A. 1950 European Convention on Human Rights
1. The protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms within the Council of Europe Convention has been prepared. In Rome on November 4, 1950 Convention opened for signature, 1953 came into force in September. 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention resulting from the path of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the protection of authors through the development and intends to follow the Council of Europe were the target. Contract with the Universal Declaration of the rights expressed in the public is assured that some of the first measures was related to.
2. Contractual rights on the one hand and a series, given to civil and political freedom gives (financial provisions for the title, see attachment I) contract from the other side of States have taken them comply with their obligation to obtain a scheme which aims to put into practice was. This is the responsibility of controlling the three institutions were shared: the European Human Rights Commission (established in 1954) The European Court of Human Rights (established in 1959) and Member States’ foreign ministers or their representatives which, Council of Europe Committee of Ministers.
3. According to the initial text of the Convention, entries in contract against the State Government or other contract could be made by individual applicants (Individuals, individual communities or civil society organizations). However, recognition of the right to individual application was discretionary and only knew him agree to these rights which could be invoked against the State (the Convention and Protocol No. 11 recognition was made compulsory – see paragraph 6 below)
Applications primarily accept the Commission’s decision about preparation was subject to review. Explained that an application is acceptable from the Commission to provide an amicable solution with the parties themselves would be ready to order. Can not succeed if the Commission set out the events and expressed views on the basis of the application, wrote a report. Report to the Committee of Ministers had devolved.
4. Respondent Court’s compulsory jurisdiction of the State acknowledge that the situation in the State Commission and every contract related matter, accurate and compelling to give its decision before the Court to bring the report to the Committee of Ministers from the three-month transition period had. Individuals was not possible to apply to the Court.
Applications not be referred to the Court, the Committee of Ministers of the Convention does not decide about the presence of violations, and violation of the victim in cases where the “equitable compensation” was given. Committee of Ministers at the same time follow the Court’s decisions from the executive was responsible.
B. Subsequent developments
5. Since the contract came into force on the two additional Protocols adopted edilmiştir.1, 4,6,7 and 12 of Protocol Additional to the Agreement are the rights and freedoms. Number 2 of the Protocol to the Court has authority to give advisory opinions. Protocol number 9, the defendant by the State concerned and checking of the document be approved to accept the terms of a committee to refer to the individual applicant the opportunity to bring before the Court has opened the way. Restructuring of Protocol No. 11 has control mechanisms (see below). Protocols have been implemented with other contracting organizations and the organization maintains a keen interest in front of the procedures to be followed.
6. Bodies in front of the Convention since 1980, growing from an increase in the number of application times of trial within acceptable limits to keep the task force has made better than good. Since 1990, the State with the participation of new contractual problems become serious. In 1981 a record 404 applications, the Commission has made contact in 1997, 4750. Addition, he has opened the unsaved or the number of temporary files in the same year 1997 climbed to more than 12000’den. Numbers reflect a similar situation to the Court of: In 1981, transferred to the reference count of seven, while his 1997 119’du.
Increasing workload created by the Convention control mechanisms need to be reshaped on the cause was a long discussion, the Convention has led to the adoption of Protocol 11. Incentive to shorten the duration of the goal judge and the system is completely made compulsory and the decision-making function of the Committee of Ministers by eliminating the system’s structure in order to strengthen the judicial nature simple.
In 1998, this Protocol entered into force November 1 as part-time Court and Commission’s working instead of a continuous one and then brought the court. Commission an interim period of one year (31 October until 1999) had decided before this date is acceptable continued to work on applications.
7. Entry into force of Protocol 11 to the court during the three years following an unprecedented increase in workload experienced. The recorded number of submissions about? 0’luk with an increase in 1998 reached 5 979’dan 2001 13 858’e. Court’s growing volume of work on the capacity to apply additional resources to the demands and concerns about the new requirements on the reform led to editing.
50 of the Convention opened for signature anniversary in November 2000 in Rome, 3 and 4 on the human rights during the Ministerial Conference a thinking process on the reform of the system began. “The European Court of human rights on” Following the Ministerial Declaration in November 2002 ministerial delegates of the executive committee for human rights into concrete and coherent proposals of all, especially without losing time to put into practice measures and bring the Convention likely to be changes, prepare a warrant for gave