level conferences on the future of the Court have been convened to identify methods of guaranteeing the long-term effectiveness of the Convention system. These conferences have, in particular, led to the adoption of Protocols Nos. 15 and 16 to the Convention.

Protocol No. 15, adopted in 2013, will insert references to the principle of subsidiarity and the doctrine of the margin of appreciation into the Convention’s preamble; it will also reduce from 6 to 4 months the time within which an application must be lodged with the Court after a final national decision. It will enter into force as soon as all the States Parties to the Convention have signed and ratified it.

Protocol No. 16 entered into force in 2018, allowing the highest courts and tribunals of a State Party to ask the Court to give advisory opinions on questions of principle relating to the interpretation or application of the Convention rights and freedoms.

Working methods

The Court has reformed its working methods in order to increase its efficiency.

The Court has developed the pilot-judgments procedure to cater for the massive influx of applications concerning similar issues, also known as “systemic or structural issues” – i.e. those that arise from the non-conformity of domestic law with the Convention as regards the exercise of a particular right.

The Court has also adopted a priority policy so as to take into consideration the importance and urgency of the issues raised when deciding the order in which cases are to be dealt with.

History of the Court’s reforms

Proceedings at national level

Proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights

Execution of judgments

Adoption of general measures (amendment to the legislation)

Examination by the Committee of Ministers

Final resolution = case concluded

Payment of compensation(just satisfaction)

Satisfactory execution

Adoption of individual measures(restitution, reopening of the proceedings...)

Unsatisfactory execution

Transmission of the case file to the Committee of Ministers

Obligations of the State in question

Inadmissibility decision = case concluded

Final judgment finding a violation Judgment finding no violation = case concluded

Request accepted = referral to the Grand Chamber

Request dismissed = case concluded

Request for re-examination of the case

Judgment finding a violation Judgment finding no violation

Examination of the admissibility and merits

Initial analysis

Exhaustion of domestic remedies

Complaints against a contracting State to the Convention

Applicant has suffered a significant

disadvantage

6-month deadline for applying to the Court

(from the final domestic judicial decision)

Admissibility criteria

Admissibility decision

Application to the Court

Exhaustion of domestic remedies

Decision of the highest domestic court

Beginning of the dispute

Proceedings before the national courts

The life of an application

12 Overview 1959-2018

Relin

quis

hmen

t

Referral

Referral

SIN

GLE

JU

DG

E1

judg

e

Judg

men

t on

the

mer

its

Judg

men

t

CO

MM

ITTE

E3

judg

esCH

AM

BER

7 ju

dges

Inad

mis

sibi

lity

deci

sion

Adm

issi

bilit

yde

cisi

on

COM

MIT

TEE

OF

MIN

ISTE

RS

Judg

men

t on

the

adm

issi

bilit

y

and

mer

its

Judg

men

t on

the

adm

issi

bilit

y

and

mer

its

Inad

mis

sibi

lity

deci

sion

GRA

ND

CH

AM

BER

17 ju

dges

Inad

mis

sibi

lity

deci

sion

IND

IVID

UA

L A

PPLI

CA

TIO

N

Sim

plifi

ed c

ase

-pro

cess

ing fl

ow

chart

by ju

dic

ial f

orm

ation

Sim

plifi

ed fl

ow

cha

rt o

f ca

se-p

roce

ssin

g b

y th

e Co

urt

w w w . e c h r . c o e . i n t