Practical guide on admissibility criteria

application was lodged. Once she had reached the age of majotity, the applicant’s daughter has
confirmed her interest in the application and issued a power of attorney to the lawyer already
representing the applicant in the case before the Court.
64. The Court has established that in exceptional circumstances an association can act as a
representative of a victim, in the absence of a power of attorney and not withstanding that the
victim may have died before the application was lodged under the Convention (Centre for Legal
Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], § 112). It considered that to find
otherwise would amount to preventing serious allegations of a violation of the Convention from
being examined at an international level, with the risk that the respondent State might escape
accountability under the Convention (Association for the Defence of Human Rights in Romania –
Helsinki Committee on behalf of Ionel Garcea v. Romania, § 42; Kondrulin v. Russia, § 31). In the case
of Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], which concerned the
failure of the State to provide adequate care for a HIV positive mental patient, the Court accepted
the applicant association’s standing to bring proceedings without a power of attorney for the
following reasons: the vulnerability of Valentin Câmpeanu, who suffered from a serious mental
disability; the seriousness of the allegations made under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention; the
absence of heirs or legal representatives to bring Convention proceedings on his behalf; the contacts
which the applicant had with Valentin Câmpeanu and its involvement in the domestic proceedings
following his death, during which it had not been contested that it had standing to act on his behalf
(§§ 104-11).
65. In the case of L.R. v. North Macedonia (examined under Article 3), the applicant did have a legal
guardian who could have provided an association with the requisite authority to represent the
applicant before the Court. However, the applicant’s guardian was accused of having failed in its
responsibility to protect the applicant’s interests both before the domestic authorities and before
the Court. Accordingly, it could not be expected that the person suspected of having been part of
the applicant’s alleged overall neglect in violation of his rights under Article 3 would make a
complaint on those grounds before the Court (§ 50). On the other hand, the association representing
the applicant had visited the applicant shortly after his case had been made public, had contacted
various authorities about his situation, had submitted the criminal complaint to the public
prosecutor without delay and had pursued the matter, taking it up to the highest prosecuting
authorities. As a result, the Court exceptionally accepted the association’s standing to act on behalf
of the applicant (§§ 51-53).
66. In the case of Association Innocence en Danger and Association Enfance et Partage v. France
(examined under Articles 3 and 13 in conjunction with 3), the Court accepted the standing of two
child protection associations to act on behalf of a child who had died as a result of ill-treatment at
the hands of her parents (§§ 119-131). The existence of known heirs or legal representatives of the
child (his abusive convicted parents, three brothers and a sister, and an aunt) did not preclude the
Court from granting standing to the applicant associations, in view of the exceptional circumstances
of the case.
67. By contrast, in the case of Bulgarian Helsinki Committee v. Bulgaria (dec.), the Court did not
accept the victim status of the applicant association acting on behalf of deceased minors who died in
homes for mentally handicapped children because the applicant never had any contact with the
minors prior to their deaths and the association had lacked formal standing in the domestic
proceedings (§ 59); see also, Nencheva and Others v. Bulgaria, § 93, where the Court did not accept
the victim status of the applicant association acting on behalf of the direct victims, noting that it had
not pursued the case before the domestic courts and also that the facts complained of did not have
any impact on its activities, since the association was able to continue working in pursuance of its
goals.

European Court of Human Rights 21/110 Last update: 31.08.2022

 Practical guide on admissibility criteria

68. No provision of the Convention permits a third-party intervener to represent another person
before the Court (Lambert and Others v. France [GC], § 110).

B. Freedom to exercise the right of individual application

Article 34 of the Convention – Individual applications

“... The High Contracting Parties undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this
right.”

HUDOC keywords
Hinder the exercise of the right of application (34)

1. Principles and examples

69. The right to apply to the Court is absolute and admits of no hindrance. This principle implies
freedom to communicate with the Convention institutions (for correspondence in detention, see
Peers v. Greece, § 84; Kornakovs v. Latvia, §§ 157 et seq.). See also, in this connection, the 1996
European Agreement relating to persons participating in proceedings of the European Court of
Human Rights (CETS No. 161).
70. The domestic authorities must refrain from putting any form of pressure on applicants to
withdraw or modify their complaints. According to the Court, pressure may take the form of direct
coercion and flagrant acts of intimidation in respect of applicants or potential applicants, their
families or their legal representatives, but also improper indirect acts or contacts (Mamatkulov and
Askarov v. Turkey [GC], § 102). The Court examines the dissuasive effect on the exercise of the right
of individual application (Colibaba v. Moldova, § 68). A failure by the respondent Government to
comply with their procedural obligation under Article 34 does not necessarily require that the
alleged interference should have actually restricted, or had any appreciable impact on, the exercise
of the right of individual petition. The procedural obligations under Articles 34 and 38 of the
Convention must be enforced irrespective of the eventual outcome of the proceedings, and in such a
manner as to avoid any actual or potential chilling effect on applicants or their representatives
(Mehmet Ali Ayhan and Others v. Turkey, § 41).
71. In some circumstances, the Court can, of its own motion, raise the issue whether the applicant
had been subjected to intimidation which had amounted to a hindrance to the effective exercise of
his right of individual petition (Lopata v. Russia, § 147).
72. Consideration must be given to the vulnerability of the applicant and the risk that the authorities
may influence him or her (Iambor v. Romania (no. 1), § 212). Applicants may be particularly
vulnerable when they are in pre-trial detention and restrictions have been placed on contact with
their family or the outside world (Cotleţ v. Romania, § 71).
73. Some noteworthy examples:
▪ as regards interrogation by the authorities concerning the application: Akdivar and Others
v. Turkey, § 105; Tanrıkulu v. Turkey [GC], § 131;
▪ threats of criminal proceedings against the applicant’s lawyer: Kurt v. Turkey, §§ 159-65;
complaint by the authorities against the lawyer in the domestic proceedings: McShane
v. the United Kingdom, § 151; disciplinary and other measures against the applicant’s
lawyers: Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia, §§ 929-33;

European Court of Human Rights 22/110 Last update: 31.08.2022