Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

• Seyed Qasem Zamani ¹
• Siavash Alizadeh ²

¹ Professor, Department of Public International Law, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran

² Ph.D Student, Public International Law, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Introduction

Tribunals, in both domestic and international legal systems, hear the claims of parties only under specific circumstances. The rules that define these circumstances fall under the concepts of jurisdiction and admissibility. Rules relating to jurisdiction determine whether a particular judicial body has the authority to consider the nature and form of the arguments presented before it. By contrast, rules of admissibility assess whether, in a given case, the necessary conditions for the exercise of that jurisdiction are satisfied with respect to the parties to the lawsuit.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR or the Court) is one of the main bodies for adjudicating human rights disputes in the world. After establishing that it has jurisdiction to examine the lawsuit, the ECtHR takes the first step to determine whether an applicant has a sufficient legal interest in bringing a claim. Under European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR or the Convention), Article 33 allows any member state to refer to the ECtHR any alleged violation of the Convention or its Protocols by another member state. Likewise, pursuant to Articles 34 and 35, the ECtHR examines individual applications to ensure that they comply fully with the substantive and procedural requirements set out in the ECHR and that the applicant has suffered a significant disadvantage. If these conditions are satisfied, the ECtHR may declare the application admissible. Accordingly, individuals, groups of individuals, or NGOs may refer to the ECtHR as victims of alleged violations of the ECHR or its Protocols. These provisions define both the conditions under which the ECtHR may hear a case and the categories of applicants entitled to bring claims before it.
Despite ECHR’s defining the scope of the interested party and setting out the conditions for access to the dispute-resolution mechanism, the ECtHR provides only a limited procedure. In practice, the ECtHR’s procedure demonstrates both the inadequacy of this restrictive list and the Court’s willingness to broaden the concept of legal interest in order to accommodate a greater number of victims of human rights violations, in accordance with the ECHR and its Protocols. The ECtHR has adapted its approach to contemporary developments within the international community by relying on Article 35(3)(b) of the Convention and employing various interpretative techniques, such as dynamic interpretation and reference to human rights principles (including the principle of access to international justice). By moving away from excessive formalism and rigid reasoning, the ECtHR has recognized the need to develop a more flexible and functional understanding of the concept of interested party in its case law.
In light of these developments, the present research aimed to answer the following research question: To what extent has the ECtHR taken the initiative in developing the scope of the concept of interested party? And what principles and justifications have formed the basis of this procedural evolution?

Literature Review

There is a substantial body of English-language scholarship on the concept of the interested party, legal interest in bringing a claim, and the jurisdiction of the ECtHR. In contrast, Persian-language scholarship appears to be limited, with only a few studies addressing the concept of the interested party, primarily within the contexts of private and public law. However, there appears to be a significant gap in Persian-language scholarship concerning the status, definition, and examples of interested party as reflected in the ECtHR’s procedure. What distinguishes the present study from similar works is its emphasis on the Court’s innovations and initiatives in developing and expanding this concept.

Materials and Methods

The present article adopted an analytical–descriptive approach to examine the distinctive treatment of the concept of interested party in the ECtHR’s procedure. It offered a detailed analysis of the Court’s judgments by drawing on library sources, including books, scholarly articles, and credible legal websites—particularly those relating to the ECtHR.

Results and Discussion

The principle of effective protection of individuals and the defense of social interests has led to significant innovations in the concept of interested party and the identification of victims of human rights violations. The ECtHR, through legal techniques such as the evolutionary interpretation of procedural rules, caution against excessive formalism, and consideration of the best interests of individuals—particularly minors and the sick—has succeeded in broadening the scope of who may bring claims. Moreover, profound social changes, the evolving roles of individuals in each other’s lives, and the impact of human rights violations on those beyond the direct victim have prompted the ECtHR to recognize claims from indirect victims, thus expanding the scope of who may bring claims. According to the ECtHR, a victim is not only a person directly affected by a rights violation but also anyone who can present logical and convincing evidence indicating the likelihood of such a violation. This approach has effectively opened the door for a wider range of individuals to bring claims. Finally, the recognition of public interest litigation, such as collective litigations, represents one of the ECtHR’s most recent initiatives. This mechanism allows individuals or NGOs to represent a group collectively, protecting universal rights such as the right to health, the right to a clean environment, and the right of access to information.

Conclusion

In international law, the right to bring a claim is generally determined by the nature of the case and the purpose of each judicial system. In the International Court of Justice, only states possess the legal standing to file a claim. Over time, however, while this principle has been maintained, the concept of standing before this court has evolved. Similarly, the ECtHR grants legal standing to certain individuals, groups, and NGOs, in line with the objectives for which it was established. Social developments, the growing importance of individual rights, the shift away from formalism, and, most importantly, the humanization of procedural rights have significantly expanded the concept of standing in this court.

Keywords

• ECtHR
• Interested Party
• Human Rights
• Procedure

Main Subjects

• International Law