Human Rights Chamber

As to the case-law of the Chamber, it is not easy to make a difference between the ratione materiae competence and the issue as to whether an application is manifestly ill-founded to such an extent that it renders consideration of the merits superfluous. The Chamber decides this based on an overall examination of well-foundedness; it considers whether a request “gives rise to relevant issues” within the ambit of the ECHR.³¹¹⁴ Similarly, ratione materiae competence depends on the issue as to whether a violation complained of in the application is possible at all. In practice, in the strict sense of the word, this does not relate to a prerequisite or condition for taking a decision on the merits. The aim of this condition is to save overall and demanding examination of the well-foundedness of the application if there are no prima facie elements pointing to the violation of the rights of the applicant.³¹¹⁵ Yet, the applicant does not have to specify the rights he/she considers to have been violated.³¹¹⁶ However, the applicant must substantiate his/her application in a satisfactory manner. If the applicant fails to do so, particularly if the Chamber requests it explicitly, his/her application shall be rejected as inadmissible, since it is prima facie ill-founded.³¹¹⁷ If there is uncertainty about the subject matter of the case, the Chamber cannot establish the violation of the safeguarded rights and freedoms.³¹¹⁸

If the well-foundedness of the objection to the admissibility of the application cannot be clarified completely, the Chamber accepts that the application is admissible but transfers the extensive consideration of such objections to its consideration of the merits of the application.³¹¹⁹ The mere initiation of proceedings for the pardon or mitigation of a sentence does not render the application with the Chamber against the death penalty manifestly ill-founded, since the outcome of these proceedings remains uncertain.³¹²⁰ Similarly, the Chamber is not prevented from taking a decision on the merits and establishing a violation of the applicant’s rights because the death penalty has been pronounced, although there are legal amendments aimed at replacing the death penalty with a prison sentence. The reason for this is the fact that it is not certain when such amendments are to enter into force.³¹²¹

The application is also prima facie ill-founded, and thus inadmissible, if the violation does not exist anymore. This is the case if the applicant reaches a court³¹²² or out-of-court³¹²³ settlement whereby the action is regarded as withdrawn.³¹²⁴