Interim Measures: The Lawyer’s Practical Guide (ECHR)

Interim Measures of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) are temporary and urgent measures issued when there is a risk of imminent irreparable harm.

These interim measures are issued through a precautionary procedure under Article 39 of the Rules of Court, a little-known provision that can still offer a last chance for justice.

In fact, an application for interim measures can only be submitted after all domestic remedies have been exhausted.

However, over 98% of requests for interim measures are rejected by the European Court.

The most common reasons for rejection include:

• Submitting the application without the assistance of a lawyer experienced in ECHR appeals, under the assumption that one can be appointed later. However, if the application is rejected, no further appeal is possible
• Failure to argue the imminent risk of irreparable harm
• Failure to cite relevant case law for similar cases, which only an experienced lawyer can refer to, drawing on judgments issued against any state in Europe
• Failure to exhaust domestic remedies
• Failure to comply with the formalities required by the Court’s Rules

I am Attorney Gianluca Piemonte, one of the few lawyers in Italy and Europe who is an expert in ECHR appeals.

In this article, I will provide you with a comprehensive explanation of interim and urgent measures before the European Court, along with a practical guide for submitting a precautionary application to the ECHR.

Let’s start with some fundamental premises to fully understand the topic.

What are the precautionary requirements?

To submit an application to the European Court of Human Rights with a request for interim measures, all of the following conditions must be met:

1. Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies (based on the principle of subsidiarity), as the same rule that applies to an ordinary application to the ECHR also applies to a request for interim measures. This means that the applicant must have exhausted all available legal remedies at the national level to protect their rights. The Court intervenes only if national mechanisms have proven ineffective or are unavailable. However, in certain situations, it is possible to submit a precautionary application even before exhausting all domestic remedies
2. Extreme Urgency, where the situation must be such that immediate action is required to prevent irreparable harm. Interim measures are granted only when there is an immediate and real risk of serious harm.
3. Risk of Irreparable Harm, as the request must demonstrate that, without the granting of interim measures, the person involved could suffer harm that cannot later be rectified, such as the loss of life, torture, or other inhuman or degrading treatment.
4. Protected Right(s) Under the Convention, meaning the request for interim measures must be based on a potential violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), such as the right to life (Article 2), the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3), or the right to a fair trial (Article 6), among others.
5. Current and Concrete Situation, where the threat of harm must be present and concrete, not hypothetical, foreseeable, or distant in time. The ECHR does not intervene in situations that could only occur in the future or under possible circumstances.
6. Correctly Formulated Application, as the request must be submitted according to the forms required by the ECHR, with a clear and detailed description of the circumstances justifying the adoption of interim measures. It is crucial to include all relevant information, such as specific and imminent risks and the connection with the rights protected by the Convention.
7. No Effective Alternatives, meaning the applicant must fully demonstrate that no other measures or actions could prevent the harm, and that the Court’s intervention is the only effective remedy to protect the applicant’s rights.

What does “Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies” mean?

Exhaustion of domestic remedies is a fundamental principle in international law, particularly in the context of interim measures requested from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

This principle establishes that, before an individual can submit an application to the ECHR, they must have utilized all available remedies within their own country to resolve the issue. Only after receiving a final decision from the national courts can they seek a provisional measure from the European Court.

In practice, this means that the applicant must have presented their case to national courts and received a final judgment or, in cases of denial of justice, demonstrated that no further effective remedies are available at the national level.

Only after exhausting all these options can an individual turn to the ECHR to request an interim measure.

However, there are exceptions to this principle, particularly in situations of extreme urgency where no effective remedy is available at the national level, or where pursuing a national remedy would be futile or clearly ineffective.

To obtain an interim measure from the European Court of Human Rights, the applicant must therefore document not only the urgency of the case and the risk of irreparable harm, but also that they have exhausted all available national remedies or that such remedies are not practical or effective in the specific context.

Article 39 of the Rules of the European Court of Human Rights – Interim Measures

Interim measures are governed by Article 39 of the Rules of the European Court, which stipulates that:

1. The Court may, in exceptional circumstances, whether at the request of a party or of any other person concerned, or of its own motion, indicate to the parties any interim measure which it considers should be adopted. Such measures, applicable in cases of imminent risk of irreparable harm to a Convention right, which, on account of its nature, would not be susceptible to reparation, restoration or adequate compensation, may be adopted where necessary in the interests of the parties or the proper conduct of the proceedings.
2. The Court’s power to decide on requests for interim measures shall be exercised by duty judges appointed pursuant to paragraph 5 of this Rule or, where appropriate, the President of the Section, the Chamber, the President of the Grand Chamber, the Grand Chamber or the President of the Court.
3. Where it is considered appropriate, immediate notice of the measure adopted in a particular case may be given to the Committee of Ministers.
4. A duty judge appointed pursuant to paragraph 5 of this Rule or, where appropriate, the President of the Section, the Chamber, the President of the Grand Chamber, the Grand Chamber or the President of the Court may request information from the parties on any matter connected with the implementation of any interim measure indicated.
5. The President of the Court shall appoint Vice-Presidents of Sections as duty judges to decide on requests for interim measures.

Article 39 of the Rules of Court was amended on February 23, 2024, to align it with the case law of the European Court.

The notion of “irreparable harm to a right guaranteed by the Convention” therefore refers to harm that, by its nature, cannot be adequately repaired, restored, or compensated.

In this context, the term “restoration” implies returning to the situation that existed before the damage occurred.

The Court may therefore adopt interim measures when there is a risk that the absence of such measures could create a situation where restitutio in integrum and other forms of reparation would not be possible.

To apply the rule under Article 39, the circumstances of the case must exceed a high threshold of seriousness.

These precautionary measures are adopted in the context of proceedings before the Court, without prejudice to any future decisions on the admissibility or merits of the case in question.

Difference between “Application for Interim Measures” and “Application on the Merits”

The application under Article 39 of the Rules of Court should be distinguished from an application on the merits.

An ordinary application (commonly referred to as an “ECHR application”) is submitted to the European Court of Human Rights by an individual who believes that a member state has violated one or more rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. This type of application seeks a final judgment from the European Court of Human Rights, which will determine whether a violation has occurred and, if so, will establish the appropriate measures to remedy the harm suffered (e.g., compensation, reopening of proceedings, etc.).

In contrast, an application for interim measures is an urgent request submitted to the European Court to obtain immediate protection in situations where there is an imminent danger of suffering irreparable harm. This type of application can be submitted even before all available legal remedies at the national level have been exhausted, if the situation is so urgent that timely intervention is necessary. Interim measures are temporary and aim to prevent irreparable harm, such as in cases of risk of torture, death, or other inhuman treatment, until the Court can examine the main case (e.g., expulsion or extradition).

In summary, while an ordinary application aims to definitively resolve a human rights dispute, an application for interim measures seeks to protect fundamental rights in emergency situations, providing immediate protection pending a final decision.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION you can read my other article Appeal to the European Court of Human Rights: 21 Useful Information

How to Submit a Precautionary Application

A precautionary application to obtain an interim measure can be requested by the individual concerned or, in rare cases, initiated by the European Court itself.

There are three methods to request an interim measure:

1. Through the ECHR Rule 39 Site
2. By fax to the numbers +33 3 90 21 43 50 and +33 3 88 41 39 00, where it is recommended to send faxes containing more than 10 pages separately
3. By mail, to the address: Cour européenne des droits de l’homme – Conseil de l’Europe – 67075 STRASBOURG CEDEX – FRANCE

Based on the experience of our law firm, the most effective and fastest method is certainly through the website dedicated to Article 39, where we are registered to submit applications on behalf of our clients.

Requests sent by fax or mail must include the following statement in bold on the first page of the document:

“Article 39 – Urgent Contact Person (name and contact details): …”

In cases of expulsion or extradition, it is mandatory to specify:

“Scheduled Date and Time of Expulsion and Destination: …”

The request for interim measures should be submitted as soon as the final internal decision has been issued, to ensure that the Court and the Registry have sufficient time to examine it. In situations of expulsion or extradition, the Court may not consider requests submitted less than one working day before the scheduled date of expulsion.

Content of a Precautionary Application to the ECHR

An application to the European Court of Human Rights must include specific content, which is often the reason for the rejection of the application.

General Information

• Name(s) of the applicant(s)
• Surname of the applicant
• Current address of the applicant (or the prison address if detained)
• Date of birth
• Nationality
• Name, surname, and address of the lawyer representing and defending the applicant in the request for interim and urgent measures
• State against which the application is submitted

These are basic identification details for the applicant and their lawyer.

Substantive and Legal Grounds

In addition to the above information, the application must be well-argued both in fact and in law. Many precautionary applications are rejected because these arguments are not deemed sufficient or adequate to support the request for interim measures.

The application should include:

• A detailed description of the current situation on which the application is based
• The nature of the imminent risk of irreparable harm
• The articles of the Convention referred to
• A power of attorney form if the application is submitted by a legal representative
• The reference number of the application, if assigned, and if there is a connection to the current request
• Any other relevant information and documents

In cases of removal/expulsion/extradition:

• Precise reasons explaining the departure from the country of origin/destination country
• Reasons for fearing return to the country of origin/destination country
• Information regarding the date and conditions of arrival in the Member State/destination country
• Scheduled date of removal/expulsion/extradition
• Copies of all relevant documents (search warrants, arrest warrants, criminal convictions, newspaper articles or reports related to the applicant, country reports, etc.)

Attachments

It is necessary to attach appropriate and relevant documentation to the application to support the arguments presented, such as:

• Copies of decisions from national authorities, judicial decisions, applications submitted to national judicial authorities, etc. (essential documentation)
• Recent medical reports
• Photographs
• Documents supporting the applicant’s vulnerability
• Newspaper articles or reports about the applicant’s situation
• Etc.

The Court never requires originals, so copies of these documents are sufficient.

Reasons for Rejection of a Precautionary Application

As you have seen, the application is practically divided into three parts. However, except for the general information (name, surname, etc.), it is the completion of the second and third parts that is the primary cause of rejection.

The factual grounds, for clients who rely on my legal support, are described using specific persuasive techniques, structuring the presentation of information to strengthen the client’s position and maximize the chances of success. The argumentation will be prepared and presented solidly, capable of adequately addressing the case’s needs and convincing the European judge who will examine the case.

The legal grounds, on the other hand, are those that ultimately can determine the acceptance or rejection of the precautionary application. These must contain legal arguments based on international law and previous case law. Our law firm mainly deals with identifying the relevant regulations (conventions and protocols), previous case law, and structuring legal arguments at the international level.

The absence of the information and documents mentioned above can lead to the application for interim measures being considered unfounded or incomplete.

ATTENTION: The European Court’s rejection will be immediate, with no possibility of further appeal!

It is not sufficient to refer to statements in other documents or the internal procedure.

It is essential that the requests are accompanied by all the information and documents specified in the previous paragraph.

Once the application is submitted, it will no longer be possible to send additional information or documents through the ECHR Rule 39 Site, unless expressly requested by the Court.

Who Decides on Interim Measures

Requests for interim measures submitted in the context of new individual applications are primarily examined by duty judges, supported by a specialized unit within the Court’s registry. In some cases, decisions may also be made by the President of the Section, the Chamber, the President of the Grand Chamber, the Grand Chamber, or the President of the Court.

However, duty judges retain the discretion to refer a request for interim measures to any of the other decision-makers provided for in Rule 39 § 2, including collective bodies.

These referrals may occur under various circumstances, depending on the nature of the request, the specific case, and the degree of urgency.

In some situations, referral to a collective body may not be possible, necessitating the duty judge to temporarily apply Rule 39 to facilitate subsequent examination of the request by the collective body.

The decision to submit a request to a collective body is nonetheless at the discretion of the Court itself.

Procedure at the European Court on the Precautionary Application

All decisions of the Court regarding interim measures are notified to the parties in the form of a decision signed by the duty judge, the President of the Section, the President of the Grand Chamber, or the President of the Court, as appropriate.

The names of the judges who make decisions on interim measures are always indicated in the decisions themselves.

The decisions are accompanied by a letter from the registry, which includes information about the procedure, as well as any instructions or requests directed to the parties.

Applicants are informed of the Court’s decisions on requests for interim measures through the same means by which they submitted the application (internet portal, fax, or mail). For this reason, the most effective way to manage the procedure is via the Article 39 internet portal.

The Court may establish interim measures that remain in effect until further notice, for the entire duration of the proceedings before the Court, or for a limited period of time, depending on the specific circumstances of the case.

Interim measures against the United Kingdom (UK)

Interim measures against the United Kingdom have concerned urgent situations where removal, extradition or a medical emergency risked causing harm that no later judgment could undo. Three decided cases show how Rule 39 works in practice.

Removal and asylum.

• In N.S.K. v. the United Kingdom (no. 28774/22) the Court applied Rule 39 on 14 June 2022 and stopped the removal of an asylum seeker to Rwanda, shortly before the flight was due to leave. The reason was straightforward: had the domestic courts later found the removal unlawful, the applicant would have had no effective way of being brought back.

Extradition.

• In Babar Ahmad and Others v. the United Kingdom (nos. 24027/07, 11949/08, 36742/08, 66911/09 and 67354/09, judgment of 10 April 2012) the applicants faced extradition to the United States on terrorism charges and complained about detention at ADX Florence and about life sentences without parole. The Court applied Rule 39, suspended the extradition while it examined the case, and lifted the measure once it had ruled.
• In Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom (no. 61498/08, judgment of 2 March 2010) the United Kingdom handed two detainees over to the Iraqi authorities in spite of an interim measure telling it not to. The Court found a violation of Article 34: disregarding a Rule 39 measure is itself a breach of the Convention. This is the case to cite whenever someone asks whether interim measures are binding.

Health.

• In D. v. the United Kingdom (no. 30240/96, judgment of 2 May 1997) the applicant was in the final stage of AIDS and was to be removed to Saint Kitts, where the treatment keeping him alive was not available. The Court asked the United Kingdom not to carry out the removal and held that doing so would amount to inhuman treatment under Article 3.

The pattern is consistent: the Court intervenes against the United Kingdom where the harm would be irreversible, and it expects the measure to be obeyed while the case is pending.

Interim measures against Ireland

Interim measures against Ireland are rare. Removal cases seldom reach Strasbourg at the urgent stage, because the Irish courts usually suspend removal first, and a Rule 39 request is examined only once that route has failed.

• In Izevbekhai and Others v. Ireland (no. 43408/08) the Court applied Rule 39 on 18 November 2008 and stopped the removal to Nigeria of a mother and her two daughters, who claimed that the girls would be subjected to female genital mutilation. The application was later declared inadmissible, by a decision of 17 May 2011, but the measure had kept the family in Ireland while the case was examined.

The practical lesson is that a Rule 39 request against Ireland has a chance only where the risk is concrete, personal and imminent, and where the Irish courts have already refused to stop the removal.

Interim measures against Malta

Malta is one of the States where interim measures have been applied most often in recent years, almost always about removals and about the detention of migrants.

• In S.H. v. Malta (no. 37241/21, judgment of 20 December 2022) the Court applied Rule 39 on 10 August 2021 and stopped the removal of a journalist to Bangladesh. It then held that removing him without a proper assessment of the risk he faced would breach Article 3, and that he had had no effective remedy for the purposes of Article 13.
• In A.B. and Y.W. v. Malta (no. 2559/23, judgment of 4 February 2025) the Court applied Rule 39 on 16 January 2023 to stop the removal to China of two Uyghurs from Xinjiang, and found a procedural violation of Article 3. The measure was still in force when the judgment was delivered.

Two further Maltese cases are worth knowing even though they do not turn on Rule 39, because they show what the Court thinks of detention there: Louled Massoud v. Malta (no. 24340/08, judgment of 27 July 2010), on detention lasting more than eighteen months pending removal, and Suso Musa v. Malta (no. 42337/12, judgment of 23 July 2013), on the detention of an asylum seeker. Both concern Article 5.

Interim measures against Cyprus

Cases against Cyprus have mostly concerned the removal of Syrian and Kurdish applicants, and they show both what an interim measure can do and what happens when it arrives too late.

• In M.A. v. Cyprus (no. 41872/10, judgment of 23 July 2013) the Court applied Rule 39 on 14 June 2010, confirmed it on 21 September 2010 and lifted it on 23 May 2011: for that whole period Cyprus could not deport the applicant, a Syrian Kurd, while his case was pending.
• In A.H. and J.K. v. Cyprus (nos. 41903/10 and 41911/10, judgment of 21 July 2015) the same course was followed for two more Syrian Kurds, and the measure remained in force until the Court ruled.
• In M.A. and Z.R. v. Cyprus (no. 39090/20, judgment of 8 October 2024) the Rule 39 request was filed on 7 September 2020, but the applicants had already been put on a boat back to Lebanon before the Court could decide on it. The Court found violations of Article 3, Article 13 and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4.

The practical point is blunt: an interim measure protects you only if it is requested in time, and time here is measured in hours.

Interim measures against Netherlands

• Asylum and Deportation: Many applicants face deportation to countries where they risk persecution or inhuman treatment. Cases often involve the Dublin Regulation, where individuals are transferred to the first EU country they entered, with concerns about poor reception conditions.
• Family Reunification: Issues arise when Dutch authorities deny family reunification, often leading to separated families and claims of violations of the right to family life.
• Detention Conditions: There are challenges regarding the inhuman or degrading conditions under which asylum seekers and immigrants are detained.

Interim measures against Sweden

• Asylum and Deportation: Applicants often challenge deportation on grounds of persecution risk, with the ECHR intervening to prevent deportations pending case review. The Dublin Regulation is frequently contested due to concerns about inadequate asylum procedures in other EU countries.
• Right to Family Life: Family reunification cases are common, where delays or denials by Swedish authorities lead to family separation.
• Detention Conditions and Medical Care: Several cases involve challenges to detention conditions, especially for vulnerable individuals, and concerns about the lack of adequate medical care if deported.

Interim measures against Norway

• Asylum and Deportation: Similar to Sweden and the Netherlands, cases involve challenges to deportations based on risks of persecution or inhuman treatment. The Dublin Regulation is also a common point of contention.
• Child Custody and Family Life: Norway faces several cases related to its child welfare services (Barnevernet), where applicants claim that child removal violates their right to family life.
• Detention Conditions: Cases challenge the conditions of detention for asylum seekers and migrants, particularly those who are vulnerable.
• Discrimination: Some cases involve claims of ethnic or religious discrimination, especially in asylum decisions.

CONCLUSIONS on Precautionary Applications for Interim and Urgent Measures

In this article, you have learned that in specific and urgent cases, where there is a risk of irreparable harm, it is possible to submit a precautionary application to the European Court of Human Rights to request interim and urgent measures.

The Court typically responds within a few days or weeks, depending on the case.

However, the majority of applications are rejected because they are deemed manifestly unfounded or have formal defects.

We are an Italian law firm among the most experienced in Europe for defense before the European Court. The founder of the Piemonte law firm, attorney Gianluca Piemonte, has gained extensive experience at the European Court, as Italy is one of the countries that has submitted the most applications to the European Court.

Our legal support is provided to citizens from all over Europe (including the United Kingdom, Ireland, Malta, the Netherlands, Cyprus, Norway, and Sweden).

Tell us your case in English, and you will receive a clear and transparent quote for our legal support, which you are free to accept or decline (please note that we do not provide free consultations and do NOT accept cases with legal aid).

Write to supporto@studiopiemonte.com or visit our CONTACT US PAGE.

We have already helped many people across Europe at the European Court, and we would be happy to assist you as well.