CYIL 2012

ALLA TYMOFEYEVA CYIL 3 ȍ2012Ȏ • incompatibility ratione temporis, as Ukraine ratified the Convention on 11 September 1997, after the date when the application was filed to the Court (27 June 1996); • incompatibility ratione materiae – the Convention does not guarantee the right to institute criminal proceedings against a third party; • the final domestic decision was given on 13 July 1995 and thus more than six months before the date on which the application was submitted to the Court (27 June 1996); • the applicant failed to appeal against the decisions of the Donetsk Court of Appeal and therefore has not, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, exhausted all the remedies available to him under Ukrainian law; • the applicant used offensive language by calling a judge “offspring of a monkey”. In light of all the above-mentioned, it could be concluded that the application should be rejected under Article 35 § 3 and 4 of the Convention as an abuse of the right of application since the usage of offensive language holds the first place in the hierarchy of the mentioned grounds. Conclusions Analysis of the European Court’s case-law allows us to conclude that in order to be examined on the merits by the Court, an application must be in compliance with all the admissibility criteria described in this article. All the grounds of admissibility are based on the European Convention, namely on provisions of Article 35 of the Convention. Abundant practice of the Court illustrates in details all the necessary precautions that should be taken by an applicant so that the application is not rejected. Hierarchy of the inadmissibility grounds serves as a tool for newcomer lawyers of the Court in the course of the examination of applications. It also gives a possibility to all interested in the Convention law to understand how the Court functions.

154