European Court of Human Rights

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  The European Court of Human Rights sits in Strasbourg, France, and every year receives tens of thousands of letters from people who believe their own government has wronged them. These are not complaints filed in a national courthouse. They arrive at a supranational court with the power to rule against sovereign states on some of the most sensitive questions in law: torture, surveillance, the right to vote, the right to love who you love. International law scholars call it the most effective international human rights court in the world, and scholars, according to one account, invariably describe it with superlatives. But effectiveness and enforcement are not the same thing. By the end of 2016, nearly ten thousand judgments handed down by this court had gone unimplemented by the very states that agreed to be bound by it. How did a court created in the aftermath of World War II grow into an institution of this scale? What does it actually do when it rules, and what happens when no one listens?

• 2. From Declaration to Enforcement

  ›

  On the 10th of December 1948, the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It set out an ambitious vision: a global standard for the recognition of rights. But the declaration carried no mechanism for enforcement. It was, in a fundamental sense, aspirational. The twelve member states of the newly created Council of Europe saw the gap and began work in 1949 on something different. Drawing inspiration from the Declaration, they designed the European Convention on Human Rights with a crucial addition: a judicial mechanism that would require the countries that signed it to actually respect the basic rights of their citizens. The court established under that convention was formally created on the 21st of January 1959, when its first members were elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. It did not take long to hear its first case. In 1960, the court decided Lawless v. Ireland, stepping into history as a functioning judicial body. Its early years were quiet. It kept a low profile and built little case law. The first finding of a violation did not come until Neumeister v Austria in 1968. But the architecture had been laid for something that would grow far beyond what its founders imagined.

• 3. Structure and Independence

  ›

  Forty-six judges sit at the court today, one for each contracting state, each elected by a majority vote in the Parliamentary Assembly from a shortlist of three candidates nominated by that state. Their terms run for nine years and cannot be renewed. The convention demands that judges be of high moral character and hold qualifications suitable for high judicial office, or be jurists of recognised competence. Once elected, a judge is prohibited from any institutional ties to the country that nominated them. They cannot hear a case in which they have a familial or professional relationship with a party. Removing a judge requires a two-thirds majority of the other judges, and only for serious reasons. The court is assisted by a registry of around 640 agents, fewer than half of them lawyers, divided into 31 sections. The registry handles preparatory work, communications with applicants, and contact with the public and the press. Above the judges and the registry sits the Plenary Court, an assembly of all judges that carries no judicial functions. It elects the court's president, vice-presidents, registrar, and deputy registrar, and handles administrative matters including the adoption of the Rules of Court. The president and the section presidents are elected for renewable three-year terms. A single judge, or a committee of three, can declare an application inadmissible. Chambers of seven judges handle the substance of most cases. The Grand Chamber, made up of 17 judges, takes the weightiest questions, and its judgments are final.

• 4. Caseload and the Backlog Crisis

  ›

  The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 changed the court's character permanently. New states joined the Council of Europe and accepted the convention. Citizens who had never had access to this kind of supranational redress began filing applications in large numbers. In 1999, around 8,400 applications were allocated to be heard. By 2003, that number had reached 27,200 filed in a single year, with approximately 65,000 cases pending. In 2009, the court allocated 57,200 applications and held 119,300 pending. The BBC described the court as beginning to be seen as a victim of its own success. At the time, more than 90 per cent of applications were declared inadmissible, and around 60 per cent of the cases actually decided were repetitive: situations where the court had already found a violation of the same kind against the same country. Protocol 11, adopted to address the backlog by making the court a full-time institution and simplifying procedures, was not enough. In May 2004, the Committee of Ministers adopted Protocol 14, aimed at reducing the workload by empowering single judges to reject inadmissible applications and introducing pilot judgments to handle repetitive cases en masse. Pending applications peaked at 151,600 in 2011 before reforms brought the number down to 59,800 by 2019. But critics noted the cost: large numbers of applications would not, in practice, be examined at all, raising questions about access to justice for meritorious applicants.

• 5. Living Law and Interpretation

  ›

  The court's primary interpretive tool is the living instrument doctrine. The text of the convention, in the court's view, must be read in light of present-day conditions rather than the intent of its original framers. In Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey, decided in 2008, the court stated that it upholds individual rights as practical and effective rather than theoretical and illusory protections. That doctrine has had real consequences. Where courts once tolerated differential treatment based on ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, the court increasingly labels such treatment as unjustified discrimination. In Oliari and Others v Italy, decided in 2015, the court expanded the definition of family under Article 8 to include same-sex couples. The 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties also anchors the court's interpretive method. Critics call this approach judicial activism, arguing the court strains beyond the convention's text. Defenders say it is necessary to keep the institution relevant. Academic observers offer a more nuanced verdict: the ECtHR is considered one of the most pragmatic courts in the international sphere, and not nearly as progressive as regional counterparts such as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Running alongside the living instrument doctrine is the margin of appreciation, which recognises member states' rights to set their own moral standards within reason. The court has narrowed that margin over time, drawing sharp criticism from those who argue that a consensus among member states is being claimed even when it does not objectively exist, risking what critics describe as a pack mentality toward dissenting countries.

• 6. When Judgments Go Ignored

  ›

  The court lacks enforcement powers. States are required to abide by its final judgments under Article 46 of the convention, and damages must be paid within three months or interest accumulates. Beyond that, there is no formal deadline for more complex compliance. The number of non-implemented judgments rose from 2,624 in 2001 to 9,944 at the end of 2016. Of those, 48 per cent had gone without implementation for five years or more. In 2016, all but one of the 47 member countries of the Council of Europe had failed to implement at least one verdict in a timely fashion. The worst offenders were Italy with 2,219 unimplemented judgments, Russia with 1,540, Turkey with 1,342, and Ukraine with 1,172. More than 3,200 non-implemented judgments concerned violations by security forces and poor detention conditions. Nils Muiznieks, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, described the situation plainly: our work is based on cooperation and good faith. When you don't have that, it's very difficult to have an impact. Russia's approach was systematic: pay compensation to claimants in successful cases, but refuse to change the underlying practice. Russian courts even banned Moscow Pride for the next 100 years in 2012, following the court's 2010 ruling in Alekseyev v. Russia that the original ban violated freedom of assembly. In Burmych and Others v. Ukraine, decided in 2017, the court took an unusual step: it dismissed 12,143 pending cases following the pattern of Ivanov v. Ukraine, handing them entirely to the Council of Europe's Department of Execution. Ukraine had made no effort to resolve those cases in the eight years between the two judgments. As of 2020, the money owed to the complainants remained unpaid.

• 7. Rights Won and Rights Secured

  ›

  Across 46 countries, the court's rulings have produced concrete changes in law and practice. Article 2 cases have extended the right to life to include abolition of capital punishment and mandatory effective investigation of deaths in custody and those arising from domestic violence. Article 3 rulings ended police brutality in multiple jurisdictions, forced improvement of prison conditions, and banned forced sterilisation. Article 4 cases led to the criminalisation of forced labour and human trafficking in several countries. Article 5 work ended excessive pretrial detention that had left innocent people jailed for years. Under Article 8, the court ordered limits on wiretapping, led to the decriminalisation of homosexuality across member states, and reformed child custody regimes that had discriminated against men, LGBT people, and religious minorities. Article 14 and Protocol 12 rulings addressed institutional racism against Romani people. Property rights under Protocol 1, Article 1 required states to restore illegally confiscated property and pay fair compensation for expropriation. Awards of damages, which the court calls just satisfaction, are typically modest: they rarely exceed one thousand pounds plus legal costs. Non-pecuniary damages are calibrated more to what a state can afford than to the specific harm the complainant suffered. In 2010, the court received the Freedom Medal from the Roosevelt Institute in New York. A decade later, the Greek government nominated it for the Nobel Peace Prize, a signal of the esteem in which it is held, even as the gap between its rulings and their implementation continues to define the court's central unresolved challenge.