JURISDICTION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS: PROBLEM ISSUES

Abstract

The article clarifies the features of the jurisdiction the ECtHR, which determine its place among other international judicial institutions, as well as characterize its role in the general case of protecting human rights and freedoms. The articles of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which determine the jurisdiction of the ECtHR, have been analyzed in relation to the interpretation and application of the Convention and its Protocols. The subsidiary nature of the ECtHR's jurisdiction has been studied. The territorial (ratione loci) and temporal jurisdiction (ratione temporis) of the ECHR are characterized, which, according to the authors, are the most relevant in the context of the full-scale invasion of the Russian Federation on the territory of our state and the occupation of certain territories of Ukraine. It has been established that, as a general rule, the territorial jurisdiction of the ECtHR extends to the entire sovereign territory of the High Contracting Party to the Convention, and in the precedent practice of the court, the extraterritorial principle of determining jurisdiction has become widespread. In particular, in the interstate dispute between the Republic of Cyprus and Turkey, the possibility of applying the Convention to the occupied territories was confirmed. The principle of extraterritoriality was also applied during the consideration of the case "Ilashku and others against Moldova and Russia". As for the jurisdiction of the ECtHR, it has been found out over time that it is determined by the date of entry into force of the Convention for the defendant state in the case and the moment of denunciation of the Convention. At the same time, a member may denounce the Convention only after the expiration of a five-year period from the date on which it became a party to it, and six months after submitting the appropriate notification to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. It is concluded that such denunciation does not release the High Contracting Party concerned from its obligations under the Convention in respect of any act which may have been a violation of such obligations and which could have been committed by it before the date on which the denunciation takes effect.