Practical guide on admissibility criteria

have not been granted locus standi by the domestic courts cannot claim to be victims of an alleged
violation of the right to enforcement of judicial decisions under Article 6 § 1 (Bursa Barosu Başkanliği
and Others v. Turkey, §§ 114-116, concerning an environmental case; compare with Beizaras and
Levickas v. Lithuania, § 80). Where an applicant alleges a breach of the right to respect for private
and family life on account of statutory restrictions on visits from family members or other persons,
in order to claim to be a victim of the alleged violation , he should demonstrate at least: a) that he
has relatives or other persons with whom he genuinely wishes and attempts to maintain contact in
detention; and b) that he has used his right to visits as frequenty as was permitted under domestic
law (Chernenko and Others v. Russia (dec.), § 45). In the context of Article 10 of the Convention, the
mere fact that an applicant could no longer watch or listen to the programmes previously broadcast
by a public service broadcaster closed by the Government did not suffice to establish his victim
status with respect to the right to receive information (Kalfagiannis and Pospert v. Greece (dec.),
§§ 46-47).
40. However, it is open to a person to contend that a law violates his or her rights, in the absence of
an individual measure of implementation, if he or she is required either to modify his or her conduct
or risks being prosecuted or if he or she is a member of a class of people who risk being directly
affected by the legislation (Tănase v. Moldova [GC], § 104; Michaud v. France, §§ 51-52; Sejdić and
Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], § 28).

e. Loss of victim status

41. It falls first to the national authorities to redress any alleged violation of the Convention. Hence,
the question whether an applicant can claim to be a victim of the violation alleged is relevant at all
stages of the proceedings before the Court (Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], § 179; Rooman v. Belgium
[GC], §§ 128-133). In this regard, the applicant must be able to justify his or her status as a victim
throughout the proceedings (Burdov v. Russia, § 30; Centro Europa 7 S.r.l. and Di Stefano v. Italy
[GC], § 80).
42. The issue of whether a person may still claim to be the victim of an alleged violation of the
Convention essentially entails on the part of the Court an ex post facto examination of his or her
situation (ibid., § 82).
43. A decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not, in principle, sufficient to deprive him or
her of his or her status as a “victim” for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention unless the
national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress
for the breach of the Convention (Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], § 180; Gäfgen v. Germany [GC],
§ 115; Nada v. Switzerland [GC], § 128; Blyudik v. Russia, §§ 49-50; Dimo Dimov and Others
v. Bulgaria, §§ 51-56; Roth v. Germany, §§ 75-81). Only when these conditions are satisfied does the
subsidiary nature of the protective mechanism of the Convention preclude examination of an
application (Jensen and Rasmussen v. Denmark (dec.); Albayrak v. Turkey, § 32; Selahattin Demirtaş
v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], §§ 217-223).
44. The applicant would remain a victim if the authorities have failed to acknowledge either
expressly or in substance that there has been a violation of the applicant’s rights (Albayrak v. Turkey,
§ 33; Jensen v. Denmark (dec.)) even if the latter received some compensation (Centro Europa 7 S.r.l.
and Di Stefano v. Italy [GC], § 88).
45. Moreover, the redress afforded must be appropriate and sufficient. This will depend on all the
circumstances of the case, with particular regard to the nature of the Convention violation in issue
(Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], § 116; Bivolaru v. Romania (no. 2), § 170).
46. For instance, in cases of willful ill-treatment by State agents in breach of Article 3, the Court has
repeatedly found that two measures are necessary to provide sufficient redress. Firstly, the State
authorities must have conducted a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the

European Court of Human Rights 16/110 Last update: 31.08.2022