The Chancellor may also decide not to initiate proceedings with regard to a petition if it was filed more than one year after the date on which the person became, or should have become, aware of violation of their rights. Applying the one-year deadline is in the discretion of the Chancellor and depends on the circumstances of the case – for example, severity of the violation, its consequences, whether it affected the rights or duties of third parties, etc. In 2013, the Chancellor declined to open substantive proceedings in 1140 cases, which makes up 73.5% of the total number of cases. Proceedings were not opened for the following reasons: • lack of competence by the Chancellor (382 cases); • the individual could file an administrative challenge or use other legal remedies (348 cases); • judicial proceedings or compulsory pre-trial proceedings were pending in the matter (178 cases); • petition did not comply with requirements under the Chancellor of Justice Act (130 cases) • a petition was manifestly unfounded (59 cases); • no public interest for the review of conformity of legislation of general application with the Constitution or an Act (18 cases); • administrative challenge proceedings or other voluntary pre-trial proceedings were pending (13 cases); • the petition had been filed one year after the petitioner discovered the violation (12 cases) (see also Figure 8). PART IV PART III PART II PART I STATISTICS OF PROCEEDINGS Figure 8. Reasons for declining to initiate proceedings of petitions 76