Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
1998-2008
COUNCIL CONSEIL
OF EUROPE DE L'EUROPE
Cour européenne des Droits de l’Homme
This document has been prepared by the Registry of the Court and does not bind the Court. It is intended to
provide basic general information about the way the Court works. For more detailed information, please refer to
documents issued by the Registry available on the Court’s website www.echr.coe.int
The European Convention on The European Court of Human
Human Rights Rights
T T
he Convention is an international he European Court of Human Rights,
treaty under which the member set up in 1959, is an international
States of the Council of Europe court with jurisdiction to rule, through
promise to secure fundamental civil and binding judgments, on individual and inter-
political rights, not only to their own State applications alleging violations of the
citizens (currently numbering 800 million Convention.
people) but also to everyone within their
jurisdiction, irrespective of, for example, Since 1998 the Court has operated on a
sex, race, nationality or ethnic origin. full-time basis. It is made up of 47 judges,
The Convention, which was signed on 4 one for every State Party to the Convention.
November 1950 in Rome, entered into The judges, who are totally independent,
force in 1953. are elected for six-year terms by the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
The Convention’s importance lies not Europe. On account of the considerable
only in the scope of the rights which it increase in the number of applications and
protects, but also in the protection system the Court’s excessive workload, the member
set up in Strasbourg to examine alleged States of the Council of Europe decided to
violations and to ensure that the States reform the supervisory machinery introduced
comply with their obligations under the by the Convention; as a result, they adopted
Convention. Protocol No. 14 to the Convention* in 2004.
The guarantees
The prohibitions
The Convention and its Protocols prohibit, in particular:
*Protocol No. 14, which is intended to guarantee the Court’s long-term effectiveness by
optimising the filtering and processing of applications, envisages, among other measures,
the creation of new judicial formations for the simplest cases and a new admissibility criterion
(the existence of “significant disadvantage”) and introduces a nine-year non-renewable term
of office for judges. It will enter into force once all the States Party to the Convention have
ratified it (to date, 46 out of the 47 States have ratified Protocol No. 14).
One of
the Court’s
5 Sections
Chamber Committee
If not unanimous
(7 Judges) (3 Judges)
Relinquishment
of jurisdiction by
a Chamber
If unanimous
Admissibility and
Admissibility and merits
merits taken together
taken separately
(Joint procedure)
Decision:
Decision: Application
Application rejected
declared admissible
(inadmissible/struck out)
Judgment
Judgment on just
satisfaction
Request by a Party
for a re-hearing
granted
Respondent
Grand State executes
Chamber judgment/Committee of
(17 Judges) Ministers supervises
execution
This flowchart indicates the progress of a case through the different judicial formations. In the interests of readability, it
does not include certain stages in the procedure – such as communication of an application to the respondent State,
consideration of a re-hearing request by the Panel of the Grand Chamber and friendly settlement negotiations.
This flowchart indicates the progress of a case through the different judicial formations. In the interests of
readability, it does not include certain stages in the procedure – such as communication of an application to
the respondent State, consideration of a re-hearing request by the Panel of the Grand Chamber and friendly
settlement negotiations.
T
he Convention system for protecting violations of the same kind (amendments
human rights must first of all be to legislation, legal doctrine, regulations
applied at national level. Each or practice, etc.).
member State has a duty to ensure that
everyone within its jurisdiction enjoys The Committee of Ministers also checks
the rights protected by the Convention. whether the applicant has been paid any
compensation awarded by the Court and,
If this is not the case, any individual, in certain cases, whether other specific
group of individuals or non-governmental measures have been taken (reopening
organisation which considers that it of a trial; cancellation of a prohibition
has been a victim of a violation may, order or confiscation order; correction of
subject to certain conditions, apply to a criminal record; delivery of a residence
the European Court of Human Rights. permit; etc.).
Applications may also be lodged by
one State against another (inter-State
applications). In any event, applications
may only be made against States which
have signed the European Convention on
Human Rights.
Not to be confused!
The Court rules on the admissibility and,
where appropriate, the merits of the European Court of Human Rights
cases submitted to it. Its jurisdiction is Ensures that States comply with
their obligations under the European
binding on all the Contracting States. Convention on Human Rights. Made up
of one judge for each State party to the
Convention, and based in Strasbourg.
The processing of applications
Court of Justice of the European
I
n order for an application to be Communities
admissible, the applicant must have Based in Luxembourg, this Court
exhausted the effective remedies ensures compliance with EU law
available in the country in which the and rules on the interpretation and
alleged violation was committed. He application of the treaties establishing
or she must also lodge the application the European Union.
within six months of the date on which
the courts or authorities of that State International Court of Justice
issued their final decision. Cases which Judicial organ of the United Nations,
are manifestly ill-founded are declared based in The Hague.
inadmissible.
European Convention on Human
Where an application is not inadmissible, Rights
the Court encourages the parties to The treaty by which the member
reach a friendly settlement. If this States of the Council of Europe have
proves impossible, the Court rules on undertaken to respect fundamental
the case in a Chamber of seven judges human rights and freedoms.
or, in exceptionally important cases, in a
Grand Chamber made up of 17 judges. Universal Declaration of Human
Rights
All of the Court’s final judgments are Text adopted by the United Nations in
binding on the States found to have 1948 in order to strengthen human
violated the Convention, which are rights protection at international level.
obliged to execute them.
Charter of Fundamental Rights
European Union text on human rights
The execution of judgments and fundamental freedoms, adopted in
2000.
T
he Committee of Ministers of the
Council of Europe is responsible for
supervising the execution of the
Court’s judgments. It verifies whether
28201 27178
30000
25000
20000
13843
15000
10475
8408
10000
5000
0
1959-1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
on 01.11.2008
Applications which are allocated to a decision body are those for which the Court has
received a correctly completed form, accompanied by copies of relevant documents. These
applications will be examined by a Committee or by a Chamber of the Court. These figures
do not include applications which are at the pre-judicial stage (incomplete case file).
all others
18,450 (19,2%)
Russia
25,600 (26,7%)
Italy Romania
4,100 (4,3%) Ukraine 9,400 (9,8%)
8,500 (8,9%)
1560
1600 1503
1400
1205
1200 1105
1000
889
837 844
600
400
177
200
0
1959-1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
on 01.11.2008
Since the reform of the Convention system on 1 November 1998, there has been a
considerable increase in the Court’s caseload. Barely ten years after the reform, as it
approaches its 50th anniversary, the Court has delivered its 10,000th judgment. Its output
is such that more than 90% of the Court’s judgments since it was set up in 1959 have been
delivered between 1998 and 2008.
More than half the judgments delivered by the Court between 1998 and 2008 concerned
four of the Council of Europe’s 47 member States: Turkey (1,857 judgments), Italy (1,789
judgments), France (613 judgments) and Poland (601 judgments). Of the total number
of judgments it has delivered since the 1998 reform, in over 83% of cases the Court has
found at least one violation of the Convention by the respondent State.
Right to an
effective remedy
Others (13) Right to liberty and
16% 8,1% security (5)
9,8%
Protection of
Length of property (P1-1)
proceedings (6) 14,8%
28,9% Right to a fair
trial (6)
21,2%
More than half of the judgments in which the Court has found a violation between 1998
and 2008 have included a violation of Article 6, whether on account of the unfairness or the
length of proceedings. Furthermore, 65% of violations found by the Court concern Article
6 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Lastly,
more than 7% of violations found by the Court concern the right to life or the prohibition of
torture and inhuman or degrading treatment (Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention).
Article 2 Some
right to life • Failure of the police to protect the examples of
applicant’s children, eventually killed by judgments
• Disappearance in Chechnya following their father - violation.
Russian military commander’s instruction Kontrová v. Slovakia, 7510/04 delivered by
to shoot applicant’s son, and lack of an the Court from
effective investigation – violation.
Bazorkina v. Russia, 69481/01 1998 to 2008
• Shootings in Northern Ireland, and
lack of an effective investigation –
violation.
• Disappearance following the Turkish McKerr v. the United Kingdom,
occupation of Cyprus, and lack of an 28883/95
effective investigation – violation.
Cyprus v. Turkey, 25781/94
• Shooting by military police of two
Roma conscripts, and lack of an effective
• Bombing of civilian convoy and of a investigation - violation.
village in Chechnya – violation. Nachova and others v. Bulgaria,
Isayeva, Yusupova and Bazayeva v. Russia, 43577/98 and 43579/98
57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00
Isayeva and others v. Russia, 57950/00
• Deaths resulting from an explosion at
a rubbish tip beside which a shanty town
had been built – violation.
• Killing by soldiers in Chechnya – Öneryıldız v. Turkey, 48939/99
violation.
Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia,
57942/00 and 57945/00
Article 14
prohibition of discrimination Article 38
• Placement of Roma gypsy children in examination of the case
“special” schools - violation. and friendly settlement
D.H. and others v. the Czech Republic,
57325/00 proceedings
• Refusal by Government to disclose
documents from ongoing investigation
• Refusal to grant approval for the purposes into an abduction and killing by
of adoption, on the ground of the applicant’s servicemen or into allegations of
life-style as a lesbian living with another harassment of the applicants - violation.
woman – violation. Akhmadova and Sadulayeva v. Russia,
E.B. v. France, 43546/02 40464/02
Article 4 du Protocole n° 4
prohibition of collective
Article 2 of Protocol no. 1 expulsion of aliens
right to education
• Collective expulsion of Slovak Gypsies
• Refusal to grant full exemption from – violation.
instruction in Christianity, religion and Čonka v. Belgium, 51564/99
philosophy in State primary schools -
violation.
Folgerø and others v. Norway, 15472/02
12
Ju Ju Fr In R Fr R
dg dg ie R hu ig ee ig Oth
To m m nd ig
h
La
c m
La
c
Pr
R N h d R P ht e
ta k k oh ig o tt om ig ro no r A
en en
o ly tt
o o
an
o i b h o Fr
e h h
ln t s ts u s l f o f it io t L pu r e a o F e tt
o i b R
tt
o
rti
cl
um ife ef
f
rd ef
f n to en do iti Pr b
vi fi
o n
fin t j e tt
u l O e Pr e e l i
ni
s fa sp nd f th ree
m e o d a m an on o R
ig
t e
es
be la d d em th -d ct oh g c l a o f b e R gt
h hm c r u o s e te i
ht w t of
di
gm e e e i v i r a t iv b s r i g i l y t el g m so f o f o c g t o i c r i t
ro ti o i n ng rj pr e bi di e o u la ty ht of en fe fd tio ht
n ga n en nts u i v i n t io n g i n r v a t p t lif for igio ht,
e p n c
of cia as Rig
s c i s n t o
fre e ed o he
C
fj
tl o t d a v n v er n d o r o w o e ti e h tiv c o e r
ud
ea vi s /S gm t io es of tre es y a ce ith riv ns xp on m t to e r im fp ed el pu on
gm tr n tig t o tig /f se fa ou at c re bl re in ro uc ec v
st ol
a i en o at
at
m at o rc c i r ed e i s y m m p tio
ni
sh ent
en ki
n ts fl io rt u io e
ur in tl
a an en si at
i
at
i e i
ts
on
e
tio
n g * i fe n r e
en
n d it y
tri
a g s w d c e o n
an ar
d r y
ed
y o n
er
ty o n n s d on
1998-2008 * t l
Total Total Total Total Total 2 2 3 3 3 4 5 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 P1-1 P1-2 P1-3 P7-4
Albania 11 9 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 8 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0
Andorra 4 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Armenia 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
Austria 175 140 12 17 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 50 59 0 11 1 23 1 0 7 10 0 0 0 3 0
Azerbaijan 16 13 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 1
Belgium 95 75 8 12 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 5 24 51 0 5 0 2 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 1
Bosnia Herzegovina 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0
Bulgaria 218 202 7 4 5 7 8 0 28 11 0 176 28 88 0 15 3 4 8 0 61 4 16 0 0 0 2
Croatia 151 117 5 26 3 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 38 66 0 5 0 0 0 0 21 1 8 0 0 0 0
Cyprus 48 40 2 3 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 5 29 1 4 0 1 0 0 7 2 3 0 1 0 1
Czech Republic 141 127 4 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 39 76 0 12 0 1 1 0 12 2 6 0 0 0 0
Denmark 22 5 6 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Estonia 17 14 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 4 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Finland 95 67 18 9 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 25 27 0 12 0 5 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 0
France 613 489 60 50 14 3 2 1 8 0 1 27 200 251 2 14 0 13 1 0 25 8 17 0 0 0 4
Georgia 24 17 6 1 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 5 5 3 0 1 1 1 0 0 4 1 2 0 1 0 1
Germany 94 62 21 9 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 11 10 30 0 13 0 1 0 0 3 8 1 0 0 0 0
Greece 428 381 8 19 20 3 3 0 8 3 0 6 81 265 0 2 5 6 4 0 68 4 46 0 2 0 0
Hungary 156 147 3 6 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 5 2 132 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
Iceland 8 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
Ireland 12 7 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
Italy 1789 1386 29 332 42 0 0 0 3 1 0 20 208 992 0 97 0 3 3 0 59 1 270 0 15 0 15
Latvia 34 28 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 20 5 6 1 12 2 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 5
Ju Ju Fr In R Fr R
dg dg ie R hu ig ee ig Oth
To m m nd ig La
m
La Pr
o R N R ht e
ta e e ht ck a ck h i o
ht do
m F i g Pr no r A
nt to n ib gh
p
to re ht oh r
ln nt
s s ou ly s
lif
of o of it io t L u r e a o F e t o i b R
tt
um e ef
f
rd ef
f n to en do iti Pr i
o ticle
b
vi fi
o n
fin t j e tt
u l O e Pr e e l
ni
s fa sp nd f th ree m a n on o R g tw e s
be la d di dg em th -d ct oh gr ct o ib R gt
h hm m ec re ou do as te ig
ht
ep iv ib iv labo f s er
t ig o e ily t li g m so of ef
f of ct h to ic trie of t
e h
ro ti o i n
n g
ng m en er e i
ad e l a y h li f o g io t h o c a R e d i o d
fj no en ts ju riv in t io in
g in ur ve an tt
o
fp nt i ct is n tt
o
fre
at
ts / dg at ve n t ve r y d ro w fe r pr n , co f ex atio sse igh
i t
iv
e cr of e e or e C
o
ud le v m i o o r s a c t i v n n m i m e p
gm as io St n st
ig ft ea st
ig /f fa ee ho at sc pre re in
pr du le un nv
la rik en of or tm or ecu ir di ut e ie ss
bl t o m
y m a op ca ct
i is en
en to t io in t lif
at
io t ur en
at
io c tr ia n la a n a a e tio e tio o h
1998-2008 ts ne n g s*
* e n e t n ed rity
l
gs w nd ce ion nd rry dy n rty n ns ed tion
13
* Five judgments concern two Countries : Turkey & Denmark, Moldova & Russia, Georgia & Russia, Romania & Hungary and Romania & United Kingdom
**Other judgments: just satisfaction, revision judgments, preliminary objections and lack of jurisdiction
On 01.11.1998 to 01.11.2008
14
Workload and output
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 TOTAL
Albania - 1 4 3 15 17 13 45 52 54 63 267
Andorra - 1 3 2 - 2 1 5 8 4 1 27
Armenia - - - - 7 67 96 110 98 614 89 1081
Austria 20 227 244 230 309 322 304 298 344 329 305 2932
Azerbaijan - - - - - 236 151 175 221 708 295 1786
Belgium 14 136 77 108 139 117 126 173 107 124 137 1258
Bosnia and Herzegovina - - - - 5 59 135 209 243 708 869 2228
Bulgaria 18 196 301 403 461 515 738 820 748 821 756 5777
Croatia 8 104 87 116 666 666 698 553 640 557 509 4604
Cyprus 1 17 16 20 47 36 46 66 56 63 53 421
Czech Republic 8 151 199 367 329 629 1070 1267 2466 808 643 7937
Denmark 9 56 56 52 86 75 86 72 68 45 59 664
Estonia 1 29 46 89 89 132 138 165 184 154 139 1166
Finland 23 145 109 106 185 260 244 243 262 269 230 2076
France 64 871 1031 1118 1605 1482 1735 1821 1831 1552 2550 15660
Georgia - - 7 22 29 35 48 72 105 162 1029 1509
Germany 50 535 594 717 1024 1009 1536 1592 1601 1485 1407 11550
Greece 9 144 123 192 311 355 274 365 371 384 358 2886
Hungary 7 93 163 172 307 332 398 644 423 528 365 3432
Iceland 3 1 4 3 6 10 6 6 12 9 6 66
Ireland 4 18 18 16 45 29 32 45 40 45 41 333
Italy 302 881 865 587 1303 1352 1482 847 931 1350 1642 11542
Latvia 4 29 79 125 208 133 195 233 268 235 223 1732
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 TOTAL
Lithuania 9 76 183 151 530 362 455 267 204 227 217 2681
Luxemburg 4 12 15 11 25 21 13 28 32 32 30 223
Malta - 6 3 3 4 4 8 13 16 17 9 83
Moldova 4 33 63 44 245 238 344 594 517 887 996 3965
Monaco - - - - - - - 1 4 10 2 17
Montenegro - - - - - - - - 13 134 106 253
Netherlands 19 206 175 200 317 278 350 410 397 365 324 3041
Norway 2 20 30 49 48 51 83 58 70 62 64 537
Poland 33 692 773 1755 4026 3647 4314 4563 3975 4211 3718 31707
15
Minor discrepancies in the totals of applications pending at the end of a year are caused by the operation of the Court’s database and reporting tools which do not provide for
an automatic reporting option, in other words, reporting slightly overlaps into the next reference period.
On 01.11.1998 to 01.11.2008
16
Workload and output
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 TOTAL
Albania - 2 1 1 3 11 12 17 28 22 12 109
Andorra - 1 1 4 - 1 - 2 9 3 2 23
Armenia - - - - - 28 24 62 95 44 33 286
Austria 4 153 227 208 371 401 253 208 150 272 253 2500
Azerbaijan - - - - - 45 200 120 57 84 217 723
Belgium 1 29 30 79 124 118 135 192 110 105 84 1007
Bosnia and Herzegovina - - - - - - 46 71 149 254 199 719
Bulgaria 5 57 93 232 394 293 298 344 832 587 350 3485
Croatia 1 32 81 75 338 349 580 477 352 745 640 3670
Cyprus - 5 13 14 44 11 2 49 64 27 30 259
Czech Republic 2 61 75 267 437 280 399 420 1264 1080 1281 5566
Denmark 3 57 47 50 40 65 88 86 96 73 43 648
Estonia - 7 19 24 57 138 70 82 88 127 130 742
Finland 3 85 125 123 151 97 191 256 187 253 375 1846
France 3 280 626 892 1254 1451 1678 1442 1374 1549 2496 13045
Georgia - - 2 3 13 24 17 48 33 40 16 196
Germany 8 331 642 528 748 462 914 1386 1121 1690 1226 9056
Greece 1 70 99 96 134 171 253 349 237 298 210 1918
Hungary 3 53 67 86 198 293 337 220 302 323 294 2176
Iceland - 3 3 6 2 5 6 9 7 6 8 55
Ireland - 6 18 24 43 31 16 36 53 40 24 291
Italy 8 255 277 265 1126 1009 1178 838 580 796 365 6697
Latvia 2 11 24 58 102 152 115 92 75 208 102 941
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 TOTAL
Lithuania 4 23 72 150 166 199 586 444 169 208 192 2213
Luxemburg 1 8 25 11 11 28 3 16 17 26 25 171
Malta - 2 7 1 2 - 4 12 10 4 9 51
Moldova 1 6 48 23 31 104 79 302 248 201 347 1390
Monaco - - - - - - - - 1 1 12 14
Montenegro - - - - - - - - - - 0 0
Netherlands 4 121 170 218 278 237 339 440 333 335 267 2742
Norway - 11 33 54 20 62 44 53 61 70 65 473
Poland 14 358 741 1411 2469 1702 2344 6465 5816 3966 3135 28421
17
Minor discrepancies in the totals of applications pending at the end of a year are caused by the operation of the Court’s database and reporting tools which do not provide for
an automatic reporting option, in other words, reporting slightly overlaps into the next reference period.
On 01.11.1998 to 01.11.2008
18
Workload and output
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 TOTAL
Albania 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 6 1 11
Andorra 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 4
Armenia - - - 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 8
Austria 3 21 18 20 19 17 22 21 23 11 175
Azerbaijan - - - 0 0 0 0 3 7 6 16
Belgium 2 2 5 14 8 15 14 7 15 13 95
Bosnia and Herzegovina - - - 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 6
Bulgaria 1 3 3 3 11 27 23 45 53 49 218
Croatia 0 0 5 9 6 33 26 22 31 19 151
Cyprus 1 4 2 6 3 3 1 15 7 6 48
Czech Republic 1 4 2 4 6 28 33 39 11 13 141
Denmark 0 6 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 0 22
Estonia 0 1 1 1 3 1 4 1 3 2 17
Finland 0 8 4 5 5 12 13 17 26 5 95
France 23 73 45 75 94 75 60 96 48 24 613
Georgia 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 5 8 6 24
Germany 3 3 17 9 12 6 16 10 12 6 94
Greece 6 21 21 25 28 40 105 55 65 62 428
Hungary 1 1 3 3 16 20 17 31 24 40 156
Iceland 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 8
Ireland 0 3 1 1 2 2 3 0 0 0 12
Italy 71 396 413 391 148 47 79 103 67 74 1789
Latvia 0 0 1 2 1 3 1 10 12 4 34
* Set up on 1 November 1998, the "new" Court delivered its first judgment on 21 January 1999.
On 01.11.1998 to 01.11.2008
Workload and output
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 TOTAL
Lithuania 0 5 2 5 4 2 5 7 5 6 2651
Luxemburg 0 1 2 1 4 1 1 2 7 6 25
Malta 2 1 0 0 1 1 2 8 1 5 21
Moldova 0 0 1 0 0 10 14 20 60 22 127
Monaco - - - - - - 0 0 0 0 0
Montenegro - - - - - - - - 0 0 0
Netherlands 2 6 7 11 7 10 10 7 10 1 71
Norway 2 1 1 0 5 0 0 1 5 4 19
Poland 3 19 20 26 67 79 49 115 111 112 601
19
* Set up on 1 November 1998, the "new" Court delivered its first judgment on 21 January 1999.
November 2008
www.echr.coe.int