Editing European Court of Human Rights (section)

===Caseload===
[[File:ECHR backlog.png|thumb|The backlog of pending cases has gone down from a peak of 151,600 in 2011, in part due to streamlined rejection of applications at the admissibility stage.|262x262px]]
The caseload of the court expanded rapidly after the fall of the Soviet Union, growing from fewer than 8,400 cases filed in 1999 to 57,000 in 2009. Most of these cases concern nationals of the former [[Eastern Bloc]] where there is less trust in the court system. In 2009, the court had a backlog of 120,000 cases which would have required 46 years to process at the previous rate, leading to reforms. According to the BBC, the court began "to be seen as a victim of its own success".<ref>{{cite news |title=Profile: European Court of Human Rights |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-16924514 |access-date=29 August 2020 |work=BBC News |date=5 February 2015}}</ref>

Between 2007 and 2017, the number of cases dealt with each year was relatively constant (between 1,280 and 1,550); two-thirds of cases were repetitive and most concerned a few countries: Turkey (2,401), Russia (2,110), Romania (1,341), and Poland (1,272). Repetitive cases indicate a pattern of human rights violations in a given country.
The 2010 Interlaken Declaration stated that the court would reduce its caseload by cutting back on the number of repetitive cases it dealt with.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Reichel |first1=David |last2=Grimheden |first2=Jonas |title=A Decade of Violations of the European Convention on Human Rights: Exploring Patterns of Repetitive Violations |journal=European Yearbook on Human Rights 2018 |date=2018 |pages=267–286 |doi=10.1017/9781780688008.012 |isbn=9781780688008 |s2cid=159227980 |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330770184}}</ref> 

As a result of Protocol 14 reforms to reduce caseload, single judges were empowered to reject applications as inadmissible and a system of "pilot judgements" was created to handle repetitive cases without a formal finding for each one.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Vogiatzis |first1=Nikos |title=The Admissibility Criterion Under Article 35(3)(b) ECHR: a 'Significant Disadvantage' to Human Rights Protection? |journal=International and Comparative Law Quarterly |date=2016 |volume=65 |issue=1 |pages=185–211 |doi=10.1017/S0020589315000573|s2cid=146428992 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bowring |first1=Bill |title=The Russian Federation, Protocol No. 14 (and 14bis), and the Battle for the Soul of the ECHR |journal=Goettingen Journal of International Law |date=2010 |doi=10.3249/1868-1581-2-2-Bowring}}</ref> Pending applications peaked at 151,600 in 2011 and were reduced to 59,800 by 2019.<ref>[https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_analysis_2019_ENG.pdf Analysis of statistics 2019]</ref>

These reforms led to an increasing number of applications being declared inadmissible or bypassed a ruling under the new pilot procedure.<ref>For the most recent statistical data see ECHR, The ECHR in facts & figures - 2019, p. 4ss. For a detailed analysis of this problem from various perspectives see Flogaitis, Zwart, and Fraser (eds.), The European Court of Human Rights and its Discontents: Turning Criticism into Strength, Edward Elgar: Cheltenham 2013.</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Greer|first=Steven|title=Europe|journal=Daniel Moeckli et al. (Eds.), International Human Rights Law|pages=441–464 (452)}}</ref> According to Steven Greer, "large numbers of applications will not, in practice, be examined", and this situation is qualified as a "structural denial of justice for certain categories of meritorious applicants whose cases cannot be handled".<ref>See Steven Greer, p. 452, citing Mahoney, The European Court of Human Rights and its Ever-Growing Caseloaed: Preserving the Mission of the Court While Ensuring the Viability of the Individual Petition, in: Flogaitis, Zwart, and Fraser (eds.), The European Court of Human Rights and its Discontents: Turning Criticism into Strength, Edward Elgar: Cheltenham 2013, 26 and Cameron, The Court and the Member States: Procedural Aspects, in: Follesdal, Petes, and Ulfstein (eds.), Constituting Europe, CUP: Cambridge 2013, 43.</ref> [[Access to justice]] may also be de facto impeded the lack of legal aid and other factors.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Gerards |first1=Janneke H. |last2=Glas |first2=Lize R. |title=Access to justice in the European Convention on Human Rights system |journal=Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights |date=2017 |volume=35 |issue=1 |pages=11–30 |doi=10.1177/0924051917693988|doi-access=free|hdl=2066/175364 |hdl-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Gruodytė |first1=Edita |last2=Kirchner |first2=Stefan |title=Legal aid for intervenors in proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights |journal=International Comparative Jurisprudence |date=2016 |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=36–44 |doi=10.1016/j.icj.2016.04.001|doi-access=free}}</ref>