CYIL 2012

ALLA TYMOFEYEVA CYIL 3 ȍ2012Ȏ 9) concerns a situation where the applicant has not suffered a significant disadvantage. This order corresponds to the sequence in the hierarchy scheme used by the lawyers of the Court. It means that in the course of analysis of an application, if, for example, the submission has to be rejected on the ground that it is substantially the same as a matter that has already been examined by the Court (ground No. 3), there is no need to examine whether it is also manifestly ill-founded (ground No. 8) or incompatible with the Convention (ground No. 5). A more comprehensible example will be given in the end of this article to consolidate gained knowledge. At the beginning a graspable explanation of admissibility (or inadmissibility) criteria will be made in brief. 1. Anonymous applications This criterion of admissibility is set down in Article 35 § 2 (a) of the Convention. An application is regarded as anonymous where the case file does not indicate any element enabling the Court to disclose the identity of the applicant. This was, for instance, the case of “Blondje” v. the Netherlands, 7 where the applicant used only a nickname. In conclusion, the full name will need to be mentioned and aliases, abbreviations and references are not sufficient. Nevertheless, there are exceptions to this rule. An application introduced under a fictitious name may be regarded as admissible if the usage of the alias pursues an aim to protect the person, his/her family members and/or friends, see Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia. 8 It is also important to distinguish an anonymous application from the non-disclosure of the identity of an applicant, the latter being a permissible condition envisaged in the Rules of Court. 9 2. Abuse of the right of an individual application The term “abuse” can also be found in Article 35 § 3 (a) and signifies the harmful exercise of a right at variance with the Convention’s purpose. The theorists of the Court summed up that the cases concerning an abuse of the right of application can be grouped into five categories: 10 1. Applications containing misleading information, which are ones with untrue facts or where the falsification of documents has taken place. The case of Poznanski and Others v. Germany 11 is an example. 7 “Blondje” v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 7245/09, ECHR 2009. 8 Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02 (Sect. 2), ECHR 2005-III. 9 According to Article 47 § 3 of the Rules of Court, applicants who do not wish their identity to be disclosed to the public may submit a statement of the reasons justifying such a departure from the normal rule of public access to information in proceedings before the Court and the President of the Chamber may authorize anonymity or grant it on his or her own motion. 10 Practical Guide on Admissibility Criteria. Available at http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/ B5358231-79EF-4767-975F-524E0DCF2FBA/0/ENG_Guide_pratique.pdf. 11 Poznanski and Others v. Germany (dec.), no. 25101/05, 3 July 2007.

148