The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Kevin Boyle and Françoise Hampson, both of whom are professors at the University of Essex (the United Kingdom).

Court H.R., Boyle and Rice judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, para. 52).

For similar reasons, in this respect the applicant did not have an “arguable claim” and Article 13 is therefore inapplicable to this part of the application (see Boyle and Rice v.

It also finds that the substantive claim is not arguable within the meaning of the Court’s case-law (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom , 27   April   1988, § 52, Series A no. 131).

Article 13 applies only where an individual has an “arguable claim” to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A

Court notes that, according to its established case-law, Article 13 of the Convention applied only where an individual has an “arguable claim” to be victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle

rappelle que cette disposition a été interprétée comme n’exigeant un recours en droit interne que s’agissant de griefs qui peuvent passer pour défendables au regard de la Convention (voir, entre autres, Boyle

Court notes that, according to its established case-law, Article 13 of the Convention applies only where an individual has an “arguable claim” to be victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle

    In view of the above conclusion, the applicant had no “arguable claim” to be the victim of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom , judgment

rappelle que l’article 13 a été interprété comme n’exigeant un recours en droit interne que s’agissant de griefs pouvant passer pour «   défendables   » selon la Convention (voir, entre autres, Boyle

infringement of the applicant’s Convention rights, it nonetheless applies only where an individual has an “arguable claim” to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see, amongst others, Boyle

Article 13 requires a remedy in domestic law only where an individual has an “arguable claim” that one of his or her rights or freedoms set forth in the Convention has been violated (see, for example, Boyle

In the proceedings before the Commission the applicant was represented by Professor Kevin Boyle and Ms Françoise Hampson.   3.

D.H., arrêt Boyle et Rice c. Royaume-Unidu 27 avril 1988, série A n° 131, pp. 23-24, par. 52-55).

The Court reiterates that Article 13 requires domestic remedies only with regard to complaints arguable in the terms of the Convention (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom , 27 April 1988, § 52, Series

Article 13 requires a remedy in domestic law only where an individual has an “arguable claim” that one of his or her rights or freedoms set forth in the Convention has been violated (see, for example, Boyle

Par conséquent, la Cour conclut que le requérant n’a pas de grief défendable au titre de l’article 13 de la Convention ( Boyle et Rice c.

D.H., arrêt Leander du 26 mars 1987, série A n° 116, p. 29, par. 77 ; arrêt Boyle et Rice du 27 avril 1988, série A n° 131, p. 25, par. 59).

of any supposed grievance under the Convention that an individual may have, no matter how unmeritorious his complaint may be: the grievance must be an arguable one in terms of the Convention (see the Boyle

the Convention, the Court points out that according to the its case-law, Article 13 applies only where an individual has an “arguable claim” to be the victim of a violation of a Convention right (see Boyle