Note explaining the mode of citation of the case-law of the new Court, the old Court and the Commission

Updated: October 2022

Note explaining the mode of citation of

the case-law of the Court and the Commission

Over the years, the Convention institutions’ case-law has been reported in a number of

different printed collections (Collection of Decisions, Yearbook, Decisions and Reports, for

the Commission, and Series A, Reports of Judgments and Decisions, ECHR Reports, for the

Court). In addition, from the establishment of the “new” Court in November 1998,

massive store of unreported case-law has been built up in the Court’s case-law database

HUDOC.

This has led to the emergence of a number of different patterns of case-law

reference as described below. If in doubt, you may refer to the “Court's case-law

references”, which is a master list (updated weekly) of all judgments delivered by a Grand

Chamber or Chamber, all advisory opinions and any related decisions as well as all decisions

in key cases.

Judgments, decisions and advisory opinions of the “new” Court (as from

1 November 1998)

The form of citation for judgments and decisions follows the pattern:

– name of case (in italics),

– application number,

– paragraph number if necessary,

– abbreviation of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), year and number of volume,

for cases published from 1999 until 2015, or

– date of judgment or decision for unreported cases.

1. The “new” Court was set up on 1 November 1998, after the entry into force of Protocol No. 11 to the

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. This Protocol brought about a

simplification of the supervision machinery by doing away with the European Commission of Human Rights

and turning the Court into a single and permanent court.

2. All judgments, advisory opinions and decisions of the Court (with the exception of single-judge

decisions) are available in HUDOC, which is accessible at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int.

3. For grouped/joined applications with up to 2 application numbers, they should both be written out. If

there are more than 2 application numbers, the citation should read “nos. 16064/90 and 2 others”

(3 application numbers), “and 6 others” (7 application numbers), etc.

4. From the beginning of 2008 to the end of 2015, the volume number is no longer cited: ECHR plus the

year of the case should be used.

Case-law references (new Court, old Court, Commission)

Unless otherwise indicated, the cited text refers to a judgment on the merits delivered by a

Chamber of the Court. Any variation from that is added in brackets after the name of the

case: “(dec.)” for a decision, “(just satisfaction)” for a judgment concerning only just

satisfaction, “(revision)” for a judgment concerning revision, “(striking out)” for a judgment

striking the case out, “(friendly settlement)” for a judgment concerning a friendly

settlement, etc. “[GC]” indicates that the case was heard by the Grand Chamber of the

Court, and “[Committee]” that the judgment or decision has been given by a three-judge

Committee.

Examples of judgments and decisions published in the ECHR Reports (1999-2015)

Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII

Van der Ven v. the Netherlands, no. 50901/99, ECHR 2003-II

Sequeira v. Portugal (dec.), no. 73557/01, ECHR 2003-VI

Iatridis v. Greece (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 31107/96, § 33, ECHR 2000-XI

Broniowski v. Poland (friendly settlement) [GC], no. 31443/96, § 37, ECHR 2005-IX

Verein gegen Tierfabriken Schweiz (VgT) v. Switzerland (no. 2) [GC], no. 32772/02, ECHR 2008

M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, §§ 216-222, ECHR 2011

Examples of judgments and decisions not published in the ECHR Reports, including

those selected as key cases

from 2016 onwards

Cerăceanu v. Romania (no. 1)

, no. 31250/02, §§ 54-59, 4 March 2008

Stefanetti and Others v. Italy (just satisfaction), nos. 21838/10 and 7 others, 1 June 2017

D.D. v. France (striking out), no. 3/02, § 27, 8 November 2005

Pello v. Estonia (dec.), no. 11423/03, 5 January 2006

Tatuyev v. Russia [Committee]

, no. 3333/08, 21 July 2020

Bayraktar and Ayri v. the Republic of Moldova (dec.) [Committee], nos. 13289/19 and

13292/19, 25 June 2020

Examples of advisory opinions

Advisory opinion on certain legal questions concerning the lists of candidates submitted with

a view to the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights [GC], 12 February

2008

Advisory opinion concerning the recognition in domestic law of a legal parent-child

relationship between a child born through a gestational surrogacy arrangement abroad and

5. Key cases are an official selection of judgments, decisions and advisory opinions which make a

significant contribution to the development, clarification or modification of the Court’s case-law.

6. Since 1 January 2010 “(no. 1)” no longer appears in the name of a judgment which is subsequently

followed by a second or several other judgments brought by the same applicant, which will be called

“(no. 2)”, “(no. 3)”, etc.

7. Committee cases apply well-established case-law and therefore should not be cited as authority on

points of principle.

8. Advisory opinions issued by the Court under Article 47 of the Convention.

Case-law references (new Court, old Court, Commission)

the intended mother [GC], request no. P16-2018-001, French Court of Cassation, 10 April

2019

Judgments of the “old” Court (from 1960 until 31 October 1998)

All judgments delivered by the “old” Court were reported in an official collection: in Series A

between 1960 and 1995 and in Reports of Judgments and Decisions

from 1996 to October

1998. The form of citation for judgments delivered by the old Court follows the pattern:

– name of case

(in italics),

– date of judgment,

– paragraph number if necessary,

– name of the official collection and number.

Examples:

Plattform “Ärtze für das Leben” v. Austria, 21 June 1988, Series A no. 139

Delta v. France (Article 50), 30 January 1990, § 38, Series A no. 191-A

The Sunday Times

v. the United Kingdom (no. 2), 26 November 1991, § 54, Series A no. 217

Katikaridis and Others v. Greece, 15 November 1996, § 51, Reports of Judgments and Decisions

1996-V

Gustafsson v. Sweden (revision), 30 July 1998, § 28, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-V

Decisions, reports and opinions of the Commission (from 1955 until

31 October 1999)

Decisions and reports of the Commission

The form of citation follows the pattern:

– name of case (in italics),

– application number,

– date preceded by “Commission decision of” or “Commission’s report of”,

– name of the official collection if the decision or report has been reported, or

– “unreported” if the decision was not published in a printed collection.

Examples:

Moreira de Azevedo v. Portugal, no. 11296/84, Commission decision of 14 April 1988,

Decisions and Reports 56

Baumgartner v. Austria, no. 15154/89, Commission’s report of 16 February 1993, Decisions

and Reports 74

9. Advisory opinions issued by the Court under Protocol No. 16 to the Convention.

10. Note that, unlike Series A, Reports of Judgments and Decisions is in italics.

11. It may be followed by “(Article 50)” for a judgment concerning only just satisfaction, “(preliminary

objections)” for a judgment concerning only preliminary objections, “(revision)” or “(interpretation)” for

judgments concerning revision or interpretation.

12. “The Sunday Times”, which as the name of a newspaper is usually in italics, appears in roman in this

context.

Case-law references (new Court, old Court, Commission)

Garnieri v. Italy, no. 22256/88, Commission decision of 18 May 1992, unreported

Borrelli v. Italy, no. 1706/62, Commission decision of 4 October 1966, Collection of Decisions 21

Ward v. the United Kingdom, no. 1850/63, Commission decision of 29 March 1966, Yearbook 9

Opinions of the Commission

They are to be found appended to most judgments published in Series A and Reports of

Judgments and Decisions; a few are to be found appended to judgments in the early volumes

of ECHR. They are referred to as follows:

Stocké v. Germany, 19 March 1991, opinion of the Commission, § 167, Series A no. 199

Neigel v. France, 17 March 1997, opinion of the Commission, § 29, Reports of Judgments and

Decisions 1997-II

Caballero v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32819/96, opinion of the Commission, §§ 65-66,

ECHR 2000-II