CYIL 2012

ALLA TYMOFEYEVA

CYIL 3 ȍ2012Ȏ

7. Six-month rule Article 35 § 1 of the Convention lays down that the Court may deal with an application only if it was submitted within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken. This regulation in the case law of the Court is known as the “six-month rule”. The date of the final decision is not necessarily the day of announcement of the judgment, but the day when the applicant became aware of it ( Şahmo v. Turkey 37 ). If an applicant applies to the Court then the six-month time limit stops from the date of the first communication to the Convention body regarding the subject of the alleged infringement of human rights. Primary introduction of an application can be made in the form of a simple letter or even a postcard but fax messages or emails are not accepted ( Kemevuako v. the Netherlands 38 ). If an application has not been submitted on the official form or an introductory letter does not contain all the necessary information, the applicant may be required to submit a duly completed form within a period of eight weeks from the date of the Registry’s letter requesting the applicant to complete and return the form. 39 Failure to comply with this time-limit may affect the applicant’s compliance with the six month rule. 8. Manifestly ill-founded applications Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention sets forth the reason of inadmissibility for insufficient grounding in a complaint. An application is considered “manifestly ill-founded” if a preliminary examination of its substance does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention rights. This type of complaints can be divided into four groups: 1) “fourth instance” complaints, which obtained its name from the practice of a large number of the applicants lodging their complaints with the Court with the aim being to overrule national decisions. The European Court has no jurisdiction to examine the facts that have led a national court to adoption of a particular decision (see, e.g. Perlala v. Greece 40 ). 2) complaints where there has clearly or apparently been no violation. This category deals with the clear or apparent absence of a violation and includes three subcategories: (a) cases in which there is no appearance of arbitrary actions or unfairness on the whole; (b) cases in which there is no appearance of a lack of proportion between the aims and the means; and (c) the other relatively straightforward substantive issues where there is settled and abundant case law of the 37 Şahmo v. Turkey (dec.), no. 37415/97, 1 April 2003. 38 Kemevuako v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 65938/09, 1 June 2010. 39 Rules of Court of 1 May 2012. Available at http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/6AC1A02E-9A3C 4E06-94EF-E0BD377731DA/0/REGLEMENT_EN_2012.pdf. 40 Perlala v. Greece, no. 17721/04, 22 February 2007. Available at http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/ rdonlyres/6AC1A02E-9A3C-4E06-94EF-E0BD377731DA/0/REGLEMENT_EN_2012.pdf.

152