PART 2: How to Bring a Case to the Court If the request for an interim measure is accepted, the Court will inform the respondent Government and the Committee of Ministers and will generally grant priority to the application over other pending cases. d) Enforcement According to the Court’s jurisprudence, Rule 39 obliges member States to comply with interim measures. In the case of Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia88 the Court stated that Article 34 can be breached if the authorities of a Contracting State failed to take all steps which could reasonably have been taken in order to comply with the interim measure indicated by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.89 The Court approaches Rule 39, therefore, from the perspective of the effective exercise of the right of individual application, which is guaranteed under Article 34 of the Convention.90 Although interim measures are binding, there has been an increase of non-compliance. In the case of Labsi v. Slovakia,91 for instance, the applicant was expelled to Algeria despite the application of interim measures. The Court noted that it was prevented by the applicant’s expulsion to Algeria from conducting a proper examination of his complaints in accordance with its settled practice in similar cases. It was further prevented from protecting the applicant against treatment contrary to Article 3 of which he had been found to face a real risk in his country of origin at the relevant time […]. As a result, the applicant has been hindered in the effective exercise of his right of individual application guaranteed by Article 34 of the Convention.92 In sum, Article 34 of the Convention obliges member States to comply with interim measures. Unfortunately, not all member States have complied with the Court’s request. 2.1.6 Decisions by Single Judges Due to the large number of applications, the Court needs an efficient admissibility procedure. In order to realize this, the Court has two formations that can declare an application inadmissible, the Committee formation and the single judge formation. If an application is deemed manifestly inadmissible, it is referred to the single judge formation. According to Article 26 of the Convention and Rules 27A and 52A, a single judge can declare inadmissible or strike out an application where such 88 89 90 91 92 Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia, no. 35254/07, 22 November 2011. Ibid., § 98. This jurisprudence has recently been confirmed in Manni v. Italy, no. 9961/10, 27 March 2012, § 57. Labsi v. Slovakia, no. 33809/08, 15 May 2012. Ibid., § 150. 49