In recent years, there has been a growing number of cases where the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) refuses to examine complaints, citing court overload and the limitations of Article 35 of the Convention. This raises a critical question: is the international legal system becoming more of an obstacle than a mechanism for justice?
Complaints That Remain Unheard
The European Court of Human Rights was established to ensure the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, providing a final opportunity for those who have been denied justice in their home country. However, in reality, many complainants face systematic rejections, regardless of the legitimacy of their claims.
For example, Annika Urm has submitted multiple complaints concerning serious issues in the Estonian judicial system—including legal violations, breaches of the constitution, human rights abuses, and judicial bias due to corruption. However, all her complaints have been dismissed because the court considers them either similar to previous cases or inadmissible. The problem, however, is that each complaint addresses different legal violations that should warrant independent review.
Justice or Restriction of Rights?
The ECHR has the authority to reject complaints that do not meet the Convention’s requirements. One of the most commonly cited reasons is Article 35, Section 2(b), which states that cases that are “substantially the same as a matter that has already been examined by the Court” cannot be reconsidered. But is it fair to apply this rule when the complaints concern entirely different court rulings involving systemic human rights violations?
Even more concerning is the warning issued by the ECHR that complainants who repeatedly submit applications may be accused of “abusing the right to individual application.” In other words, a citizen attempting to protect their rights might ultimately find themselves blacklisted, losing the ability to appeal to the ECHR altogether.
Do Laws No Longer Protect People?
The current situation raises fundamental questions about justice itself. Has modern society reached a point where the legal system no longer serves ordinary citizens? If even the European Court of Human Rights refuses to consider well-founded complaints regarding corruption and systematic legal violations, what hope remains for individuals seeking justice?
The existence of millions of laws does not guarantee fairness if they are not enforced and if judicial mechanisms become so rigid that they fail to protect people from real injustices. The ultimate purpose of law should be justice, not bureaucracy. If the court system begins to protect itself rather than the people, it risks losing its legitimacy.
Does this mean that the world is inherently unjust? Or are there still avenues for justice? If the European Court of Human Rights closes its doors, where can people turn next? This pressing question demands an urgent answer, as without a functioning judicial system, the protection of human rights becomes nothing more than an illusion.
