The project organised a two-day workshop on “Admissibility Criteria and Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights by the European Court of Human Rights” for lawyers of the Agency for Free Legal Aid. Legal professionals from civil society organisations cooperating with the Agency in the provision of legal aid also took part in the training.
The workshop brought together 25 legal practitioners and provided a comprehensive overview of the application of the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights within Kosovo*[1]’s legal order. Participants engaged in interactive discussions with experts, focusing on the key principles that guide the work of the Court in Strasbourg.
Particular attention was given to the principle of subsidiarity, which places the primary responsibility for the protection of human rights on national authorities, while the Court exercises a supervisory role. In this context, participants explored the limits of the Court’s mandate, including the “fourth instance” doctrine, according to which the Court does not act as an appellate body reviewing facts or domestic law unless a violation of Convention rights is at stake. The doctrine of the margin of appreciation was also discussed, highlighting the discretion afforded to states in implementing their human rights obligations, especially in areas lacking European consensus or involving sensitive societal issues.
The training further addressed the mechanisms for the execution of the Court’s judgments, with emphasis on the role of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in supervising their implementation.
A central part of the workshop focused on the admissibility criteria for applications before the European Court of Human Rights. Participants examined who may bring a case before the Court, including direct, indirect, and potential victims, and discussed the concept of victim status. It was emphasised that the Convention system does not allow actio popularis claims, requiring applicants to demonstrate a personal and direct impact. Interstate applications were also briefly addressed.
The jurisdiction of the Court was analysed through its four key dimensions: ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis, and ratione materiae, providing participants with a structured understanding of how the Court determines its competence.
In addition, the workshop explored procedural grounds for inadmissibility, including lack of jurisdiction, failure to exhaust domestic remedies, non-compliance with the four-month time limit, anonymous applications, and abuse of the right of petition. Particular focus was placed on applications declared manifestly ill-founded, including those seeking a “fourth instance” review, claims disclosing no appearance of a violation, unsubstantiated allegations, and submissions that are vague or poorly reasoned.
Discussions also covered key concepts and safeguards under Article 6 of the Convention, notably the right to a fair trial, including access to a court, fairness of proceedings, the requirement of a reasonable time, enforcement of judgments, and the principle of equality of arms.
The workshop concluded with an exchange of experiences among participants, who shared practical challenges encountered in providing legal aid and discussed concrete case examples from their daily work.
This was the first training with lawyers of the Agency for Free Legal Aid facilitated in the project. By strengthening the understanding of the Convention system and the admissibility requirements before the Court, the activity contributes to enhancing the capacity of legal practitioners to effectively protect human rights at the domestic level, in line with the principle of subsidiarity.