Abstract
The European Court of Human Rights recently has introduced a variety of instruments to streamline the flow of applications and to address the handling of repetitive applications. This article discusses one of these instruments — the indication of “general measures” in the operative part of the Court’s judgments, a reform introduced in 2004. This article also discusses the issues likely to cause the Court to indicate “general measures” in its judgments against Ukraine: the length of judicial proceedings and the conditions of detention.
Highlights
The European Court of Human Rights was established in 1959 within the framework of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
The European Court of Human Rights recently has introduced a variety of instruments to streamline the flow of applications and to address the handling of repetitive applications
5.7% were against Ukraine,2 which ratified the Convention on 11 September 1997.3 The number of applications lodged in the first semester of 2013, about 50,000, set an all-time record
Summary
The European Court of Human Rights (the “Court”) was established in 1959 within the framework of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the “European Convention”). Identifying these issues could be an effective step toward resolving them and decreasing the number of repetitive applications Consistent with this thought, the participants of the Conference on the long-term future of the European Court of Human Rights held in Oslo in April 2014 concluded, “[t]he most important way to address the overload of cases is [...] [for] the Member States [to] take effective measures in domestic legislation and practice.” by creating and applying general measures, the Court can guide and assist the Member States in their respective reforms aimed at solving their systemic domestic problems, many of which are generic. Fighting the Lernaean Hydra — General Measures in the Operative 179 Part of the European Court of Human Rights’ Judgments: Broad Context and Ukrainian Perspectives on which the judgment becomes final,” effective domestic remedies to complaints of prolonged non-enforcement of judgments against the State.12 In light of this instance of the Court’s indication of general measures in the operative part of its judgments, this article will examine this instrument, including its nature, its use, and its strengths and weaknesses. This article’s authors, both former lawyers of the Court Registry, hope that their knowledge of the Court’s inner workings have allowed them to draw a set of valid conclusions about the potential developments in the case law on the Court’s indication of general measures in the operative part of its judgments
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
