The European Court of Human Rights is faced with a huge and ev- growing workload. Up until 1998, the Court pronounced only 837 judgments, while it rendered 4. 000 judgments in the last three years alone. On 18 September 2008, the European Court of Human Rights th delivered its 10. 000 judgment; currently, there are some 100. 000 cases pending before the Court. This enormous caseload is both a testimony to the Court’s success and of the considerable threat posed to the eff- tiveness of the protection of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights and its Protocols. Moreover, Protocol No. 14, which was intended to alleviate the problem by - creasing the efficiency of the Court, is still not in force. This publication is intended to contribute to the ongoing discussion about the reforms that are necessary to prevent a failure of the Eu- pean system of human rights protection. It compiles the contributions of a workshop which took place on 17-18 December 2007 at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg and the discussions following the presentations. The c- vening of this workshop was recommended by Christian Tomuschat. The conference brought together academics and practitioners and thus offered an excellent opportunity for the discussion of possible - proaches to the dilemma.

The European Court of Human Rights is faced with a huge and ev- growing workload. Up until 1998, the Court pronounced only 837 judgments, while it rendered 4. 000 judgments in the last three years alone. On 18 September 2008, the European Court of Human Rights th delivered its 10. 000 judgment; currently, there are some 100. 000 cases pending before the Court. This enormous caseload is both a testimony to the Court’s success and of the considerable threat posed to the eff- tiveness of the protection of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights and its Protocols. Moreover, Protocol No. 14, which was intended to alleviate the problem by - creasing the efficiency of the Court, is still not in force. This publication is intended to contribute to the ongoing discussion about the reforms that are necessary to prevent a failure of the Eu- pean system of human rights protection. It compiles the contributions of a workshop which took place on 17-18 December 2007 at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg and the discussions following the presentations. The c- vening of this workshop was recommended by Christian Tomuschat. The conference brought together academics and practitioners and thus offered an excellent opportunity for the discussion of possible - proaches to the dilemma.

The European Court of Human Rights is faced with a huge and ev- growing workload. Up until 1998, the Court pronounced only 837 judgments, while it rendered 4. 000 judgments in the last three years alone. On 18 September 2008, the European Court of Human Rights th delivered its 10. 000 judgment; currently, there are some 100. 000 cases pending before the Court. This enormous caseload is both a testimony to the Court’s success and of the considerable threat posed to the eff- tiveness of the protection of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights and its Protocols. Moreover, Protocol No. 14, which was intended to alleviate the problem by - creasing the efficiency of the Court, is still not in force. This publication is intended to contribute to the ongoing discussion about the reforms that are necessary to prevent a failure of the Eu- pean system of human rights protection. It compiles the contributions of a workshop which took place on 17-18 December 2007 at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg and the discussions following the presentations. The c- vening of this workshop was recommended by Christian Tomuschat. The conference brought together academics and practitioners and thus offered an excellent opportunity for the discussion of possible - proaches to the dilemma.