The ECtHR is not an appellate court. For this reason, the ECtHR does not examine factual or legal errors made by domestic courts and is not concerned with the fairness of the final decision. However, “arbitrariness” and “manifest error” are two exceptions to this approach.
Therefore, the ECtHR can inject its own interpretation into domestic law if it considers the interpretation adopted by the national court to be arbitrary or manifestly erroneous. This proceeds from the idea that “no careful judge would make this mistake and thus prejudice the fairness of the proceedings.”
The ECHR is not an appeals court. In its ordinary practice, the ECHR frequently states that it is not within its jurisdiction to examine factual or legal errors made by a domestic court, as long as the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention have not been violated. However, it is observed from some recent decisions of the ECHR that it has made its approach more flexible regarding its non-involvement with procedural errors concerning the merits of the proceedings in national courts or the fairness of the outcome of the proceedings. Accordingly, the ECHR conducts a review if the domestic court’s decision is “arbitrary” or “an unreasonable decision based on clearly erroneous findings.” In other words, “arbitrariness” and “clear/manifest error” constitute exceptions to the ECHR’s rule of not being an appeals court. However, this exception to the ECHR’s review covers situations where a factual or legal error made by a national judge is understood to be characterized as “clear”. In this sense, it is based on the idea that “no careful judge would make this error and thus compromise the fairness of the proceedings.” In this context, the ECHR can apply its own interpretation to domestic law if it considers the interpretation adopted by the national court to be arbitrary or clearly erroneous. (Dulaurans/France, 2000, pr.33-34 and 38; Khamidov/Russia, 2007, pr.174; Anđelković/Serbia, 2013, pr.27; Carmel Saliba/Malta, 2016, pr.79; Bochan/Ukraine, (No. 2) [BD], 2015, pr.61; Tel/Turkey, 2017, pr.59. Anheuser-Buschlnel/Portugal, BD, 2007, pr.83-87) A paper suggestion.
Why is Expert Lawyer Support Necessary in Individual Applications to the Constitutional Court (AYM) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)?
Individual applications made to the Constitutional Court (AYM) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) have a completely different technical structure from ordinary judicial remedies. As the ECtHR has clearly stated, the ECtHR is not an appellate court; therefore, it does not have the task of correcting factual or legal errors of local courts. However, it intervenes exceptionally in cases of “arbitrariness” or “clear/manifest error.” Since this delicate distinction is critically important for the admissibility and examination of the merits of an application, its rejection is inevitable if not properly made by an expert lawyer. Similarly, at the AYM, correctly identifying the violation, duly exhausting the application remedies, and associating the human rights violation with the provisions of the Constitution requires an advanced level of legal technique.
The slightest error made in individual applications —mischaracterization of the event, missing the deadline, incorrect exhaustion of domestic remedies, or the technical inability to demonstrate which right has been violated— leads to the application being deemed ‘inadmissible’. Since the ECtHR’s principle of ‘not being an appellate body’ can only be overcome if the local court’s decision contains a clear error or arbitrariness to such an extent that no careful judge could accept it, framing the application in accordance with precedents requires expertise. In this context, when making an application, familiarity with decisions such as Dulaurans/France, Khamidov/Russia, Carmel Saliba/Malta, Bochan/Ukraine, and Tel/Turkey directly affects the success rate of the application. Similarly, in the Constitutional Court (AYM) process, due to the principle of the ‘prohibition of appellate complaints,’ it is not about evaluation as if from one court to another, but rather the normative basis of the violation must be presented; this can only be achieved with a proper argumentative structure by lawyers specialized in the field.
Precisely for this reason, expert legal support in individual applications to the Constitutional Court (AYM) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is of critical importance, especially in regions with heavy judicial traffic such as Istanbul, Tuzla, Pendik, Kartal, Maltepe, Kadıköy, Ataşehir, Ümraniye, Gebze, Dilovası, and Çayırova. As 2M Law Firm, our expertise in both domestic legal precedents and current ECtHR decisions provides a significant advantage in individual applications, ensuring the correct substantiation of rights violations, proper construction of legal arguments, and the flawless execution of the process without procedural errors. Success in AYM and ECtHR applications relies not only on substantive merit but also on procedural and technical competence. Therefore, expert legal support is an indispensable element that ensures the proper use of the most effective avenue for individuals to seek redress against the state.
