CYIL 2012

ALLA TYMOFEYEVA CYIL 3 ȍ2012Ȏ Turkey 20 ). As to the identical facts, in theory such application will be admissible on condition that new information is added ( Patera v. the Czech Republic 21 ). 4. Applications already submitted to another procedure of international investigation or settlement The European Court is not the only international body created with the aim to protect human rights. In order to avoid a plurality of international proceedings relating to the same matters, the Convention in its Article 35 § 2 (b) sets forth the rule that the Court shall not deal with substantially the same applications which have already been submitted to another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Court in its case law has determined the conditions which the international procedure must meet in order to conform to its regulations. The procedure must be public, international, independent and judicial ( Zagaria v. Italy 22 ). It also should determine responsibilities of states and be effective. An example of “another international procedure” is the United Nations Human Rights Committee ( Calcerrada Fornieles and Cabeza Mato v. Spain 23 ). Lodging complaints with the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus will not result in rejection of the application by the Court The theory of the European Convention law distinguishes four types of incompatibility: 1) ratione personae ; 2) ratione loci ; 3) ratione temporis and 4) ratione materiae . 1. – Incompatibility ratione personae refers to attributableness of a violation to actions (acts or omissions) of the State. This means that the application will be declared inadmissible if a person complains about occurrences for which the State cannot be held liable. The Court does not try applications brought against an individual ( Durini v. Italy 25 ), against a State that has not ratified the Convention ( E.S. v. Federal Republic of Germany 26 ), or directly against an international organisation ( Stephens v. Cyprus, Turkey and the United Nations 27 ). The request will also be rejected if an applicant is not a victim of the alleged breach of the European Convention. 2. – Incompatibility ratione loci is present when the alleged violation of human rights did not take place on the territory within the jurisdiction of the respondent State (see e.g. Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia 28 ). Nevertheless, the State may be ( Varnava and Others v. Turkey 24 ). 5. Incompatible applications

20 Yurttas v. Turkey, nos. 25143/94 and 27098/95, 27 May 2004. 21 Patera v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 25326/03, 10 January 2006. 22 Zagaria v. Italy (dec.), no. 24408/03, 3 June 2008. 23 Calcerrada Fornieles and Cabeza Mato v. Spain (dec.), no. 17512/90, 6 July 1992. 24 Varnava and Others v. Turkey (dec.), nos. 16064/90 and others, 14 April 1998. 25 Durini v. Italy, no. 19217/91, Commission decision of 12 January 1994, DR 76-B.

26 E.S. v. Federal Republic of Germany, no. 262/57, Commission decision of 28 August 1957, Yearbook 1. 27 Stephens v. Cyprus, Turkey and the United Nations (dec.), no. 45267/06, 11 December 2008. 28 Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, no. 25965/04, ECHR 2010.

150