Jurisdiction and Admissibility

-ECHR
-ARTICLE 32
Jurisdiction of the Court
1. The jurisdiction of the Court shall extend to all mattersconcerning the interpretation and
application of the Conventionand the Protocols thereto which are referred to it as provided in
Articles 33, 34, 46 and 47.
2. In the event of dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the Court shall decide.
-ARTICLE 35
Admissibility criteria
1. The Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted,
according to the generally recognised rules of international law, and within a period of six
months from the date on which the final decision was taken.
2. The Court shall not deal with any application submitted under Article 34 that
(a) is anonymous; or
(b) is substantially the same as a matter that has already been examined by the Court or has
already been submitted to another procedure of international investigation or settlement and
contains no relevant new information.
3. The Court shall declare inadmissible any individual application submitted under Article 34
if it considers that:
(a) the application is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention or the Protocols
thereto, manifestly ill-founded, or an abuse of the right of individual application; or
(b) the applicant has not suffered a significant disadvantage, unless respect for human rights
as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto requires an examination of the
application on the merits and provided that no case may be rejected on this ground which has
not been duly considered by a domestic tribunal.
4. The Court shall reject any application which it considers inadmissible under this Article. It
may do so at any stage of the proceedings.

-Andrea Vandom (represented by Benjamin K. Wagner) v Republic of Korea

Exhaustion of domestic remedies; level of substantiation of claims
7.3The Committee recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that authors must avail themselves of
all domestic remedies in order to fulfil the requirement of article 5 (2) (b), insofar as such
remedies appear to be effective in the given case and are de facto available to the author.
7.5 The Committee further notes the author’s claims that by dismissing her petition without
examining it on the merits, the Constitutional Court violated her rights under articles 2 (2) and
(3), 14 and 26 of the Covenant. The Committee notes, however, that the author has not
provided any information that would enable it to conclude that she was denied a fair trial,
denied the right to equality before the Court or disadvantaged in the proceedings on the basis
of nationality or ethnicity. Accordingly, the Committee declares this part of the
communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
7.6 In the absence of any other challenges to the admissibility of the communication, the
Committee declares the communication admissible insofar as it concerns the author’s claims
under article 17 and article 26, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (1), of the
Covenant, and proceeds with its consideration on the merits.

-As regards the date from which it is fair to require the applicant to use a remedy newly
incorporated into the judicial system of a State following a change in case-law, the Court has
held that it would not be fair to require exhaustion of such a new remedy without giving
individuals reasonable time to familiarise themselves with the judicial decision (Broca and
Texier-Micault v. France, § 20).
The extent of a “reasonable time” depends on the circumstances of each case, but generally
the Court has found it to be about six months (ibid.; Depauw v. Belgium (dec.); Yavuz Selim
Güler v. Turkey, § 26).
For, example, in Leandro Da Silva v. Luxembourg, § 50, the period was eight months from
the adoption of the domestic decision in question and three and a half months from its
publication. See also McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], § 117; for a remedy newly introduced after a
pilot judgment, see Fakhretdinov and Others v. Russia (dec.), §§ 36-44; regarding a departure
from domestic case-law, see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], § 147.p 28

-Communication No. 1155/2003

Consideration of admissibility
13.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights
Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it
is admissible under the Optional Protocol.

-Y.B. and N.S.v. Belgium

Consideration of admissibility
7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide,
in accordance with rule 20 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible
under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a
communications procedure.
7.4 The Committee nonetheless finds that the authors’ claims concerning discrimination
against C.E. on the grounds of her nationality (Convention, art. 2), the disregard of the best
interests of the child and of the child’s right to be heard shown during the procedures
conducted by the Belgian immigration authorities (Convention, arts. 3 and 12) and, lastly,
family reunification (Convention, art. 10) have been sufficiently substantiated, and thus
declares them admissible and proceeds to their consideration on the merits.