It is beyond any doubt that victims of human rights violations are rarely in position to initiate court proceedings fighting systematic discrimination themselves, which makes the role of human rights institutions indispensable. This specific mandate gives rise to numerous questions, such as: to what extent state institution takes the role of the legal representative, what capacities should it possess, on what basis it selects the cases meriting court intervention, is court intervention equally suitable in all areas of human rights protection and which analyzed model from Europe or wider has proved to be the most effective? Article offers analysis of court interventions in federal states with complex government structure and multiple institutions mandated with human rights protection, be it Ombudsmen Institution or Equality Body, court interventions in states with single human rights institution, comparative practice present in various European states, as well as interventions of human rights bodies before European tribunals. Author outlines the legal framework, human resources, and administrative structure that need to be provided, so that court interventions would have the desired effect and generate positive changes. In this process, it is of paramount importance to respect existing legal traditions and intrinsic practices, which proved their practical applicability over time, while any attempt to use legal transplants, with a goal of hastily unification of national legal orders and imposing transnational jurisdiction, can only produce confusion and countereffects.

Authors retain copyright. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.