Analysis of statistics 2015

Transcription

1 Analysis of statistics 215 January 216

2 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Table of Contents Overview of the Court s statistics in A. Number of new applications... 4 B. Applications disposed of judicially and pending applications... 4 C. Processing of applications Pre-allocation Inadmissibility or strike out decisions applications Judgments Requests for interim measures (Rule 39 of the Rules of Court)... 5 D. Priority policy... 5 General in... 6 Number of applications allocated to a judicial... 7 Processing of applications... 9 Country-specific in Albania Andorra Armenia Austria Azerbaijan Belgium Bosnia and Herzegovina... 2 Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Georgia Germany... 3 Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Latvia Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Malta /6

3 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Republic of Moldova Monaco Montenegro Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Russian Federation San Marino... 5 Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom /6

4 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Overview of the Court s statistics in 215 The Court s statistics for 215 disclose like last year a lower number of incoming cases allocated to a judicial. This is partly the result of a new approach to Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, which determines what applicants are required to do for their application to be allocated for judicial decision. However, there is also an indication of a falling off in demand with a lower number of cases coming into the system and in particular a lower number of applications allocated to the Single Judge. This has helped the Court to reduce the stock of pending cases since the number of applications disposed of exceeds the volume of incoming cases. The backlog of inadmissible cases has been eliminated which explains the decrease in the number of applications decided by the Single judge. As the Court focuses on other categories of cases, productivity will tend to remain more stable, with fluctuations depending on when large groups of cases are processed and adjudicated. This change of focus is reflected in the increase in the number of applications in those other categories (I to V) which were communicated or decided by judgment or decision. 9,999 more such applications were processed in 215 than in 214. A. Number of new applications In 215 4,65 applications were allocated to a judicial, an overall decrease of 28% compared with 214 (56,2). 27,5 of these were identified as Single-Judge cases likely to be declared inadmissible (a decrease of 4% in relation to 214). 13,6 were identified as probable Chamber or cases (a decrease of 19%). It is the second year in a row that the number of allocated cases has decreased (- 15% in 214). B. Applications disposed of judicially and pending applications 45,576 applications were disposed of judicially, a decrease of 47% in relation to 214 (86,68). The number of cases disposed of exceeded those allocated by more than 4,9 (i.e. a monthly surplus of around 4). As a result, the stock of allocated applications pending before the Court decreased over the year, by 7% from 69,9 to 64,85. C. Processing of applications 1. Pre-allocation As at 31 December 215 the number of applications pending at this pre-judicial stage stood at 1,, a decrease of 48% in relation to the same date the previous year (19,5). The number of applications disposed of administratively in 215 was 32,4, an increase of 29%. 45% of these files were disposed of under Rule Inadmissibility or strike out decisions In ,135 applications were declared inadmissible or of the list of cases by a Single Judge, a or a Chamber, a 48% decrease compared with 214 (83,68). The Single-Judge decided 36,314 cases in 215, a decrease of 54% compared with 214 (78,664). The number of applications by a Chamber or a, in a decision or a judgment, following a friendly settlement or a unilateral declaration, increased by 111% in 215 (4,628 compared to 2,198 in 214). Friendly settlements (1,658) decreased by 2% (1,696 in 214) and unilateral declarations were multiplied by almost six (2,97 compared to 52 in 214). The remainder of the applications were either declared inadmissible by a Chamber or a or by these s on other grounds. 4/6

5 ECHR Analysis of Statistics applications Where an application is not on its face inadmissible, it is communicated to the respondent. In ,965 applications were communicated (an increase of 12% compared to 214 when 7,895 applications were communicated). 4. Judgments Judgments were delivered in respect of 2,441 applications (compared with 2,388 in 214 an increase of 2%). A significant proportion of these applications were joined with the result that the number of judgments actually delivered was 823, a decrease of 8%. 177 judgments (in respect of 1,589 applications) were adopted by a three-judge. These judgments accounted for 65% of the applications decided by a judgment (59% in 214). 5. Requests for interim measures (Rule 39 of the Rules of Court) The total number of decisions on interim measures (1,458) decreased by 25% compared with 214 (1,939). The Court granted requests for interim measures in 161 cases (a decrease of 25% compared with 216 in 214) and dismissed them in 63 cases (19% less than the 782 in 214). The remainder fell outside the scope of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. 39% of the requests granted are linked to the conflict in Ukraine. D. Priority policy 1 The essence of this policy is to concentrate more resources on the most important cases, namely the cases falling within the top three categories ( priority applications ). At 31 December 215 there were 11,49 applications in these categories. The number of priority applications dealt with at different stages of the procedure in 215 increased by 1% compared to % more priority applications were communicated to the respondent s in comparison with 214. The number of priority applications declared inadmissible or of the list of cases by a Chamber or decreased by 35%. The number of priority applications following a friendly settlement or a unilateral declaration decreased from 326 in 214 to 32 in 215. The number of priority applications giving rise to a judgment increased by 11% in An explanation of the Court s priority policy can be found on the Court s internet site 5/6

6 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 General in Table 1 General statistical in 1. [round figures (5)] Applications allocated / % 2. Interim procedural events Applications communicated to respondent / % 3. Applications decided By decision or judgment - by judgment delivered - by decision (inadmissible or ) / % % % 4. Pending applications [round figures (5)] Applications pending before a judicial - Chamber and Grand Chamber - - Single-Judge 31/12/215 1/1/215 +/ % % % % 5. Pre-judicial applications [round figures (5)] Applications at a pre-judicial stage 31/12/215 1/1/215 +/ % /- Applications disposed of administratively % 6/6

7 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Number of applications allocated to a judicial 2 Chart 1 per year Chart 2 Applications pending before a judicial Figures represent the total number of applications, including joined applications. The document generally gives round figures. The upsurge in applications allocated in 22 was due to a change in working methods, transferring much of the screening of inadmissible applications from the administrative, pre-judicial phase to the judicial stage. 7/6

8 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Chart 3 High case-count States (more than 1,5 applications pending before a judicial ) Poland 17 2,6% Georgia 215 3,3% Slovenia 165 2,5% Azerbaijan 15 2,3% remaining 37 States ,4% Ukraine ,4% Romania 355 5,5% Hungary 46 7,1% Italy ,6% Turkey ,% Russia 92 14,2% Total number of pending applications: 64,85 Chart 4 The Court s total caseload by stage of proceedings and judicial ,% Pending action 313 4,6% 554,9% ,9% 64, ,7% 3 The Pending action category was created to monitor applications following a judgment applying the pilot procedure. 8/6

9 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Chart 5 The Court s total caseload by priority category Cat. IV ,2% Cat. V ,1% Cat. III ,% Cat. II 318,5% Cat. I 827 1,3% Cat. VI-VII ,% 64,85 Processing of applications Chart 6 Major procedural steps in processing of applications Applications judgment delivered Applications communicated Applications inadmissible or 9/6

10 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Chart 7 Number of judgments since Chart 8 Applications in categories I, II and III processed from 212 to communicated decision judgment /6

11 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Table 2 Applications allocated per Contracting State and population State Applications allocated to a judicial Population (1) Allocated/population (1) Albania ,35,37,28,51 Andorra ,71,26,66,79 Armenia ,73,65,52,4 Austria ,45,52,37,31 Azerbaijan ,37,35,42,28 Belgium ,24,24,14,18 Bosnia and Herzegovina ,12 2,27 1,74 2,37 Bulgaria ,74 1,66 1,28 1,43 Croatia ,33 4,32 2,58 1,92 Cyprus ,9 1,66,64,38 Czech Republic ,52,46,35,32 Denmark ,18,15,12,8 Estonia ,25 1,8 1,42 1,45 Finland ,58,58,34,32 France ,21,23,17,16 Georgia ,82,35,23,18 Germany ,18,19,13,1 Greece ,64,66,54,42 Hungary ,74 1, 2,43 4,3 Iceland ,31,28,86,3 Ireland ,12,14,7,4 Italy ,53,53,9,32 Latvia ,4 1,59 1,49 1,24 Liechtenstein ,44 1,89 3,24 3,51 Lithuania ,24 1,44 1,31 1,29 Luxemburg ,59,71,42,39 Malta ,63 1,19,92,56 Republic of Moldova ,62 3,8 3,9 2,84 Monaco ,39 2,78 1,11 2,5 Montenegro ,91 4,64 2,54 2,7 Netherlands ,4,46,4,29 Norway ,2,29,28,14 Poland ,6 1,3,72,57 Portugal ,21,25,24,22 Romania ,17 2,7 2,22 2,32 Russia ,75,86,62,41 San Marino ,31 1,18 1,47 1,21 Serbia ,76 7,4 3,9 1,74 Slovak Republic ,98,86,6,65 Slovenia ,5 2,41 1,71 1,3 Spain ,15,17,14,12 Sweden ,58,38,28,22 Switzerland ,41,55,37,39 "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" ,7 2,59 1,85 1,75 Turkey ,2,46,21,28 Ukraine ,71 2,89 3,13 1,33 United Kingdom ,27,14,11,9 Total ,79,8,68,49 SOURCES 214 and 215: Internet sites of the Eurostat service ( Population and social conditions ) or from the United Nations Statistics Division. The Council of Europe member States had a combined population of about 828 million inhabitants on 1 January 215. The average number of applications allocated per 1, inhabitants was.49 in /6

12 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Table 3 The Court s total caseload by stage of proceedings and judicial State Single Judge or Chamber or - awaiting first examination Pending action TOTAL Albania Andorra Armenia Austria Azerbaijan Belgium Bosnia and Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Georgia Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Latvia Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Republic of Moldova Monaco Montenegro Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Russia San Marino Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom ALL STATES /6

13 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Table 4 Unilateral declarations and friendly settlements from 213 to 215 State Unilateral declaration Friendly settlement Albania 1 14 Andorra Armenia Austria Azerbaijan Belgium Bosnia and Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark 1 Estonia 1 1 Finland France Georgia Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland 1 3 Italy Latvia Liechtenstein Lithuania 1 1 Luxembourg Malta 2 Republic of Moldova Monaco Montenegro Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Russia San Marino Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Spain 1 1 Sweden 2 Switzerland The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia' Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom Grand Total /6

14 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Country-specific in Albania Chart 9 1 % 8 2% % % 48 Graph /6

15 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Andorra Chart % 1 25% 2 5% 4 Graph /6

16 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Armenia Chart % 7,7% 54 6% % 978 Graph /6

17 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Austria Chart % 1 1% 36 27% % Graph /6

18 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Azerbaijan Chart ,3% 8,5% 7,5% ,7% Graph /6

19 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Belgium Chart % 8 2% 15 4% % 348 Graph /6

20 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Bosnia and Herzegovina Chart 21 4 % 73 9% % Pending action 42 5% 52 6% 84 Graph /6

21 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Bulgaria Chart % 15 2% 8 1% % 794 Graph /6

22 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Croatia Chart % 1 2% 38 8% % 56 Graph /6

23 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Cyprus Chart % 2 3% 8 14% 32 54% 59 Graph /6

24 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Czech Republic Chart % 9 6% 29 19% 58 38% 152 Graph /6

25 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Denmark Chart % 1 3% 2 7% 17 57% 3 Graph /6

26 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Estonia Chart ,9% 1 1,4% 28 39,4% 3 42,3% 71 Graph /6

27 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Finland Chart ,1% 6 42,9% 6 42,9% ,1% Graph /6

28 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 France Chart % 11 3% 85 22% % Graph /6

29 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Georgia Chart % 16 1% % 2154 Graph /6

30 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Germany Chart % 6 3% 71 33% 93 44% 212 Graph /6

31 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Greece Chart % 3 3% 18 2% % 892 Graph /6

32 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Hungary Chart % 71 1,5% 94 2% % Graph /6

33 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Iceland Chart % % Graph /6

34 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Ireland Chart % 3 6% 5 Graph /6

35 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Italy Chart % Pending action 2,3% 34 1% 22 3% % 7567 Graph /6

36 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Latvia Chart % 5 3% 28 17% 63 4% 159 Graph /6

37 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Liechtenstein Chart % 2 33% 2 33% 1 17% 6 Graph /6

38 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Lithuania Chart % 16 4% 8 22% % Graph /6

39 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Luxembourg Chart % 1 14% 1 14% 7 Graph /6

40 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Malta Chart % 2 4% 21 39% % Graph /6

41 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Republic of Moldova Chart % Pending action 1 % 11 1% 69 5% 83 66% 1223 Graph /6

42 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Monaco Chart % 2 67% 3 Graph /6

43 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Montenegro Chart % 3 2% 39 23% % Graph /6

44 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Netherlands Chart % 6 2,2% 5 18% % Graph /6

45 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Norway Chart % 1 2% 12 19% 43 69% 62 Graph /6

46 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Poland Chart ,8% 14,8% ,5% ,8% 1681 Graph /6

47 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Portugal Chart % 9 3% 4 1% 21 64% 326 Graph /6

48 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Romania Chart 77 Pending action 165 5% 48 1,4% 311 9% % % 3536 Graph /6

49 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Russian Federation Chart 79 Pending action 547 5,9% 65,7% 732 8% % % 927 Graph /6

50 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 San Marino Chart % % Graph /6

51 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Serbia Chart 83 Pending action ,5% 5 % 114 1% % 29 18% 1142 Graph /6

52 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Slovakia Chart % 9 5% 35 19% % Graph /6

53 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Slovenia Chart 87 5 % 3 2% % 38 2% Pending action ,2% 1654 Graph /6

54 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Spain Chart % 23 26% 53 61% % Graph /6

55 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Sweden Chart % 16 37% 14 33% % Graph /6

56 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Switzerland Chart % 7 5,4% 2 16% % Graph /6

57 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Chart % 12 4,5% 12 5% % 264 Graph /6

58 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Turkey Chart % 65 1% 199 2% % 8446 Graph /6

59 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 Ukraine Chart % 25 % 28 2% 416 3% Graph /6

60 ECHR Analysis of Statistics 215 United Kingdom Chart % 26 1% 95 37% % Graph /6