115 / 262
party to the Convention can refer to the Commission
a breach of the Convention by another State party.
But the most dramatic feature of the implementation
provisions is Article 25. An individual, or group of
individuals, claiming to be the victim of a violation of
the Convention by a State party, may complain by
petition to the Commission. Thus, it must now be
accepted that the individual has a standing in inter-
national law. He is no longer dependent for protection
on the intervention of his own or indeed of any govern-
ment. The Convention has dispensed with the require-
ment of nationality. Its rights are expressly guaranteed
to all persons, in contrast for example, with the Consti-
tution of Ireland, where rights are guaranteed to the
citizen.
To secure acceptance of the Convention, it was found
necessary t o make the right of individual petition
optional—it may be accepted by a declaration of a
State party.
The Commission became competent to hear indivi-
dual petitions on the deposit of the Sixth Declaration
on 5th July 1955. Ireland's declaration was made on
the day we ratified the Convention itself, 25th February
1953. At present eleven countries have made the neces-
sary declaration—Austria, Belgium, Denmark, West
Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands,
Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The signa-
tories who have not accepted the right of individual
petition are Cyprus, Italy, Malta and Turkey.
This has been the cornerstone of the Convention
machinery.
Up to the end of August 1972 there have been ten
cases brought by one member State against another. In
fact these fall into four groups :
(a) Two by Greece against the United Kingdom,
arising out of incidents in Cyprus in 1956-57.
(b) One by Austria against Italy in 1960.
(c) Five applications against Greece by some or all
of Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands
from 1967-70.
(d) Two by Ireland against the United Kingdom in
December 1971 and March 1972.
Procedure in Individual cases
The number of individual petitions up to August
1972 was 5,740. While, of these, only 114 were declared
admissible and dealt with by the Court or the Com-
mittee of Ministers, or are still pending, the importance
of the right of individual petition in the day-to-day
working of the Convention is clear. This is reinforced,
when we remember that many of the cases brought are
test cases, whose outcome can have an effect far wider
than the individual case.
The task of the Commission is to establish the facts
of an application and then to try and effect a friendly
settlement between the parties on the basis of respect
for human rights. If this is achieved, a brief report of
the facts and the solution reached is drawn up, if not,
the Commission gives its opinion as to whether on the
facts, a breach of the Convention has taken place. The
Commission's report are confidential and only published
if the case is referred to the Court or if the Committee
of Ministers or Commission itself decides.
The report is transmitted to the Committee of Minis-
ters of the Council of Europe and two things may then
happen. The case may be referred to the European
Court of Human Rights either by the Commission or
the State concerned but not, be it noted, by an indivi-
dual, or if it is not referred to the Court within three
months, the Committee of Ministers must take a deci-
sion on the case.
The optional jurisdiction of the European Court
As I mentioned already, the jurisdiction of the Court
was made optional in the same way as the right of
individual petition. The Court achieved its competence
to hear cases in 1958. It is accepted at present by the
same eleven countries who have accepted the right of
individual petition. The first case to come before the
Court was that of
Lawless v. Ireland.
Besides the sub-
stantive issue involved this case is procedurally important
in that it upheld the right of the Commission to obtain
and communicate to the Court the views of the appli-
cant or the Commission's report, as well as any other
views of the applicant in the course of the proceedings.
In a later case,
De Wilde, Ooms and Versyh v. Belgium
the vagrancy cases, the Court allowed the applicant's
lawyer to be present, and on call of the Commission
delegates to make a short statement on certain factual
points. Thus while not an actual party to proceedings
before the Court, practice has allowed a not insignifi-
cant degree of representation for the individual appli-
cant.
If it finds against the State and the internal law of
that State allows for only partial reparation to be made,
the Court may, under Article 50, award just satisfaction
to the injured party. Applications for "just satisfaction"
at the successful close of a case for an injured party are
becoming a feature of cases before the Court. Thus last
June D.M. 20,000 were awarded to the applicant in the
case of
Ringeisen v. Austria
for wrongful detention
contrary to Article 5 (3) right of detained person to be
brought promptly before a judge. It is the duty of the
Committee of Ministers to supervise the execution of
the Court's judgement.
114