The ECHR states parties agreed on a roadmap for the future evolution of the Convention system at the 2010 Interlaken Conference. This article endeavours to give new impetus to this ECHR reform debate. We will highlight two issues which have so far been underexposed in the literature.
First, some aspects of the reform are only partially promising. The new admissibility criterion (i.e. "significant" damage suffered by the applicant), measures related to just satisfaction, as well as the pilot judgment procedure are premised on there being applicable telle quelle in all ECHR states. However, if Convention reforms are to be effective, they must take due account of the diverse human rights situations and quality of judiciary among those states.
Secondly, the Court rejects manifestly ill-founded applications without giving reasons. Given that these applications form a high proportion of the Court's caseload, this practice could decrease the Court’s legitimacy. We will suggest a new provision in the Rules of Court which renders the handling of manifestly ill-founded applications more transparent.