Universal-MigrationHRlaw-PG-no-6-Publications-PractitionersGuide-2014-eng

MIGRATION AND INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW | 323application if respect for human rights as defined in the Conventionand the Protocols thereto so requires”, 1420 and it can also decide torestore an application previously struck out. 1421 The case will also bestruck out when a friendly settlement between the parties has beenreached 1422 or when a unilateral declaration by the respondent Stateis accepted by the Court. In this last case, the Court may strike thecase out of the list even if the applicant wishes the case to continue.1423 It will depend, however, on whether respect for human rightsas defined in the Convention and the Protocols requires otherwise.The Court held that in order to establish this it will consider “thenature of the complaints made, whether the issues raised are comparableto issues already determined by the Court in previous cases,the nature and scope of any measures taken by the respondentGovernment in the context of the execution of judgments deliveredby the Court in any such previous cases, and the impact of thesemeasures on the case at issue”. 1424Examination of merits: Once an application has been declared admissible,the Chamber may invite the parties to submit further evidenceand observations and hold a hearing. The Court in the form ofa Chamber will examine the case. 1425 Hearings are public, as are thedocuments deposited with the Registrar of the Court, although accessmay be restricted where the Court finds particular reasons in the interestof morals, public order or national security in a democratic society,or where the interests of the juveniles or the protection of private life ofthe parties so require, or in special circumstances where publicity wouldprejudice the interests of justice. 1426 Judgments of the Chamber are1420 Article 37.1 ECHR.1421 See, Article 37 ECHR; Rule 43, ECtHR Rules of Procedure.1422 See, Rule 43.3, ECtHR Rules of Procedure.1423 See, Akman v. Turkey, ECtHR, Application No. 37453/97, Admissibility Decision, 26 June2001, paras. 28–32; and, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, ECtHR, Application No. 26307/95, Judgmentof 8 April 2004, paras. 75–76.1424 Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 1423, para. 76. The Court also added that “[i]tmay also be material whether the facts are in dispute between the parties, and, if so, towhat extent, and what prima facie evidentiary value is to be attributed to the parties’ submissionson the facts. In that connection it will be of significance whether the Court itselfhas already taken evidence in the case for the purposes of establishing disputed facts. Otherrelevant factors may include the question of whether in their unilateral declaration therespondent Government have made any admission(s) in relation to the alleged violationsof the Convention and, if so, the scope of such admissions and the manner in which theyintend to provide redress to the applicant. As to the last-mentioned point, in cases in whichit is possible to eliminate the effects of an alleged violation (as, for example, in some propertycases) and the respondent Government declare their readiness to do so, the intendedredress is more likely to be regarded as appropriate for the purposes of striking out theapplication”. The list is not exhaustive. This practice is now reflected in Rule 62A, ECtHRRules of Procedure.1425 Article 38 ECHR.1426 Article 40 ECHR. See, Rules 33 and 63, ECtHR Rules of Procedure.