Brussels, 04/01/2006 (Agence Europe) - According to a study made public end December, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg has fallen victim to its own success and is now finding it difficult to deal with the every-growing workload. The current system is stretched to its limit and must therefore be changed, perhaps radically, states the paper prepared by a group of lawyers headed by Lord Woolf, on behalf of the Council of Europe. With 44,100 new applications filed in 2004 and 82,100 cases currently pending, the system is “in crisis”, the study states. The main cause for the increased number of applications is accession by the former Soviet States to the Convention after 1990. In 2005, over half of the applications pending came from just four States: Russia (17%), Turkey (13%), Romania (12%) and Poland (11%). It should be noted in this context that 85% of the applications reaching Strasbourg are declared inadmissible. The backlog of cases to be dealt with is such that the ECHR could be found guilty of over-slow procedure in breach of Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, although it is supposed to ensure compliance. The group of experts therefore recommends that “satellite offices” be established in key countries producing high numbers of inadmissible applications; that greater use be made of “national ombudsmen” and that other methods of alternative dispute resolution be encouraged; and that the Court deliver more “pilot judgements” and then deal summarily with repetitive cases. Protocol No14 of May 2004, which allows a single judge (instead of three) to reject cases that are clearly inadmissible, should also contribute to increasing the Court's ability to deal with inadmissible applications. The president of the Court, Luzius Wildhaber, wished to recall that the constant search for gains in productivity has inevitably had an impact on the attention paid to applications, whether inadmissible or not. However, he went on, if one wants the system to keep the trust of States and individuals, and hence its authority, the criteria of quality should not be absent from the debate.