This article lists the content and deals with the criteria for assessing the presence or absence of material damage suffered by the applicant to the European Court of Human Rights, the subject of entrepreneurship, as a new condition for the admissibility of an individual application. The article establishes that the list and content of the criteria for assessing the presence or absence of material damage suffered by the applicant to the European Court of Human Rights are different for individuals and for legal entities – business entities. Moreover, the article initiates a discussion on the list and content of these criteria for the subjects of entrepreneurship – the applicants to the European Court of Human Rights. In the light of the Court’s practice, the author reveals their content as well as legal categories such as ‘substantial harm’, ‘financial harm’, ‘pecuniary damage’, ‘non-pecuniary damage’ incurred by the applicant, the subject of entrepreneurship, and highlights the issues to which objectives may be caused by ‘moral harm’ in case of violation of the rights of the subject of entrepreneurship.
Gerards, J., Glas, L., 2017. Access to justice in the European Convention on Human Rights system. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 35(1): 11–30.
Keller, Y., Fischer, A. and Kühne, D., 2010. Debating the Future of the European Court of Human Rights after the Interlaken Conference: Two Innovative Proposals. The European Journal of International Law, 21(4): 1025-1048.
Leach, P., 2011. Taking a case to the European Court of Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rainey, B., Wicks E., Ovey C., 2017. The European Convention on Human Rights. 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shelton, D., 2016. Significantly Disadvantaged? Shrinking Access to the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review, 16: 303–322.
Vogiatzis, N., 2016. The admissibility criterion under article 35 (3) ECHR: a significant disadvantage’ to Human Rights Protection? International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 65: 185-211.
Deshko, L. 2016. Konstitucijne pravo na zvernennya do mizhnarodnix sudovix ustanov ta mizhnarodnix organizacij: monografiya. Uzhgorod.
Evgrafov, P., Tixij, V., 2018. Pravotlumachna diyalnist Evropejskogo sudu z prav lyudini i ii znachennya dlya Ukraini. available at: httr://www.lawyer.org.ua/?d=692&i=12&w=r (accessed 10 december 2017).
Kovler, A., 2011. Pravovye pozicii Evropejskogo suda po pravam cheloveka (v svete postanovlenij, prinyatyx v 2010 g. po zhalobam protiv Rossijskoj Federacii). Rossijskoe pravosudie, 2 (58): 16-31.
Panteleeva, K., 2015. Pretor ne zanimaetsya melochami, ili novyj kriterij priemlemosti zhalob v Evropejskij sud po pravam cheloveka. Aktualnye problemy rossijskogo prava, 3 (52): 143-144.