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.