Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights: A Practitioner’s Handbook from its heavily overburdened docket. From the standpoint of the applicant, the admissibility rules therefore constitute a main hurdle to having a case heard in Strasbourg. The recent and ongoing reform efforts are, by and large, aimed at empowering the Court to dispose of inadmissible cases more easily and efficiently.312 In 2012 86,201 applications were declared inadmissible or struck out of the list of cases by a Single Judge, Committee or Chamber, a 70% increase compared to 2011 (50,677). Single Judges issued inadmissibility decisions in 81,764 cases in 2012, an increase of 74% compared to 2011 (46,930).313 These figures do not even include cases disposed of administratively before reaching the admissibility stage (18,700 in 2012314). One must compare this with 1,678 applications (compared with 1,511 in 2011 – an increase of 11%) that were decided on the merits out of a total of 1,093 judgments delivered, since a significant portion of these applications were joined.315 Therefore, the importance for applicants of carefully reviewing the Court’s admissibility criteria cannot be underestimated. In this regard, prospective applicants should pay careful attention to the Court’s practice and jurisprudence on admissibility issues. Applicants should also consult and comply conscientiously with the Rules of Court316 and pay careful attention to the Court’s Practice Directions such as the “Institution of Proceedings”317 and the ‘Notes for filling in the application form’318 in order to avoid having the case declared inadmissible on purely procedural grounds. The Court renders further assistance in its extensive admissibility guide available online and in 25 languages.319 This admissibility guide also makes reference to the most important case law with regard to the admissibility criteria. The Court’s rules of admissibility320 incorporate the following elements, in particular: for an application to be considered admissible, the applicant must convince the Court 1) that he or she has a victim status; 2) that the application is ‘compatible’, 312 See e.g. Michael O’Boyle, “On Reforming the Operation of the European Court of Human Rights”, in European Human Rights Law Review, vol. 1, 2008, pp. 1–11; Christina G. Hioureas, “Behind the Scenes of Protocol No. 14: Politics in Reforming the European Court of Human Rights”, in Berkley Journal of International Law, vol. 24, 2006, pp. 718–757; Patricia Egli, “Protocol No. 14 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: Towards a More Effective Control Mechanism?”, in Journal of Transnational Law and Policy, vol. 17, 2008, pp. 1–34. 313 European Court of Human Rights, Analysis of Statistics 2012, Council of Europe, 2013, p. 4. 314 Ibid. 315 Ibid., p. 5. 316 See Appendix No. 2. 317 See Appendix No. 4. 318 See Appendix No. 4. 319 Admissibility guide, available online: http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=caselaw/ analysis&c=#n1347458601286_pointer. 320 See generally, Karen Reid, A Practitioner’s Guide to the European Convention on Human Rights, 4th ed., Sweet and Maxwell, 2011, pp. 26–56; Alastair Mowbray, Cases, Materials, and Commentary on the European Convention on Human Rights, 3rd ed., Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 29–39. 104