Context is everything – European Court of Human Rights struck out 99% of UK cases in 2012

24 January 2013 by

UK stats 2012

The European Court of Human Rights got off lightly in the Prime Minister’s In-Out speech yesterday, with just a single passing mention. No surprises there, as the speech was about the European Union, a separate organisation from the Council of Europe, which runs the Strasbourg court. Withdrawing from the European Union would not mean withdrawing from the European Court of Human Rights.

Yesterday was, however, an exception. Ordinarily, the European Court of Human Rights is a large presence in the in-out Europe debate. And, from the amount of coverage and political argument the court generates, you might be forgiven for thinking it rules against the UK hundreds of times per year. The Court has just released its statistics for 2012, and the figures may surprise you.

In 2012 there were 3,308 applications made by individuals to the Court involving the UK (see this document). Only 21 were declared “admissible”, which means they were substantially considered by the Court. It cannot be assumed that the cases resolved in 2012 were same group as the applications brought. But since in 2011 a similar number of applications were brought (3,663 – in fact more) this suggests that around 99% of applications from the UK are being struck out (technically disposed of, that is struck out or declared inadmissible) in the very early stages.

The 21 UK cases amounted around 2% of the total substantively considered by the Court (1,093). And, of those 21, the Court found a violation against the UK in only ten cases.

This document breaks down the violations by article of the European Convention on Human Rights. The UK sample size (10 cases) is so small that it is not possible to extract any meaningful information from the breakdown. But, of those cases, there was a wide spread of violations including Article 3 (torture, inhuman and degrading treatment), Article 4 (anti-slavery) and Article 8 (the right to family and private life).

Context is everything. The UK has to abide by judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, but in reality the vast majority of human rights judgments are now generated by our own courts. As readers of the UK Human Rights Blog will know, the UK courts – from the County Courts upwards – are releasing judgments about people’s human rights almost daily. This is thanks to the Human Rights Act 1998, which allowed individuals in the UK to bring human rights cases in a nearby court to be decided by a local judge.

Before the HRA became law, the legislative plans were referred to as Bringing Rights Home. And that is exactly that the act has achieved. The ten or so judgments which the European Court of Human Rights produces each year against the UK are but a tiny fraction (0.5%) of the applications brought from the UK – not three out of four as some newspapers reported, bizarrely and irresponsibly, this time last year.

That is not to say that the European Court of Human Rights gets every judgment right, of course. There are legitimate criticisms made of its rulings, which naturally involve the most controversial topics.

But it is important to remember, when the next fight erupts over ‘unelected’ European judges deciding our law, that in fact they decide only a handful of UK cases. And those case are represent only a tiny sliver of the human rights judgments involving people in the UK, the vast majority of which are, thanks to the Human Rights Act, decided by judges not in Strasbourg but in Swindon (and in other UK courts).

Hardly a monstrous invasion of our sovereignty, is it? Bear that in mind next time we are debating whether to be in our out of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Sign up to free human rights update s by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Court documents

Related posts:

4 comments


  1. Theo Hopkins says:

    IF we don’t get out of the European Union Court of Human Rights then Mayra Hindley will get a vote! I read it in the Daily Mail!!!

  2. Alex says:

    I think you’re misreading the statistics, if you look at Fig 102 it shows about 2000 applications struck out and about 35 having judgements made during 2012. As the court has a significant backlog we don’t know when those 2000 or so cases were filed. Nor do we know what has happened to the 3000 or so cases filed in 2012 that haven’t been declared admissable, my reading of the chart is that the vast majority are sat in the process somewhere, but the paper doesn’t give quite enough information to be able to be sure.

    So your probably right that only 1% of cases come to judgement, but the chart you’re using doesn’t show that.

    1. thanks for a reply that somewhat plays down wht I felt to be your overly optimistic reading of “UK-originated” Human Rights judgments. I came back to add – at risk of sounding cynical: Ihope your angle is not coloured by the lackof insight into the proceedings of those who cannot afford your services. Now I understand better that you may not have intended a positive value judgment about those UK-originated Human rights judgments. However, the fact remains, that my observations in provincial civil proceedings and of solicitors who even came near me given my (lack of) financial powers at present is telling me that “EU Law” (ie ECHR) is still something considered not relevant to their field – HRA or no hRA.
      Kind regards,
      Barbara Schaefer MA

  3. hi and thanks for your blog; As a senior social worker having suffered detrimental treatment after whistleblowing, ET being struck out as late due to rep’s fault, and CCJ due to resulting financial difficulties being achieved with a false claim by the creditor – I have submitted one case (ET)) and am in the process of submitting another (CCJ).
    Upon reflection, the common denominator is that the Courts and other public bodies (ACAS for one) have little if any understanding so far of their obligation to give effect to the individual’s Human Rights and thus get lost in sometimes arbitrary reading of their own procedures (“we have always done it like that”); thus my arguments to ECtHR are based on Article 6 and 13 and article 1 Protocol 1.
    It would be good if you could comment on these from your prespective. In fact, the lack of understanding of the obligation mentioned includes solicitors – more than one has responded when I mentioned ECHR by saying something like “I am not an expert on EU law”. Which find nail-biringly frustrating (not to use the word backward).
    Thank you.
    Barbara

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: