In David Cameron's speech to the European Court of Human Rights yesterday, the Prime Minister spoke of a 'once in a generation' chance to change the court's procedures for good.

During his speech, Mr Cameron used an striking example of the most extreme kind of inadmissible case - an applicant demanding compensation because a long-distance journey across Europe was less confortable than had been advertised.

Full Fact earlier cleared up certain confusion that surrounds descriptions of the Court's proceedings. From this, we know that an inadmissable case never recieves a formal 'judgement' and so is not an example of a violation of the European Convention of Human Rights.

The Prime Minister claimed in full:

"...A good start has been made with Protocol 14, which makes clear that cases aren't admissible if there is no significant disadvantage to the applicant. The initial case where the protocol has been used shows exactly the kind of thing I mean. The applicant was taking a bus company to court for 90 Euros compensation, because they felt their journey from Bucharest to Madrid hadn't been as comfortable as advertised.

"One of the matters at issue was that they didn't provide fully-reclining seats. The domestic courts had turned him down, and he was taking his case to the Court. Now I think we can all agree that fully-reclining seats would be very desirable on a trip from Bucharest to Madrid … but we can also agree that this is a completely trivial case, and is not the kind of case that should be heard here. The Court agreed – and quite rightly rejected the claim. But this case just underlines how important it is for the Court to have that consistent power to control the cases it admits."

Full Fact tracked down the case in question: Ionescu v. Romania nos. 36659/04, 1 June 2010

Mr Adrian Mihai Ionescu submitted an application to the court claiming 90 Euros in damages for the said journey, because: "the company had failed to observe the safety and comfort requirements set out in its advertising material, namely the provision of fully reclining seats, a change of coach in Luxembourg and the availability of six drivers."

Several aspects of his claim were dismissed twice in 2004 and once in 2005 after several appeals were lodged. By 2010, the Court delivered its verdict that the application was inadmissible and would be taken no further.

Whether this is trivial or not is of course a matter of opinion, But the Prime Minister is correct to point out that the Court seemingly thought the case as submitted was unworthy of its time.