Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 115
January 2009
Post v. the Netherlands - 21727/08
Decision 20.1.2009 [Section III]
Article 35
Article 35-3
Ratione personae
Failure of representative to submit a form of authority signed by the applicant: inadmissible
In 2007 the applicant was arrested and held in detention on suspicion of murder. She complained that she had been unlawfully deprived of her liberty contrary to Article 5 of the Convention. The application to the Court was lodged by facsimile on 2 May 2008 by the applicant's representative. In reply, the applicant's representative was asked to complete the application form and return it to the Court within six months along with supporting documents and power of attorney. On 13 November 2008 the Court received a completed application form signed by the applicant's representative and copies of supporting documents. However, the documents received did not include an authority for representation because the representative had been unable to obtain it, but stated that she would send it as soon as she received it. No authority was subsequently received by the Court.
Inadmissible: The applicant had never been in direct contact with the Court and had introduced her application through her representative. However, where applicants choose to be represented by a lawyer, Rule 45 § 3 of the Rules of Court requires them to submit a duly signed power of attorney. In reply to her introductory letter of 2 May 2008 the applicant was informed that she needed to send the requisite authority form within a non-extendible period of six months. However, even after the expiry of that time-limit, no such authority was received. The case file therefore contained no document in which the applicant herself indicated that she wished her lawyer to lodge an application with the Court on her behalf. It also lacked any explanation why it had been impossible for the applicant or her representative to respect the six-month time limit fixed for the submission of the requisite power of attorney. Bearing in mind the essential nature of the requirement for the representative to demonstrate that he or she had received specific and explicit instructions from the alleged victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, the Court concluded that the case must be rejected for lack of an “applicant”: inadmissible ratione personae.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy