European Court of Human Rights
The European Court of Human Rights opened its doors in 1959. Its first case arrived the following year, Lawless v. Ireland, decided in 1960. This early period saw the court keep a low profile for many years. It did not accumulate much case law during those initial decades. The first finding of a violation came later, in Neumeister v Austria, which concluded in 1968. The court was established on the 21st of January 1959 based on Article 19 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Judges were elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe at that time. Access to the court remained restricted until the European Commission of Human Rights was abolished in 1998.
Judges serve non-renewable nine-year terms within this international body. The number of full-time judges equals the current count of contracting states, now standing at 46. Each judge must possess high moral character and qualifications suitable for high judicial office. They are jurists of recognized competence or hold similar legal stature. Elections occur whenever a sitting judge's term expires or when a new state joins the convention. Retiring age is set at 70, though service continues until a successor is elected or pending cases conclude. Judges perform duties individually and cannot maintain institutional ties with their home state. A two-thirds majority vote among peers can dismiss a judge who ceases to fulfill required conditions. Around 640 agents support the registry, divided into 31 sections with lawyers making up slightly less than half. Federico Di Salvo served as registrar, elected by the Plenary Court alongside his deputy.
The court holds jurisdiction over all member states of the Council of Europe except Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Russia, and Vatican City. Applications from individuals constitute the vast majority of cases heard here. Any person, non-governmental organization, or group may submit an application alleging rights violations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Official languages include English and French, yet submissions may use any official language of contracting states. Cases begin with registration and assignment to a Judge Rapporteur who decides admissibility. Inadmissibility arises from incompatibility with ratione materiae, ratione temporis, or ratione personae requirements. Formal grounds for rejection include failure to exhaust domestic remedies or lapse of four months from internal decisions. If admissible, chambers communicate cases to governments requesting observations. Chambers then deliberate on both admissibility and merits. Grand Chambers handle serious interpretation questions when parties agree to relinquish jurisdiction. A panel of five judges determines whether such referrals proceed. Inter-state cases remain rare despite being legally possible between any contracting state.
Living instrument doctrine guides primary judicial interpretation within this court. The convention text must be read in light of present-day conditions rather than original framers' intent. Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey (2008) emphasized upholding individual rights as practical protections instead of theoretical ones. This approach has evolved jurisprudence regarding differential treatment based on ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. Courts increasingly label unjustified discrimination in these areas. Definition of family under Article 8 expanded through Oliari and Others v Italy (2015) to include same-sex couples. Critics sometimes label such interpretations overreach or judicial activism. Academic analysis suggests the ECtHR remains pragmatic compared to other regional human rights courts like the Inter-American Court. Margin of appreciation doctrine allows member states discretion in setting moral standards within reason. Over time, courts have narrowed this margin significantly according to some commentators. Proponents argue local conceptions deserve recognition while critics claim consensus-based approaches lack legitimacy. Proportionality analysis governs much jurisprudence by balancing individual rights against community interests. National security, public safety, health, morals, and others' freedoms factor into these calculations first articulated in Belgian Linguistic Case No. 2.
The court lacks direct enforcement powers despite its authority. Some states ignore verdicts while continuing practices deemed violations. All damages must be paid within specified timeframes usually three months or interest accumulates. No formal deadline exists for complex compliance measures beyond monetary awards. Non-implemented judgments rose from 2,624 in 2001 to 9,944 by end-2016. Forty-eight percent had gone unimplemented five years or longer. In 2016 all but one Council of Europe country failed timely implementation of at least one judgment. Italy recorded 2,219 non-implemented cases while Russia logged 1,540 and Turkey 1,342. Ukraine followed with 1,172 outstanding matters. More than 3,200 involved security force violations or poor detention conditions. Russia systematically ignores ECtHR rulings yet pays compensation through a specific fund established by legislation. Hirst v. United Kingdom (2005) found blanket prisoner voting bans violated Article 3 Protocol 1 rights. Minimal compromise arrived only in 2017. Bosnia and Herzegovina's Constitution remained discriminatory regarding ethnic election eligibility as of December 2019 despite multiple confirmations. Alekseyev v. Russia (2010) judged Moscow Pride bans unconstitutional yet Russian courts banned events for the next century. Bayev and Others v. Russia (2017) addressed gay propaganda laws abridging free speech. Azerbaijani politician Ilgar Mammadov remained imprisoned until 2018 after illegal imprisonment ruling in 2014.
Court caseload expanded rapidly following Soviet Union collapse. Fewer than 8,400 cases filed in 1999 grew to 57,000 by 2009. Most cases concerned nationals from former Eastern Bloc countries where trust in court systems was lower. Backlog reached 120,000 cases in 2009 requiring 46 years processing at previous rates. The BBC described the court becoming victim of its own success. Between 2007 and 2017 annual case handling stayed constant between 1,280 and 1,550. Two-thirds involved repetitive patterns mostly concerning Turkey, Russia, Romania, and Poland. Repetitive cases indicate systemic human rights violations within specific nations. The 2010 Interlaken Declaration aimed reducing caseloads by cutting back on repetitive matters. Protocol 14 reforms empowered single judges to reject inadmissible applications directly. Pilot judgment systems now handle repetitive cases without formal findings per instance. Pending applications peaked at 151,600 in 2011 before declining to 59,800 by 2019. These changes increased declarations of inadmissibility or bypassed rulings under new procedures. Steven Greer noted large numbers of applications would not practically be examined creating structural denial of justice for certain categories. Access to justice faces de facto impediments due to lack of legal aid and other factors.
ECtHR rulings have expanded human rights protection across every signatory country. Article 2 secured right to life including abolition of capital punishment and effective investigation of deaths in custody. Article 3 ended torture and ill-treatment while improving prison conditions and banning forced sterilization. Article 4 criminalized forced labor and human trafficking in several jurisdictions. Article 5 protected liberty and security ending excessive pretrial detention imprisoning innocent people for years. Article 6 guaranteed fair trials quashing wrongful convictions limiting judicial proceedings length ensuring impartiality. Article 8 established privacy rights including wiretapping limits and decriminalizing homosexuality through Dudgeon v United Kingdom, Modinos v Cyprus, Norris v Ireland decisions. Family life protections ended discriminatory child custody regimes affecting men, LGBT individuals, religious minorities. Article 9 safeguarded freedom of conscience religion including conscientious objection proselytizing rights preventing undue burdens on religious organizations. Article 10 protected expression quashing defamation laws prohibiting unflattering opinions imposing excessive penalties shielding whistleblowers exposing corruption. Article 11 ensured association and assembly rights organizing pride parades political demonstrations. Article 14 Protocol 12 mandated equal treatment ruling against institutional racism targeting Romani communities. Property rights restoration occurred illegally confiscated state property with fair compensation for expropriation. The court received Freedom Medal from Roosevelt Institute New York in 2010. Greek government nominated the institution for Nobel Peace Prize in 2020.
Common questions
When was the European Court of Human Rights established?
The European Court of Human Rights opened its doors on the 21st of January 1959 based on Article 19 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Its first case arrived in 1960 and the court kept a low profile for many years during those initial decades.
How are judges elected to the European Court of Human Rights?
Judges serve non-renewable nine-year terms within this international body and are elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Elections occur whenever a sitting judge's term expires or when a new state joins the convention with a retiring age set at 70.
Which countries fall under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights?
The court holds jurisdiction over all member states of the Council of Europe except Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Russia, and Vatican City. Applications from individuals constitute the vast majority of cases heard here while inter-state cases remain rare despite being legally possible between any contracting state.
What is the living instrument doctrine used by the European Court of Human Rights?
Living instrument doctrine guides primary judicial interpretation within this court requiring that the convention text be read in light of present-day conditions rather than original framers' intent. This approach has evolved jurisprudence regarding differential treatment based on ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.
Why does the European Court of Human Rights lack direct enforcement powers?
Some states ignore verdicts while continuing practices deemed violations even though all damages must be paid within specified timeframes usually three months or interest accumulates. Non-implemented judgments rose from 2,624 in 2001 to 9,944 by end-2016 with forty-eight percent having gone unimplemented five years or longer.
All sources
119 references cited across the entry
- 1bookEuropean Court of Human Rights: Implementing Strasbourg's Judgments on Domestic PolicyDia Anagnostou — Edinburgh University Press — 30 April 2013
- 2bookStrategies of Compliance with the European Court of Human Rights: Rational Choice Within Normative ConstraintsAndreas von Staden — University of Pennsylvania Press — 2018
- 3conferenceUnderstanding the Binding Effect of the Case-Law of the ECtHR in Domestic Legal OrderTomáš Ľalík — 2011
- 4journalRedesigning the European Court of Human Rights: Embeddedness as a Deep Structural Principle of the European Human Rights RegimeL. R. Helfer — 2008
- 6bookA People's History of the European Court of Human RightsMichael Goldhaber — Rutgers University Press — 2008
- 7webThe court in briefEuropean Court of Human Rights
- 8bookThe Evolution of the European Convention on Human Rights: From Its Inception to the Creation of a Permanent Court of Human RightsEd Bates — Oxford University Press — 2010
- 15journalKosovo's Quest for Council of Europe MembershipKushtrim Istrefi — 2018
- 16bookThe essentials of Human RightsRhona K.M. Smith et al. — Hodder Arnold — 2005
- 18webProtocol No. 14 to the European Convention on Human Rights1 December 2004
- 19webProtocol no.14 Factsheet: The reform of the European Court of Human RightsCouncil of Europe — May 2010
- 20webElection of Judges to the European Court of Human RightsParliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
- 25webInter-States applications2019
- 27journalAdvisory opinions under Protocol No. 16 to the European Convention on Human RightsAda Paprocka et al. — 2015
- 28bookThe European Court of Human RightsAngelika Nussberger — Oxford University Press — 2020
- 29journalInternational Courts as Agents of Legal Change: Evidence from LGBT Rights in EuropeLaurence R. Helfer et al. — 2014
- 32webRules of Court3 June 2022
- 33encyclopediaJust satisfactionOxford University Press — 2018
- 34journalNon-pecuniary damages before the European Court of Human Rights: Forget the victim; it's all about the stateVeronika Fikfak — 2020
- 35journalChanging State Behaviour: Damages before the European Court of Human RightsVeronika Fikfak — 2018
- 36bookConstituting Europe: The European Court of Human Rights in a National, European and Global ContextGeorge Letsas — Cambridge University Press — 23 May 2013
- 37bookA Theory of Interpretation of the European Convention on Human RightsGeorge Letsas — Oxford University Press — 2007
- 38bookReligious Diversity and Interreligious DialogueMatthias Koenig — Springer International Publishing — 2020
- 40journalThe Creativity of the European Court of Human RightsA. Mowbray — 2005
- 41journalHow far can the European Court of Human Rights go in the fight against discrimination? Defining new standards in its nondiscrimination jurisprudenceC. Danisi — 2011
- 42journalJudicial Activism in the European Court of Justice – The Case of LGBT RightsHenri de Waele et al. — 2011
- 43journalThe Case for Same-Sex Marriage Before the European Court of Human RightsFrances Hamilton — 2018
- 44bookThe Legitimacy of Family Rights in Strasbourg Case Law: 'Living Instrument' or Extinguished Sovereignty?Carmen Draghici — Bloomsbury Publishing — 2017
- 45bookJudicial Activism and the Democratic Rule of Law: Selected Case StudiesSonja C. Grover — Springer Nature — 2020
- 47journalMargin of Appreciation and Incrementalism in the Case Law of the European Court of Human RightsJanneke Gerards — 2018
- 48journalA Defence of the Margin of Appreciation and an Argument for ITS Application by the Human Rights CommitteeDominic McGoldrick — 2016
- 49bookCriticism of the European Court of Human Rights: Shifting the Convention System: Counter-dynamics at the National and EU LevelKoen Lemmens — Intersentia — 2016
- 50journalConsensus and Contestability: The ECtHR and the Combined Potential of European Consensus and Procedural Rationality ControlThomas Kleinlein — 13 November 2017
- 51journalNo Consensus on Incest? Criminalisation and Compatibility with the European Convention on Human RightsJ. A. Roffee — 2014
- 52webStackPath
- 53bookEuropäischer Gerichtshof für MenschenrechteKlaus Brummer — VS-Verlag — 2008
- 56bookEuropean Yearbook on Human Rights 2018Lize R. Glas — Intersentia — 2018
- 57journalPrecedent in International Courts: A Network Analysis of Case Citations by the European Court of Human RightsYonatan Lupu et al. — 2012
- 59webRussia may overrule European law14 July 2015
- 60webGermany: Binding Effect of Judgments of the European Court of Human RightsThorsten Ader — Council of Europe — 14 October 2004
- 61ssrnThe Dialogue between the ECHR and the Italian Constitutional Court: The Saga of 'Giem and Others V ItalyIulia Motoc et al. — 2019-02-17
- 62bookCriticism of the European Court of Human Rights: Shifting the Convention System: Counter-dynamics at the National and EU LevelIntersentia — 2016
- 63journalChallenging the Unconditional: Partial Compliance with ECtHR Judgments in the South Caucasus StatesRamute Remezaite — 2019
- 64journalRussia's Relations with the European Court of Human Rights in the Aftermath of the Markin Decision: Debating the "Backlash"Galina A. Nelaeva et al. — 2020
- 65journalThe European Court of Human Rights and minority religions: messages generated and messages receivedEffie Fokas et al. — 2017
- 66webCountry Map
- 67bookThe Enforcement of EU Law and Values: Ensuring Member States' ComplianceÉlisabeth Lambert Abdelgawad — Oxford University Press — 2017
- 68journalThe European Court of Human Rights supervising the execution of its judgmentsLize R. Glas — 2019
- 69newsEurope's human rights court struggles to lay down the lawGinger Hervey — 20 September 2017
- 70bookRussia and the European Court of Human RightsLauri Mälksoo — Cambridge University Press — 2017
- 71newsPrisoner voting rights compromise struck7 December 2017
- 72journalExecution of the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in Prisoners' Right to Vote CasesErgul Celiksoy — 2020
- 73journalSejdić & Finci v. Bosnia and HerzegovinaMarko Milanovic — 2010
- 74newsBosnia Constitution Still 'Outrageously' Violates Minority Rights – HRWMaja Zivanovic — 13 December 2019
- 75journalHomosexuality, Freedom of Assembly and the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine of the European Court of Human Rights: Alekseyev v RussiaP. Johnson — 2011
- 76journalAlekseyev and Others v. Russia (Eur. Ct. H.R.)Pieter Cannoot — 2019
- 77journalThe other way around? How freedom of religion may protect LGBT rightsDag Øistein Endsjø — 2020
- 78bookRussia and the European Court of Human Rights: The Strasbourg EffectDmitri Bartenev — Cambridge University Press — 2017
- 79journalCertiorari through the Back Door? The Judgment by the European Court of Human Rights in Burmych and Others v. Ukraine in PerspectiveGeir Ulfstein et al. — 2018
- 80bookEuropean Yearbook on Human Rights 2018Agnieszka Szklanna — Intersentia — 2018
- 81newsProfile: European Court of Human Rights5 February 2015
- 82journalA Decade of Violations of the European Convention on Human Rights: Exploring Patterns of Repetitive ViolationsDavid Reichel et al. — 2018
- 83journalThe Admissibility Criterion Under Article 35(3)(b) ECHR: a 'Significant Disadvantage' to Human Rights Protection?Nikos Vogiatzis — 2016
- 84journalThe Russian Federation, Protocol No. 14 (and 14bis), and the Battle for the Soul of the ECHRBill Bowring — 2010
- 85inlineAnalysis of statistics 2019
- 86journalEuropeSteven Greer
- 87journalAccess to justice in the European Convention on Human Rights systemJanneke H. Gerards et al. — 2017
- 88journalLegal aid for intervenors in proceedings before the European Court of Human RightsEdita Gruodytė et al. — 2016
- 89webImpact of the European Convention on Human RightsCouncil of Europe
- 90bookShaping Rights in the ECHR: The Role of the European Court of Human Rights in Determining the Scope of Human RightsCambridge University Press — 2014
- 91webRight to LifeCouncil of Europe
- 92bookLethal Force, the Right to Life and the ECHR: Narratives of Death and DemocracyStephen Skinner — Bloomsbury Publishing — 2019
- 93bookBetween Forbearance and Audacity: The European Court of Human Rights and the Norm against TortureEzgi Yildiz — Cambridge University Press — 2023
- 94webTorture and Ill-treatmentCouncil of Europe
- 95inlineStrasbourg Observers
- 96journalForced sterilization of women as discriminationPriti Patel — 2017
- 97webSlavery and Human TraffickingCouncil of Europe
- 98bookWhen Humans Become Migrants: Study of the European Court of Human Rights with an Inter-American CounterpointMarie-Bénédicte Dembour — Oxford University Press — 2015
- 99webLibertyCouncil of Europe
- 100bookLiberty and Security in Europe: A Comparative Analysis of Pre-trial Precautionary Measures in Criminal ProceedingsV&R unipress GmbH — 2012
- 101webRight to a Fair TrialCouncil of Europe
- 102bookCriminal Fair Trial Rights: Article 6 of the European Convention on Human RightsRyan Goss — Bloomsbury Publishing — 2014
- 103webPrivacyCouncil of Europe
- 104journalA Comparative Approach to Understanding Developments in Privacy Rights in the European Court of Human RightsCatherine Bratic — 2012–2013
- 105webFamilyCouncil of Europe
- 106journalSurrogacy and the ECtHR: Reflections on Paradiso and Campanelli v ItalyMarianna Iliadou — 2019
- 107bookEuropean Human Rights and Family LawShazia Choudhry et al. — Bloomsbury Publishing — 2010
- 108webFreedom of ReligionCouncil of Europe
- 109bookThe European Court of Human Rights and Minority Religions: Messages Generated and Messages ReceivedRoutledge — 2020
- 110webFreedom of speechCouncil of Europe
- 111journalFreedom of Speech as Related to Journalists in the ECtHR, IACtHR and the Human Rights Committee – a Study of FragmentationMarjan Ajevski — 2014
- 112webFreedom of AssemblyCouncil of Europe
- 113bookThe Right to Freedom of Assembly: A Comparative StudyOrsolya Salát — Bloomsbury Publishing — 2015
- 114webEqualityCouncil of Europe
- 115journalNew label no progress: institutional racism and the persistent segregation of Romani students in the Czech RepublicLaura Cashman — 2017
- 116webPropertyCouncil of Europe
- 117bookConstitutionalism and the Enlargement of EuropeWojciech Sadurski — Oxford University Press — 2012
- 119webGreek nomination of the European Court of Human Rights for the 2020 Nobel Peace PrizeMinistry of Foreign Affairs