This chapter offers an introduction into the composition of and the procedure before the European Court of Human Rights.The development and the various reforms of the current supervision system are briefly explained, just like the composition of the Court and the various formations in which it sits (Single Judges, Committees, Chambers and Grand Chamber). As the Court can only look into the merits of a case when an application is admissible, the various admissibility requirements are explained in some detail. In particular, attention is paid to the different jurisdictional requirements (ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis and ratione loci), such as the victim requirement and State responsibility. In addition, several material and formal admissiblity requirements are addressed. The chapter also explains the main elements of the procedure before the Court. It pays special attention the binding nature, contents and consequences of the Court’s decisions, judgments and advisory opinions. Finally, the system of the Committee of Ministers’ supervision on the execution of judgments is addressed.

Chapter 7 analyzes the applicability criterion of arguability, which requires that the applicant has an arguable claim that substantive rights in the Convention are violated for Article 13 to apply. The chapter first queries how this criterion relates to the scope of application of substantive rights. Is it sufficient to be arguably within the scope of substantive rights, for Article 13 to apply, or is it necessary to actually be within the scope? Although the Court's case law is not explicit, it reveals that it is necessary to be within the scope. This result is critcized. The chapter proceeds by analyzing the required threshold of arguability. Even though the Court has not provided an abstract definition, but, rather, determines on a case-by-case basis whether each individual claim is arguable, the Court has linked arguability to the international admissibility criterion of manifestly ill-founded. However, this adversely affects the arguability ctest and does not chime well with the principle of subsidiarity. The chapter argues that the Court needs to remove this linkage.