PART 2: How to Bring a Case to the Court The Court announced that it would “[take] account of both the applicant’s subjective perceptions and what is objectively at stake in a particular case.”543 In general cases, which are not ipso facto transferable to Article 2 or 3 cases, the Court took note of the monetary disadvantage suffered by applicants and held that “the absence of any [substantial] disadvantage can be based on criteria such as the financial impact of the matter in dispute.”544 Even so, “the impact of a pecuniary loss must not be measured in abstract terms: even modest pecuniary damage may be significant in the light of the person’s individual circumstances and the economic situation of the country or region in which he or she lives”545 The Court said in Shefer v. Russia, “individual perceptions encompass not only the monetary aspect of a violation, but also the general interest of the applicant in pursuing the case.”546 In Finger v. Bulgaria the Court emphasized that “the application of the new admissibility requirement should ensure avoiding the rejection of cases which, notwithstanding their trivial nature, raise serious questions affecting the application or the interpretation of the Convention or important questions concerning national law.”547 The Court has also rejected cases under Article 35 § 3b when the examination of an application “on the merits would not bring any new element to the Court’s existing case-law.”548 It is highly unlikely, however, given the priority status of applications alleging breaches of Articles 2 or 3, that the Court would utilize this ground in the present context. Furthermore, one can safely say that such breaches would trigger the safeguard clause, pursuant to which the Court “is compelled to continue examining an application if it raises questions of a general character affecting the observance of the Convention.”549 In fact, as of today the substantial disadvantage criterion has never been applied to Article 3 allegations. 2.2.8 Other Aspects of Admissibility a) Abuse of the Right of Application (Article 35 § 3) According to Article 35 § 3 of the Convention, the Court will declare an application inadmissible if it considers the application to be an abuse of the right of application. What constitutes an abuse within the meaning of this Article is determined on a case-by-case basis. The practice discloses that an abuse is an action that is manifestly contrary to the purpose of the right of individual application as provided 544 Adrian Mihai Ionescu v. Romania (dec.), no. 36659/04, 1 June 2010, § 34. See also Giuran v. Romania, no. 24360/04, 21 June 2011, § 18. 545 Burov v. Moldova (dec.), no. 38875/03, 14 June 2011, § 29, and Gaftoniuc v. Romania (dec.), no. 30934/05, 22 February 2011, § 33. 546 Shefer v. Russia (dec.), no. 45175/04, 13 March 2012, § 2. 547 Finger v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 37346/05, 10 May 2011, § 72. 548 Burov v. Moldova (dec.), no. 38875/03, 14 June 2011, § 33. 549 Gaftoniuc v. Romania (dec.), no. 30934/05, 22 February 2011, § 34. 147