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

complains in regards to the different flats in the same building ( X v. Federal Republic of Germany ). 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 (see Yurttas v. Turkey ). As to the identical facts, in theory such application will be admissible on condition that new information is added ( Patera v. the Czech Republic ). 3.4 Applications submitted to another international body 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 ). 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 ). Lodging complaints with the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus will not result in rejection of the application by the Court ( Varnava and Others v. Turkey ). 3.5 Incompatible applications 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 . 3.5.1 ratione personae 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 ), against a State that has not ratified the Convention ( E.S. v. Federal Republic of Germany ), or directly against an international organisation ( Stephens v. Cyprus, Turkey and the United Nations ). The request will also be rejected if an applicant is not a victim of the alleged breach of the European Convention. 3.5.2 ratione loci 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 ). Nevertheless, the State may be considered liable for the infringement if it occurred in territory effectively controlled by it ( Cyprus v. Turkey ). 3.5.3 ratione temporis Incompatibility ratione temporis is related to the date of ratification of the Convention or acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Convention institutions. The application will be rejected by the Court if a violation took place before the date of the entry into force of the Convention and Protocols in respect of the State concerned (for instance, see Šilih v. Slovenia ). It is important to mention that the theory of the Convention law includes a term “continuing violation”! This is a breach which originated before the entry into force of the Convention and persists after that date. For example, it covers the continued impossibility for the applicant to regain possession of property in the case of Hutten-Czapska v. Poland .

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ACTION

35