The victim requirement and shared responsibility in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

saeed mokhtari ¹

mohamad setayeshpur ²

¹ Postdoctoral Researcher in International Law, Faculty of Law, University of Qom, Qom, Iran.

² Associate Professor, International Law, Faculty of Law, University of Qom, Qom, Iran.

10.22067/irlip.2025.92636.1650

Abstract

This article critically examines the interplay between the "victim requirement" under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the concept of shared responsibility in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Focusing on cases involving multiple actors – such as governments and international organizations such as the European Union – this study addressed the question of how the Court’s interpretation of the concept of the victim requirement has affected the adjudication of cases involving shared liability. The hypothesis of this study was that the Court's strict adherence to the victim requirement, while protecting against frivolous claims, risks undermining liability in shared and several responsibility scenarios. By analyzing prominent cases, this article has shown how the Court's insistence on direct causation and individual harm has often marginalized complaints of indirect state violations or complicity. Through doctrinal legal analysis and comparative case studies, this article has argued that while the Court's victim requirement has ensured judicial economy, the court has struggled to adapt to the realities of modern governance, where responsibility for rights violations is diffused and institutionalized. This conclusion has advocated for procedural reforms – including a broader interpretation of "victim" and increased recognition of shared responsibility – to bring the Convention system into line with the complexities of 21st century human rights challenges.

Keywords

European Union accession

European Court of Human Rights

Joint accountability mechanism

victim requirement

---

References

1. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment. (2007). International Court of Justice, ICJ Reports 2007, p. 43, para. 421. https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/91/091-20070226-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf

2. Ashouri, M., Chavoushi, M., & Kosha, J. (2024). State responsibility for the violation of the right to life: An assessment of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Iranian Journal of International Politics, 12(2), 515–539. https://doi.org/10.22067/irlip.2024.82538.1392 (In Persian)

3. Aziz v. Cyprus, Greece, Turkey, and the United Kingdom (Application No. 69949/01). (2004). European Court of Human Rights. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-61683

4. Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 58170/13, 62322/14 and 24960/15. (2021). European Court of Human Rights, ECHR 2021, paras. 346–349. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-210077

5. Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Ireland (Application No. 45036/98). (2005). European Court of Human Rights, ECHR 2005-VI. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-67613

6. Campbell and Cosans v. the United Kingdom (Applications Nos. 7511/76 and 7743/76). (1980). European Commission of Human Rights, Decisions and Reports 21. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57534

7. Council of Europe. (2011). Draft agreement on the accession of the European Union to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (CDDH-UE(2011)16 fin). https://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/hrpolicy/Accession/Meeting_reports/CDDH-UE_2011_16fin_en.pdf

8. Council of Europe. (2011). Explanatory report to the Draft Agreement on the Accession of the European Union to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (CDDH-UE(2011)16 fin). https://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/hrpolicy/Accession/Meeting_reports/CDDH-UE_2011_16fin_en.pdf

9. Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom (Application No. 7525/76). (1981). European Court of Human Rights, Series A no. 45. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57544

10. Esmaeili Ardakani, A., Amirpour, A., & Karimi, T. (2024). The dialectic of state responsibility and international ethics in the issue of asylum and migration. Iranian Journal of International Politics, 13(1), 25–51. https://doi.org/10.22067/irlip.2024.84704.1449 (In Persian)

11. Gomien, D., Harris, D., & Zwaak, L. (1996). Law and practice of the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Social Charter. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.

12. Gragl, P. (2013). The accession of the European Union to the European Convention on human rights. Bloomsbury Publishing.

13. Haddady, M., & Setayeshpur, M. (2021). Implication of Scope of International Derived Responsibility: Comparative Study of Responsibility of States and International Organizations. J. Compar. L., 8, 2.

14. Hassanpour, A., Salahhi, S., & Moradi, M. (2024). International responsibility of states in dealing with foreign fighters. Iranian Journal of International Politics, 13(1), 175–195. https://doi.org/10.22067/irlip.2024.83588.1416 (In Persian)

15. Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 27765/09. (2012). European Court of Human Rights, 55 EHRR 21, para. 122. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-109231

16. Ireland v. the United Kingdom (Application No. 5310/71). (1978). European Court of Human Rights, Series A no. 25. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57506

17. Karner v. Austria (Application No. 40016/98). (2003). European Court of Human Rights, ECHR 2003-IX. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-61256

18. Klass and Others v. Germany (Application No. 5029/71). (1978). European Court of Human Rights, Series A no. 28. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57518

19. Lawson, R. (2024). Atlas shrugged: an analysis of the ECtHR Case law involving issues of EU law since opinion 2/13. European Papers-A Journal on Law and Integration, 2024(2), 647-671.

20. Lock, T. (2009). The ECJ and the ECtHR: The future relationship between the two European courts. The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 8(3), 375-398.

21. Matthews v. the United Kingdom (Application No. 24833/94). (1999). European Court of Human Rights, ECHR 1999-I. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58225

22. Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment. (2001). Inter-American Court of Human Rights, (Ser. C) No. 79, para. 148. https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_79_ing.pdf

23. Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08. (2012). European Court of Human Rights, ECHR 2012, para. 180. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-113542

24. Nollkaemper, A. (2011). Issues of shared responsibility before the International Court of Justice. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1805696

25. Pinzon, D. R. (2001). The" Victim" Requirement, the Fourth Instance Formula and the Notion of" Person" in the Individual Complaint Procedure of the Inter-American Human Rights System. ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law, 7(2), 369-383.

26. Ryngaert, C. (2020). Selfless intervention: the exercise of jurisdiction in the common interest. Oxford University Press.

27. San José Gil, A., & Beygzadeh, E. (2000). International responsibility of states for human rights violations. Legal Research Quarterly, 3(29–30), 255–307. (In Persian).

28. Segi and Gestoras Pro-Amnistía v. 15 States of the European Union (Applications Nos. 6422/02 and 9916/02). (2002). European Court of Human Rights. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-60567

29. Senator Lines GmbH v. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (Application No. 56672/00). (2004). European Court of Human Rights. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-61304

30. Soering v. the United Kingdom (Application No. 14038/88). (1989). European Court of Human Rights, Series A no. 161. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57619

31. Taghavi, S. M. A. (2013). Human rights regime in the European Union; Non-inclusiveness and integration. Iranian Journal of International Politics, 2(3), 24–45. https://doi.org/10.22067/jipr.v2i3.44266 (In Persian)

32. Tugar v. Italy (Application No. 22869/93). (1995). European Commission of Human Rights. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57970

33. Van Dijk, P., & Van Hoof, G. J. (1990). Theory and practice of the European Convention on Human Rights. Deventer: Kluwer Law Taxation Publishers.

34. Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras, Merits, Judgment. (1988). Inter-American Court of Human Rights, (Ser. C) No. 4, paras. 172–177. http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/iachr/b_11_12d.htm

35. Ziaee,S Y and Roohani,Z S . (2023). Legal Consequences of International Responsibility of State in Jurisprudence of International Court of Justice In The Light of Draft on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 2001. The Quarterly Journal of Judicial Law Views, 25(92), 247-271.