EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION / Alla Tymofeyeva (ed.)

structural dysfunction in the country concerned which has given or could give rise to similar applications before it. 6. INTERIM MEASURES According to Rule 39 of its Rules of Court, the ECtHR may indicate interim measures to any State party to the ECHR. Interim measures are urgent actions that according to the Court’s well-established practice, apply only where there is an imminent risk of irreparable harm. Such measures are decided in connection with proceedings before the ECtHR without prejudging any subsequent decisions on the admissibility or merits of the case in question. In the majority of cases, the applicant requests the suspension of an expulsion or an extradition. The ECtHR grants such requests for an interim measure only on an exceptional basis, when the applicant would otherwise face a real risk of serious and irreversible harm. Such measures are then indicated to the respondent Government. The ECHR examines each request on an individual and priority basis through written procedure. Applicants and Governments are informed of the Court’s decisions on interim measures and its refusals to apply Rule 39 cannot be appealed. The length of an interim measure is generally set to cover the duration of the proceedings before the Court or a shorter period. The application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court may be discontinued by a decision of the Court at any time. The most typical cases of interim measures are those where an expulsion or extradition takes place and the applicants fear for their lives (Article 2) or would face ill-treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention. More exceptionally, such measures may be indicated in response to certain requests concerning the right to a fair trial (Article 6) and the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8). Rule 39 of the Rules of Court is not applied, for example, in the requests aiming to prevent the imminent demolition of property, imminent insolvency, or the enforcement of an obligation to do military service, to obtain the release of an applicant who is in prison pending or to ensure the holding of a referendum or to prevent the dissolution of a political party. 7. INTER-STATE APPLICATIONS The vast majority of applications to the ECtHR are lodged by individuals, business entities, groups of persons or NGOs. However, States are also entitled to lodge applications against each other in what are called “inter-State applications”. This possibility is set out under Article 33 of the ECHR, which states that “any High Contracting Party may refer to the Court any alleged breach of the provisions of the Convention and the Protocols thereto by another High Contracting Party”. There have been over 20 inter-State cases since the ECHR entered into force in 1953. The first one was Greece v. the United Kingdom , lodged in 1957, concerning alleged violations of the Convention in Cyprus. Most of the inter-State applications have involved situations of crisis or conflict, such as the UK authorities’ interrogation techniques from 1971 to 1975 during the Troubles in Northern Ireland, Turkey’s military operations in Northern Cyprus in 1974, the armed conflict between Georgia and Russia in 2008, and the events in the Crimea and Eastern Ukraine in 2014. On the other hand, Slovenia v. Croatia related to proceedings brought by a Slovenian bank to collect debts owed by Croatian companies. To commence the proceeding under Article 33 of the ECHR a State intending to bring a case before the ECtHR against another State must lodge an application, setting out a statement of facts and alleged violations, with relevant arguments. Then the respondent State is invited to submit written observations, which are then forwarded to the applicant State for observations in reply. The inter-state cases are decided by the Chamber in the first instance and can be forwarded to the Grand Chamber of the Court.

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION

29