ABSTRACT
Based on an empirical analysis of the ECtHR’s and the HRC’s case law, this chapter establishes that an overwhelming majority of new minorities’ complaints to the ECtHR and the EComHR was declared inadmissible because they were regarded as manifestly ill-founded. Only in 2008, the ECtHR examined a first complaint on the merits, but did not find a violation, and in 2010, a first violation was found. Most cases concerned Western European countries, but three out of four violations were found in complaints against Eastern European countries. As for the ECtHR, all of new minorities’ communications to the HRC were directed against so-called Western states. However, different than in the realm of the ECtHR, most communications resulted in a finding of a violation of Article 18 ICCPR. As a consequence, the HRC is found to be a much more attractive venue for new minorities to direct their complaints to, given that the level of protection their right to freedom of religion and belief experiences appears significantly higher.
