CYIL 2012

ADMISSIBILITY CRITERIA FOR LODGING AN APPLICATION WITH THE ECHR… 2. Use of offensive speech by the applicant is inconsistent with the spirit of the human rights defence. Therefore, if the application is written in insulting, vexatious, threatening or provocative language, it can be rejected by the Court (see e.g. Řehák v. the Czech Republic 12 ). 3. Cases where a violation of the obligation to keep friendly-settlement proceedings confidential has occurred. This obligation is based on Article 39 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court and must be complied with. Otherwise, it can lead to declaring an application inadmissible, as occurred in the case of Miroļubovs and Others v. Latvia. 13 4. Manifestly vexatious or devoid of any real purpose applications abuse the right of application as well. Time is very precious and costly and if the applicant repeatedly submits to the Court ungrounded claims, then the latter may include such a person in a so-called “black list”, which would mean that any correspondence from such an applicant will be ignored. This is a very strict measure and is used by the Convention body only in exceptional circumstances ( Philis v. Greece 14 ). 5. The last group includes all other cases that cannot be listed exhaustively. 15 For example, these are applications by which an applicant only aims to propagate his or her political activity (see e.g. McFeeley and Others v. the United Kingdom 16 ) and intentionally invents violations that did not actually occur. 3. Substantially the same applications We call an application “substantially the same” as already examined by the Court when one or more of the following appears: identical parties, identical complaints and/or identical facts. The parties will not, however, be regarded as the same, if the application in the name of the applicants was first submitted by a non-governmental organisation and then lodged by the applicants themselves ( Illiu and Others v. Belgium 17 ). The application will also be rejected when the same applicant who owns a house with a number of flats and lodges again and again complains in regards to the different flats in the same building ( X v. Federal Republic of Germany 18 ). It should be noted, on the other hand, that for example a dispute concerning the conditions of an applicant’s detention and his conviction by the National Security Court is not the same as one concerning the forfeiture of parliamentary office 19 (see Yurttas v. 12 Řehák v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 67208/01, 18 May 2004. 13 Miroļubovs and Others v. Latvia, no. 798/05, 15 September 2009. 14 Philis v. Greece, no. 28970/95, Commission decision of 17 October 1996. 15 Page 31 of the Practical Guide on Admissibility Criteria. Available at http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/ rdonlyres/B5358231-79EF-4767-975F-524E0DCF2FBA/0/ENG_Guide_pratique.pdf. 16 McFeeley and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 8317/78, Commission decision of 15 May 1980, DR 20. 17 Illiu and Others v. Belgium (dec.), no. 14301/08, 19 May 2009. 18 X v. Federal Republic of Germany (dec.), no. 7462/76, Commission decision of 7 March 1977, DR 9. 19 Practical Guide on Admissibility Criteria, page 28. Available at http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/ B5358231-79EF-4767-975F-524E0DCF2FBA/0/ENG_Guide_pratique.pdf.

149