Practical guide on admissibility criteria

contact with their representative and contrast with N.D. and N.T. v. Spain [GC], §§ 69-79, and the
references therein, where the representative remained in contact with both applicants via
telephone and WhatsApp, and the existence of special circumstances regarding respect for human
rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto requiring the Court to continue the
examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine)). On the validity of an authority to act, see Aliev
v. Georgia, §§ 44-49; on the authenticity of an application, see Velikova v. Bulgaria, §§ 48-52.
61. As a general rule, minor children are represented before the Court by their parents. The
standing as the natural parent suffices to afford him or her the necessary power to apply to the
Court on the child’s behalf in order to protect the child’s interests also, even—or indeed especially
—if that parent is in conflict with the authorities and criticises their decisions and conduct as not
being consistent with the rights guaranteed by the Convention (Iosub Caras v. Romania, § 21). In any
event, the key criterion in relation to questions of locus standi is the risk that children’s interests
might not be brought to its attention and that they would be denied effective protection of their
Convention rights (Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway [GC], § 157). In cases arising out of disputes
between parents, it is in principle the parent entitled to custody and therefore entrusted with
safeguarding the child’s interests, who has standing to act on the child’s behalf (Hromadka and
Hromadkova v. Russia, no. 22909/10, § 119, 11 December 2014; Y.Y. and Y.Y. v. Russia, § 43).
However, the situation may be different if the Court identifies conflicting interests between a parent
and child in the case brought before it, for example, if serious joint parental child neglect has
occurred (Strand Lobben and Others v. Norway [GC], § 158, and E.M. and Others v. Norway, §§ 64-
65; compare and contrast with Pedersen and Others v. Norway, § 45).
62. Moreover, special considerations may arise in the case of victims of alleged breaches of
Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the Convention at the hands of the national authorities, having regard to the
victims’ vulnerability on account of their age, sex or disability, which rendered them unable to lodge
a complaint on the matter with the Court, due regard also being paid to the connections between
the person lodging the application and the victim. In such cases, applications lodged by individuals
on behalf of the victim(s), even though no valid form of authority was presented, have thus been
declared admissible (Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC],
§ 103; however, compare and contrast with Lambert and Others v. France [GC], §§ 96-106). See, for
example, İlhan v. Turkey [GC], § 55, where the complaints were brought by the applicant on behalf
of his brother, who had been ill-treated; Y.F. v. Turkey, § 29, where a husband complained that his
wife had been compelled to undergo a gynaecological examination; S.P., D.P. and A.T. v. the United
Kingdom, Commission decision, where a complaint was brought by a solicitor on behalf of children
he had represented in domestic proceedings, in which he had been appointed by the guardian ad
litem; C.N. v. Luxembourg, § 28-33, where the power of attorney had been given by the parents
whose parental authority was later revoked; V.D. and Others v. Russia, §§ 80-84, where an
application was brought by a guardian acting on behalf of minors. See also, by contrast, Lambert and
Others v. France [GC], § 105, where the Court held that the parents of the direct victim, who was
unable to express his wishes regarding a decision to discontinue nutrition and hydration which
allowed him to be kept alive artificially, did not have standing to raise complaints under Articles 2, 3
and 8 of the Convention in his name or on his behalf; and Gard and Others v. the United Kingdom
(dec.), § 63-70, which differed from Lambert and Others since the direct victim was a minor, who
had never been able to express his views or live an independent life, and where the Court discussed
whether the parents of the direct victim had standing to raise complaints under Articles 2 and 5 on
his behalf, but did not come to a final conclusion on this point, given that the issues were also raised
by the applicants on their own behalf.
63. In Blyudik v. Russia (§§ 41-44), relating to the lawfulness of a placement in a closed educational
institution for minors, the Court stated that the applicant was entitled to apply to the Court to
protect the interest of the minor under Article 5 and 8 as regards her placement in the institution:
the daughter was a minor at the time of the events in issue, as well as at the time when the

European Court of Human Rights 20/110 Last update: 31.08.2022