Article 34/35 - Individual applications and Admissibility criteria
Case-Law Guide
Article Updates
Cases selected for updating the Case-Law Guide.
Taganova and Others v. Georgia and Russia, nos. 18102/04 and 4 others
Article 35: complaints regarding property destroyed before the ratification of the Convention by the respondent State found to be incompatible ratione temporis; lack of access to property, over which the applicants had prima facie kept legal ownership, defined as a continuing situation falling within Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis.
Judgment
Ribár v. Slovakia, no. 56545/21
Article 35: failure to exhaust available and effective domestic remedies with respect to alleged violations stemming from statute that allows for discretion in its implementation.
Judgment
M.T.S. and M.J.S. v. Portugal, no. 39848/19
Article 34: the first applicant’s locus standi to apply on behalf of her mother, the second applicant, confirmed the two Lambert criteria: (a) the risk that the direct victim would otherwise be deprived of effective protection of her rights, (b) and the absence of a conflict of interests between the victim and the applicant.
Judgment
Key Themes
Annotated case-lists on a subject of relevance to this Article.
Related Key Theme(s) from other Article / Transversal Theme pages
- Representation of the child before the ECHR (Article 8)
Useful Materials
Selected case-law materials concerning this Article.
Useful Links
Links to selected websites of relevance to this Article.