Right to an Effective Remedy in the European Convention on Human Rights


  • Lado Chanturia




The European Convention on Human Rights. Right to an effective remedy in. The European Court of Human Rights. The procedural safeguards of the Convention. Exhaustion of all effective remedies. An arguable claim. Lex generalis and lex specialis.




The article is dedicated to the right to an effective remedy in the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) which guarantees the availability at national level of a remedy to enforce the substance of the Convention rights and freedoms in whatever form they may happen to be secured in the domestic legal order. Article 13 of the Convention obliges the States to protect human rights within their legal system. The States’ primary obligation deriving from Article 13 is to guarantee the availability of an effective remedy at the domestic level which must be “effective” in practice as well as in law. Moreover, the States have an obligation to demonstrate convincingly the existence of an effective remedy in the practice. At the same time, that provision obliges individuals to exhaust all effective remedies before they lodge their applications with the European Court of Human Rights (the Court). However, they are only obliged to exhaust the remedies that are effective and capable of redressing the alleged violation, accessible and offering reasonable prospects of success. Additionally, this provision creates a basis for the Court to examine the existence and effectiveness of the domestic remedies.

The article analyses the Court’s case-law concerning the interplay of the parties’ obligations corresponding to the right an effective remedy from the perspective the subsidiarity of the Convention system: the primary responsibility for implementing and enforcing the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention is placed on the national authorities.

Author Biography

Lado Chanturia

Judge of the European Court of Human Rights, Professor of the Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University.


Collected edition of the “Travaux préparatoires” of the European Court of Human Rights, Vol. II, 485 and 490, and Vol. III.

Duff P., Findlay M., Howarth C., The Concept of an “Arguable Claim” under Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 39, October 1990, 891-899.

Grabenwarter Ch., European Convention on Human Rights. Commentary. C.H.Beck, Hart, Nomos, Helbing Lichtenhahn Verlag, 2014, 328.

Harris D., O’Boyle M., Bates E., Buckley C., Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, Chapter 16, Article 13: The Right to an effective National Remedy, 4th ed., Oxford University Press, 2018,

Rainey B., Elizabeth Wicks E., Ovey C., Jacobs, White and Ovey: The European Convention on Human Rights, 6th ed., Oxford University Press, 2014, 132-133, 135.

Kuijer M., The Right to a Fair Trial and the Council of Europe’s Efforts to Ensure Effective Remedies on a Domestic Level for Excessively Lengthy Proceedings, Human Rights Law Review, Vol. 13, 2013, 786.

Mowbray A.R., Article 13: Right to an Effective Remedy, The Development of Positive Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights by the European Court of Human Rights, London: Hart Publishing, 2004, 211, www.bloomsburycollections.com [26.05.2023].

Schabas W.S., The European Convention on Human Rights. A Commentary. Oxford University Press, 2017, 546-550.

A.B. and Others v. France, no. 11593/12, 12 July 2016.

A.B. v. the Netherlands, no. 37328/97, 29 January 2002.

Akdivar and Others, no. 21893/93, 16 September 1996.

Allanazarova v. Russia, no. 46721/15, 14 February 2017.

Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria, no. 50963/99, 20 June 2002.

Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012.

Barbotin v. France, no. 25338/16, 19 November 2020,

Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, Series A no. 131, 27 April 1988.

Brudan v. Romania, no. 75717/14, 10 April 2018.

Budayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 15339/02 and 4 others, 20 March 2008.

C.N. and V. v. France, no. 67724/09, 11 October 2012.

C.N. v. the United Kingdom, no. 4239/08, 13 November 2012.

Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, 17 July 2014.

Chahal v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 22414/93, 15 November 1996.

Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, 11 July 2002.

Clasens v. Belgium,no. 26564/16, 28 May 2019.

Cocchiarella v. Italy (GC), no. 664886/01, ECtHR 2006-V.

D v. Bulgaria, no. 29447/17, 20 July 2021.

De Jong, Baljet and Van Den Brink v. the Netherlands, no. 8805/79 and two others, 22 May 1984.

De Souza Ribeiro v. France [GC], no. 22689/07, 13 December 2012.

De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, 23 February 2017.

E.H. v. France, no. 39126/18, 22 July 2021.

Ferre Gisbert v. Spain, no. 39590/05, 13 October 2009.

G.B. and Others v. Turkey, no. 4633/15, 17 October 2019.

Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Anatoliy Elenkov v. Bulgaria, no. 14134/02, 11 October 2007.

Hasan and Chaush v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 30985/96, ECHR 2000-XI.

Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 36022/97, ECtHR 2003-VIII.

Hiernaux v. Belgium, no. 28022/15, 24 January 2017.

Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy (GC), no. 27765/09, 23 February 2012.

Ivan Karpenko v. Ukraine, no. 45397/13, 16 December 2021.

Jabari v. Turkey, no. 40035/98, ECtHR 2000‑VIII.

Janowiec and Others v. Russia (dec.), nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09, 5 July 2011.

Kadiķis v. Latvia (no. 2), no. 62393/00, 4 May 2006.

Karako v. Hungary, no. 39311/05, 28 April 2009.

Karandja v. Bulgaria, no. 69180/01, 7 October 2010.

Kaya v. Turkey, no. 158/1996/777/978, 19 February 1998.

Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, 3 April 2001.

Khadisov and Tsechoyev v. Russia, no. 21519/02, 5 February 2009.

Klass and Others v. Germany, Series A no. 28, 6 September 1978.

Kudła v. Poland (GC), no. 30210/96, 26 October 2000.

Leander v. Sweden, Series A no. 116, 26 March 1987.

Liepajnieks v. Latvia (dec), no. 37586/06, 2 November 2010.

Makaratzis v. Greece [GC], no. 50385/99, 20 December 2004.

Mandić and Jović v. Slovenia, nos. 5774/10 and 5985/10, 20 October 2011.

Maskhadova and Others v. Russia, no. 18071/05, 6 June 2013.

Maurice v. France [GC], no. 11810/03, 6 October 2005.

Mehmet Emin Yuksel v. Turkey, no. 40154/98, 29 July 2004.

Menesheva v. Russia, no. 59261/00, 9 March 2006.

Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 11138/10, 23 February 2016.

Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v. Belgium, no. 13178/03, 12 October 2006.

Neshkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 36925/10 and 5 others, 27 January 2015.

Norbert Sikorski v. Poland, no. 17599/05, 22 October 2009.

Olivieri and Others v. Italy, nos. 17708/12 and 3 others, 25 February 2016.

Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, 30 November 2004.

Ostrovar v. Moldova, no. 35207/03, 13 September 2005.

Paksas v. Lithuania [GC], no. 34932/04, 6 January 2011.

Paul and Audrey Edwards v. the United Kingdom, no. 46477/99, ECtHR 2002-II.

Peck v. the United Kingdom, no. 44647/98, ECHR 2003-I.

Polgar v. Romania, no. 39412/19, 20 July 2021.

Ramsahai and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 52391/99, 15 May 2007.

Segerstedt-Wiberg and Others v. Sweden, no. 62332/00, ECHR 2006-VII.

Sejdovic v. Italy, no. 56581/00, 1 March 2006.

Sergey Smirnov v. Russia (dec.), no. 14085/04, 6 July 2006.

Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, ECtHR 2005-III.

Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 5947/72 and others, 25 March 1983.

Slimani v. France, no. 57671/00, ECHR 2004-IX.

Smith and Grady v. the United Kingdom, nos. 33985/96 and 33986/96, ECtHR 1999-VI.

Sukachov v. Ukraine, no. 14057/17, 30 January 2020.

Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, ECHR 2006-VII.

Szott-Medyńska v. Poland (dec.), no. 47414/99, 9 October 2003.

T.P. and K.M. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28945/95, ECtHR 2001-V.

Tagayeva and Others v. Russia, no. 26562/07 and 6 others, 13 April 2017.

Titarenko v. Ukraine, no. 31720/02, 20 September 2012.

Valada Matos das Neves v. Portugal, no. 73798/13, 29 October 2015.

Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, Series A no. 215, 30 October 1991.

Yaşa v. Turkey, no. 63/1997/847/1054, 2 September 1998.

Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, ECtHR 2001-V.

Zavoloka v. Latvia, no. 58447/00, 7 July 2009.



How to Cite

Chanturia, L. (2023). Right to an Effective Remedy in the European Convention on Human Rights . Journal of Law, (1), 9–25 (Geo) 9. https://doi.org/10.60131/jlaw.1.2023.7060