Obscure Wording of the European Convention on Human Rights: Does the Interpretation of Inadmissibility Criterion “Manifestly Ill-Founded” by the European Court of Human Rights Violate the Rule of Law?

Abstract

A majority of the European Court of Human Rights workload constitutes manifestly ill-founded applications, however neither the European Convention on Human Rights nor the Rules of Court contain any additional information on the meaning of the inadmissibility criterion “manifestly ill-founded”. Such obscurity may contravene the rule of law – a fundamental value underlying the European Convention on Human Rights and which the European Court of Human Rights has invoked in numerous cases. By scrutinizing preconditions of the rule of law applicable to international organizations, the research clarifies the applicability of the rule of law to the Court. In doing it and analyzing the European Court of Human Rights case law, the research aims to ascertain whether the Court complies with the with the rule of law when interpreting the obscure inadmissibility criterion “manifestly ill-founded”.