european court of human rights case study

Grand Chamber judgment in an inter-State case

In the case of Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) the Court has found multiple violations of the European Convention.

The case concerned the Ukrainian Government’s allegations of human-rights violations that had been part of a campaign of repression since early 2014 in Crimea, which included in particular disappearances; ill-treatment; unlawful detention; impossibility to opt out of Russian citizenship; suppression of Ukrainian media and of the Ukrainian language in schools; pre-trial detention in overcrowded conditions; prosecution and conviction on fabricated charges in reprisal for any pro-Ukrainian stance; discrimination against Crimean Tatars; and, transfers from Crimea to prisons in Russia.

The Court considered that it had enough evidence to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the incidents had been sufficiently numerous and interconnected to amount to a pattern or system of violations. Moreover, the apparent lack of an effective investigation into the incidents and/or the general application of the measures to all people concerned, among other things, proved that such practices had been officially tolerated by the Russian authorities.

• Press release
• Delivery of the judgment
• Questions and Answers on inter-State cases
• Inter-State applications

Chamber News

Judgment concerning France

In the case of M.A. and Others v. France the Court held that there had been no violation of the right to respect for private life.

The case concerned the creation, under French criminal law, of the offence of purchasing sexual relations, which, in the applicants’ allegation, seriously endangered the physical and mental integrity and health of individuals engaged in prostitution, and radically infringed on their right to respect for private life, in so far as this included the right to personal autonomy and sexual freedom.

• Factsheet: Work related rights
• Factsheet: Trafficking in human beings

Judgment concerning Latvia

In the case of Ždanoka v. Latvia no. 2 the Court held that there had been no violation of the right to free elections.

The case concerned the removal of Ms Ždanoka, a former MEP, from the candidate list for the 2018 parliamentary elections, owing to her active membership of the Communist Party of Latvia during the post-independence struggles against the Soviet Union. She had been a candidate for the Latvian Union of Russians.

Judgment concerning Spain

In the case of Couso Permuy v. Spain the Court held that there had been no violation of the right of access to a court.

The case concerned the killing in 2003 of the applicant’s brother, a camera operator on mission in Iraq, and the decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings opened in Spain to investigate.

In the case of Djeri and Others v. Latvia  the Court held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken together with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education).

The case concerned 2018 amendments to the law whereby the use of Latvian – the national language – was increased in all pre-schools in Latvia, both public or private, and the use of Russian was consequently reduced. The Court found that the measures taken by the Latvian Government to increase the use of the national language in pre-schools had been proportionate and necessary to prepare pupils for primary education, to ensure unity in the education system and to ensure a sufficient level of Latvian for residents to participate effectively in public life.

• Factsheet: Children's rights

Delivered Judgments and Decisions

• 5 Judgments & 2 Decisions
• Hanovs v. Latvia

Forthcoming Judgments & Decisions

Grand chamber news.

Relinquishment

The Chamber to which the case H.M.M. and Others v. Latvia had been allocated has relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber.

The case concerns alleged “pushbacks” in the vicinity of the Latvian‑Belarusian border starting from 10 August 2021.

There are currently over 30 cases pending before the Court against Lithuania, Latvia and Poland concerning the situation at the Belarusian borders from spring 2021 to summer 2023.

• Cases pending before the Grand Chamber

Request for advisory opinion rejected

On 28 June 2024 the Court decided to refuse the request for an advisory opinion submitted by the High Court of Cassation and Justice of Romania. 

The High Court had requested the ECHR to give an opinion on two questions concerning the interpretation of Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention. The Court decided not to accept the request, considering that it did not concern a question of principle, within the meaning of Article 1 § 1 of Protocol No. 16, warranting examination by the Court’s Grand Chamber. The Court’s case-law was well developed with regard to the questions asked, and several aspects of that case-law were judiciously cited by the requesting court in its decision to refer the matter to the Court.

• Press release  
• Advisory opinions
• Q&A: Advisory opinions

Inadmissiblity decision concerning Monaco

The Court declared the application in the case of Levrault v. Monaco inadmissible.

The case concerned a decision by the Monegasque authorities not to renew the secondment of the applicant, Mr Edouard Levrault, a French judge acting as an investigating judge in Monaco. The applicant complained to the Court, alleging a breach of the right to a fair hearing as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention.

• Press release 

Inadmissiblity decision concerning Romania

The Court declared the application in the case of Ceort v. Romania inadmissible.

The case concerned the criminal conviction of a public prosecutor at the High Court of Cassation and Justice, for soliciting a bribe. Relying on the right to a fair trial of the Convention, the applicant complained that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair.

The Court found that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies for his complaints concerning his lawyers’ access to his case file and his first-instance conviction by a “nonspecialised” three-judge bench. It also found that his allegations regarding the evidence, the use of a co-defendant’s statements and police entrapment were manifestly ill-founded.

Communication of cases

Communication of cases to türkiye.

The Court has communicated to the Government of Türkiye five cases covering 1,000 other applications.

The applications concern convictions for membership of an armed terrorist organisation, based on the alleged use of the encrypted messaging application called ByLock .

The core issues raised by the applicants have already been judged in the Court’s Grand Chamber case  Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye . In that judgment the Court highlighted that there were over 8,000 applications on the Court’s docket involving similar complaints. These 1,000 apparent follow-up applications are the third batch to be notified to the Turkish Government. Against that background, the Court decided not to put any questions to the parties or to require any observations on the applications. 

Grand Chamber hearing in an inter-State case

The Court held a Grand Chamber hearing in the case of  Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia .

This Inter-State case covers complaints concerning the Russian military operations in Ukraine since 24 February 2022 and the conflict in eastern Ukraine involving pro-Russian separatists which began in 2014, including the downing of Flight MH17.

• Webcast of the hearing
• Questions to the parties
• Questions and Answers on Inter-State applications

Quick Links

• Recent judgments | Recent decisions
• Recent press releases
• Multimedia | Twitter @ECHR_CEDH
• Superior Courts' Network
• Other languages
• Factsheets |  Country profiles
• Legal summaries
• Information visits

• Country profiles

Country profiles  containing data and information, broken down by individual State, on significant cases considered by the Court or currently pending before it, have been updated. There is one country profile for each Council of Europe member State.

2nd Liverpool Summer School on the Law of the Council of Europe

On 19 July 2024, the President of the Court, Marko Bošnjak, delivered a keynote speech at the 2nd Liverpool Summer School on the Law of the Council of Europe, entitled “Council of Europe at 75: Protecting Human Rights, Democracy, and the Rule of Law in a Rapidly Changing World”, at the University of Liverpool (United Kingdom).

2024 United Nations High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development

On 11 July 2024, the President of the Court, Marko Bošnjak, delivered a video message as part of a side event of the 2024 United Nations High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development, entitled Charting the way forward: Combating the impact of climate change on human rights , organised by the Council of Europe and the Permanent Mission of Lithuania to the United Nations in New York.

This website uses cookies. Read our policy .

Grand Chamber judgment in an inter-State case

In the case of Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) the Court has found multiple violations of the European Convention.

The case concerned the Ukrainian Government’s allegations of human-rights violations that had been part of a campaign of repression since early 2014 in Crimea, which included in particular disappearances; ill-treatment; unlawful detention; impossibility to opt out of Russian citizenship; suppression of Ukrainian media and of the Ukrainian language in schools; pre-trial detention in overcrowded conditions; prosecution and conviction on fabricated charges in reprisal for any pro-Ukrainian stance; discrimination against Crimean Tatars; and, transfers from Crimea to prisons in Russia.

The Court considered that it had enough evidence to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the incidents had been sufficiently numerous and interconnected to amount to a pattern or system of violations. Moreover, the apparent lack of an effective investigation into the incidents and/or the general application of the measures to all people concerned, among other things, proved that such practices had been officially tolerated by the Russian authorities.

• Press release
• Delivery of the judgment
• Questions and Answers on inter-State cases
• Inter-State applications

Chamber News

Judgment concerning France

In the case of M.A. and Others v. France the Court held that there had been no violation of the right to respect for private life.

The case concerned the creation, under French criminal law, of the offence of purchasing sexual relations, which, in the applicants’ allegation, seriously endangered the physical and mental integrity and health of individuals engaged in prostitution, and radically infringed on their right to respect for private life, in so far as this included the right to personal autonomy and sexual freedom.

• Factsheet: Work related rights
• Factsheet: Trafficking in human beings

Judgment concerning Latvia

In the case of Ždanoka v. Latvia no. 2 the Court held that there had been no violation of the right to free elections.

The case concerned the removal of Ms Ždanoka, a former MEP, from the candidate list for the 2018 parliamentary elections, owing to her active membership of the Communist Party of Latvia during the post-independence struggles against the Soviet Union. She had been a candidate for the Latvian Union of Russians.

Judgment concerning Spain

In the case of Couso Permuy v. Spain the Court held that there had been no violation of the right of access to a court.

The case concerned the killing in 2003 of the applicant’s brother, a camera operator on mission in Iraq, and the decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings opened in Spain to investigate.

In the case of Djeri and Others v. Latvia  the Court held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken together with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education).

The case concerned 2018 amendments to the law whereby the use of Latvian – the national language – was increased in all pre-schools in Latvia, both public or private, and the use of Russian was consequently reduced. The Court found that the measures taken by the Latvian Government to increase the use of the national language in pre-schools had been proportionate and necessary to prepare pupils for primary education, to ensure unity in the education system and to ensure a sufficient level of Latvian for residents to participate effectively in public life.

• Factsheet: Children's rights

Delivered Judgments and Decisions

• 5 Judgments & 2 Decisions
• Hanovs v. Latvia

Forthcoming Judgments & Decisions

Grand chamber news.

Relinquishment

The Chamber to which the case H.M.M. and Others v. Latvia had been allocated has relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber.

The case concerns alleged “pushbacks” in the vicinity of the Latvian‑Belarusian border starting from 10 August 2021.

There are currently over 30 cases pending before the Court against Lithuania, Latvia and Poland concerning the situation at the Belarusian borders from spring 2021 to summer 2023.

• Cases pending before the Grand Chamber

Request for advisory opinion rejected

On 28 June 2024 the Court decided to refuse the request for an advisory opinion submitted by the High Court of Cassation and Justice of Romania. 

The High Court had requested the ECHR to give an opinion on two questions concerning the interpretation of Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention. The Court decided not to accept the request, considering that it did not concern a question of principle, within the meaning of Article 1 § 1 of Protocol No. 16, warranting examination by the Court’s Grand Chamber. The Court’s case-law was well developed with regard to the questions asked, and several aspects of that case-law were judiciously cited by the requesting court in its decision to refer the matter to the Court.

• Press release  
• Advisory opinions
• Q&A: Advisory opinions

Grand Chamber hearing in an inter-State case

The Court held a Grand Chamber hearing in the case of  Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia .

This Inter-State case covers complaints concerning the Russian military operations in Ukraine since 24 February 2022 and the conflict in eastern Ukraine involving pro-Russian separatists which began in 2014, including the downing of Flight MH17.

• Webcast of the hearing
• Questions to the parties
• Questions and Answers on Inter-State applications

Inadmissiblity decision concerning Monaco

The Court declared the application in the case of Levrault v. Monaco inadmissible.

The case concerned a decision by the Monegasque authorities not to renew the secondment of the applicant, Mr Edouard Levrault, a French judge acting as an investigating judge in Monaco. The applicant complained to the Court, alleging a breach of the right to a fair hearing as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention.

• Press release 

Inadmissiblity decision concerning Romania

The Court declared the application in the case of Ceort v. Romania inadmissible.

The case concerned the criminal conviction of a public prosecutor at the High Court of Cassation and Justice, for soliciting a bribe. Relying on the right to a fair trial of the Convention, the applicant complained that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair.

The Court found that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies for his complaints concerning his lawyers’ access to his case file and his first-instance conviction by a “nonspecialised” three-judge bench. It also found that his allegations regarding the evidence, the use of a co-defendant’s statements and police entrapment were manifestly ill-founded.

Restoration of an application

The Court has today exceptionally restored to its list of cases the application Bryska v. Ukraine . 

The Court had originally struck the application out of its list of cases in 2023. Owing to the Russian military action in Ukraine, it had not been possible for the Court to send postal correspondence to that State. As the application form had not included a functioning method of contact other than a postal address and the applicant had not been in contact with the Court for a considerable time, the Court had considered that she had no longer wished to pursue her application. The Court published a press release about that decision, in order to draw attention of the applicants affected by the decision and give them an opportunity to contact the Court. The applicant contacted the Court, having seen coverage of the decision of her case in the press, to state that she wanted to pursue her application.

Given the grounds on which the case had originally been struck out, exceptional circumstances justifying restoration were present, and so the Court ordered the restoration of her application to its list of cases.

• Rules of Court

Inadmissibility decision concerning Germany

The Court declared the application in the case of  Büttner and Krebs v. Germany  inadmissible.

The case concerned the planning permission for the construction of the Berlin Brandenburg Airport. The applicants, who owned property near the airport, unsuccessfully challenged the planning decision in the German courts. They alleged that the authorities knowingly provided incorrect information about the projected flight paths during the planning approval procedure. The applicants, whose property is situated on the diverged flight paths, alleged that they had only realised after planning permission had been granted that the noise impact on their properties would be far greater than they had originally thought.

The applicants complained that they had not had access to all the relevant information on the projected flight paths and noise impact of the airport, meaning that they had been unable to effectively challenge the planning decision. They also complained that the German courts had considered as irrelevant certain procedural shortcomings, namely the authorities’ failure to display plans in all the municipalities that were going to be affected by aircraft noise from the new airport and to include in the assessment of the airport’s environmental impact the areas that would be affected by the revised routes.

The Court agreed with the national courts’ assessment of the applicants’ case, which had been thoroughly examined in court proceedings that had provided all necessary safeguards. It notably agreed with the courts’ finding that the rights at stake had been correctly balanced in the planning decision and that, although there had been certain procedural shortcomings, the outcome would not in any event have been more favourable to the applicants. In particular, although the flight paths ultimately used had been different to the ones outlined in the planning decision, the noise impact affected a broadly similar amount of people.

• Factsheet: Environment

Inadmissibility decisions concerning Italy

The Court declared the applications in the cases of  Prinari v. Italy, Cotena v. Italy, Rotolo v. Italy and Gelsomino v. Italy  inadmissible.

The cases concerned the rejection of the applicants’ separate applications to the Italian authorities for a reduction in their life sentences to 30 years’ imprisonment within proceedings for the review of the enforcement order relating to their sentences ( incidente di esecuzione ).

The Court found that the applicants had attempted to use reviews of enforcement orders to have their sentences changed by the Italian courts. They had incorrectly believed that the six-month timelimit had run from the decisions in that regard. The Court ruled that as that had been an ineffective remedy, earlier decisions in their cases before other courts had to be considered the “final” ones. Given that the applications had been lodged more than six months after these decisions, the Court held that they had been lodged out of time.

• Factsheet: Life sentences

Inadmissibility decision concerning Italy

The Court declared the applications in the case of Morabito and Others v. Italy inadmissible.

The case concerned doctors who had attended specialisation courses between 1982 and 1991; they complained of the Italian authorities’ delayed transposition of an EU Directive into national law, and alleged, more specifically, that they had not received the “appropriate remuneration” that the member States of the European Union had been required to pay under the Directive.

The Court found that the contested difference in economic treatment had been a direct consequence of the difference in the number of hours worked per year by the applicants compared to the other doctors concerned. This case follows on from the Ruggeri and Others v. Italy decision concerning doctors who attended specialisation courses after 1991.

• Factsheet: Work-related rights

Inadmissibility decision concerning France

The Court has declared the application in the case Amar v. France inadmissible.

The case concerned disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, who at the relevant time had been Deputy Prosecutor at the National Public Prosecutor’s Office for Financial Offences (“PNF”). In that capacity, he had worked on several cases concerning former French President Nicolas Sarkozy, including on a charge of bribing a member of the Court of Cassation. On 26 March and 21 April 2021 the Prime Minister lodged a disciplinary complaint against the applicant with the Judicial Service Commission (Conseil supérieur de la magistrature, “CSM”), alleging that he had breached his ethical obligations.

Due to the interruption of the international postal ser ...

As announced in the court’s press release of 29 aug ....

• Country profiles

Country profiles  containing data and information, broken down by individual State, on significant cases considered by the Court or currently pending before it, have been updated. There is one country profile for each Council of Europe member State.

2nd Liverpool Summer School on the Law of the Council of Europe

On 19 July 2024, the President of the Court, Marko Bošnjak, delivered a keynote speech at the 2nd Liverpool Summer School on the Law of the Council of Europe, entitled “Council of Europe at 75: Protecting Human Rights, Democracy, and the Rule of Law in a Rapidly Changing World”, at the University of Liverpool (United Kingdom).

This website uses cookies. Read our policy .

The European Convention on Human Rights

Landmark judgments.

The Convention provision which has been violated most is Article 6, as regards the right to a fair trial, then the reasonable time requirement. The next most frequent violations are under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 5 of the Convention (right to liberty and security).

The Court has also given rulings on various social issues such as abortion, assisted suicide, body searches, domestic slavery, adoption by homosexuals, wearing religious symbols at school, the recognition of transsexuals, the protection of journalists’ sources and even environmental issues.

• Right to life
• Prohibition of torture
• Prohibition of slavery and forced labour
• Right to liberty and security
• Right to a fair trial
• No punishment without law
• Right to respect for private and family life
• Freedom of religion
• Freedom of expression
• Prohibition of discrimination
• Protection of property
• Prohibition of collective expulsions

• Rights and freedoms in practice
• Selection of books on human rights education
• Selection of free resources on human rights education
• The Council of Europe in brief
• The European Court of Human Rights

Paragraph-level Rationale Extraction through Regularization: A case study on E uropean Court of Human Rights Cases

Ilias Chalkidis , Manos Fergadiotis , Dimitrios Tsarapatsanis , Nikolaos Aletras , Ion Androutsopoulos , Prodromos Malakasiotis

Export citation

• Preformatted

Markdown (Informal)

[Paragraph-level Rationale Extraction through Regularization: A case study on European Court of Human Rights Cases](https://aclanthology.org/2021.naacl-main.22) (Chalkidis et al., NAACL 2021)

• Paragraph-level Rationale Extraction through Regularization: A case study on European Court of Human Rights Cases (Chalkidis et al., NAACL 2021)
• Ilias Chalkidis, Manos Fergadiotis, Dimitrios Tsarapatsanis, Nikolaos Aletras, Ion Androutsopoulos, and Prodromos Malakasiotis. 2021. Paragraph-level Rationale Extraction through Regularization: A case study on European Court of Human Rights Cases . In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies , pages 226–241, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.

Recent Case: K.N. v. the United Kingdom

In a “dramatic 11th-hour” move , the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) granted urgent interim measures on June 14 in K.N. v. United Kingdom , staying the deportation of an Iraqi asylum-seeker. The ECHR declared that K.N. be allowed to remain in the United Kingdom until his legal challenge to the U.K.’s policy of sending asylum-seekers to Rwanda is reviewed by a British court. In response, the British government grounded the plane, granting K.N. temporary reprieve. This story, splashed across global headlines, drew worldwide attention to the United Kingdom’s new policy of migrant ‘offloading,’ representative of disturbing global trends among wealthy nations to curb the flow of asylum-seekers at their borders. It also inspired interest in the ECHR, presenting a cinematic picture of the Strasbourg court as an arbiter capable of stepping in at a moment’s notice. But the true picture is murkier: with the United Kingdom vowing to fight the policy and the review powers of international human rights law limited, the ultimate authority over immigration policies rests in domestic governments.

The United Kingdom recently enacted a new immigration policy, allowing certain asylum-seekers to be transferred to Rwanda. The two countries signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on April 14, 2022, through which asylum-seekers “whose claims [were] not being considered” by British authorities may be transferred to Rwanda. In Rwanda, their immigration claims would be adjudicated according to Rwandan and international law. The MOU does not guarantee asylum-seekers legal status in Rwanda—rather, Rwandan authorities will settle or remove those individuals after processing their claims. The Rwanda policy’s legal authority draws from the United Kingdom’s 2022 Nationality and Borders Act (“the Act”), which allows for asylum seekers to be “remov[ed] to a safe third country.”

Immigrants’ rights groups criticized the policy, calling “[u]nlawful, inhumane, [and] unworkable.” Scholars and NGOs further argued that Home Secretary Priti Patel had cut procedural corners in setting out the agreement and failed to show that Rwanda qualified as a “safe third country” under the Act. International organizations, including the UN Refugee Agency, also raised doubts that Rwanda is compliant with international human rights norms in its treatment of refugees. 

On June 8, a coalition of civil society groups representing asylum-seekers challenged the legality of the policy in the High Court (a U.K. court of first instance). The coalition argued that the proposed deportations unlawfully penalized asylum seekers for their irregular entry into the United Kingdom and that Patel failed to disclose criteria behind the selection of migrants to be sent to Rwanda.  

On June 10, four days before the first deportation was set to take place, High Court Justice Swift “ granted the claimants permission to apply for judicial review” of the policy and set a hearing date in July, but refused to grant interim relief to stay their removal. He found that the “material public interest” in allowing the government to enact policy outweighed the potential problems suffered by the claimants if removed to Rwanda, even were the policy to be overturned.  

In whirlwind legal proceedings over the next four days, the claimants appealed from the High Court to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, failing at each stage to gain an injunction. Through Lord Reed, the Supreme Court explained that Patel had given assurances that, were the policy to be overturned, British governments would “take all reasonable steps” to facilitate asylum-seekers’ return to the United Kingdom, and as such there was little risk of irreparable harm.

K.N. also pursued a legal challenge in the ECHR, the international court that oversees compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights . On the same day that the Supreme Court ruled against him, the ECHR granted an “urgent interim measure,” ruling that he “should not be removed until . . . three weeks following the delivery of the final domestic decision in the ongoing judicial review process.” The ECHR found that there were “serious triable issues” presented in the MOU, including whether the decision to treat Rwanda as a safe third country was based on sufficient evidence. The ECHR determined that, were K.N. removed to Rwanda before the policy’s legality was determined, he may face “treatment contrary to [his] Convention rights” and a “real risk of irreversible harm” due to the “lack of any legally enforceable mechanism for [his] return.” 

The U.K.-Rwanda partnership is representative of a move among wealthy nations to limit the flow of refugees and asylum-seekers into their countries at all costs.  States have begun programs of offshore processing, of deterrence, and now of foisting asylum-seekers onto third countries. The role of international human rights courts as a venue of final appeal, spotlighted so dramatically by the ECHR’s injunction in this case, is perhaps alluring to the outside observer (or, conversely, frustrating to a government’s immigration tsar). Ultimately, though, the power of human rights instruments is limited by the consent of nation-states, and with the United Kingdom seemingly set on a hardline immigration stance, K.N.’s reprieve may prove short-lived.

The Rwanda policy culminates a steady ramping-up of aggression in British politics towards refugees. Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s administration has taken repeated harsh stances against immigration, with Patel leading the charge. The Act, which established the deportation policy’s legal basis, also created a scheme of “differential treatment” among refugees: allowing the government to deny refugees arriving without prior authorization certain legal protections. In a speech unveiling the Rwanda policy, Prime Minister Johnson lauded his administration’s efforts to “tak[e] back control of illegal immigration,” repeatedly referring to “gangs” and “vile people smugglers.” He accused these groups of “abusing” the British system and announced that “from today,” those who arrived in the United Kingdom “illegally” would be subject to removal to Rwanda. Prime Minister Johnson, seemingly blind to irony, extolled the Rwandan partnership as an “innovative approach — driven [by] our shared humanitarian impulse.”

This new British policy epitomizes what scholars have dubbed “migration externalization.” In this model, countries seek to deter or minimize the number asylum-seekers who arrive at their borders through deals with third countries. Australia has infamously set up processing centers—heavily criticized for their harsh conditions and lack of due process— on Pacific Islands nations, deflecting all arrivals to them. Countries may also use ‘softer’ tools, like donations or aid deals , to persuade would-be refugees to stay home. The European Union has provided funds to Northern African countries like Libya and Egypt to strengthen local coast guards and prevent migrant flows across the Mediterranean, and has made deals with Turkey to restrict the flow of Syrian refugees into Europe. The United States’ “Remain in Mexico” policy , enacted under President Trump, seeks to ensure that asylum-seekers stay south of the U.S.-Mexico border while their claims are processed. Australia has even advertised its strict immigration policies abroad, erecting billboards in war-torn Sri Lanka warning would-be migrants that “boats that go to Australia without permission [will be] returned to the deep sea.”

The United Kingdom’s Rwanda policy goes yet further. The United Kingdom is not simply seeking to deter migrants, or to provide a processing point beyond its borders; it is divesting itself completely of responsibility for the migrants it sends to Rwanda. Those asylum-seekers will lose all hope of being resettled in the United Kingdom, of rejoining family members or connections that they may have taken arduous journeys to meet. If their claims are deemed credible in Rwanda under local asylum statutes, they will begin new lives with legal status, but in Rwanda . Scholars have warned that this type of policy could signify a “next step in a broader policy push that some high-income countries are taking to externalize migration management.”

As draconian and dystopian as the Rwanda policy may be, the ECHR’s dramatic intervention imbues the story with, seemingly, some glimmer of hope. If only momentarily, the profile of international human rights law was dramatically raised on the global stage. Explainers of the court proliferated, with news sites clamoring to tell their readership what the ECHR is and how it had managed to trump the United Kingdom’s highest court. Reactions were mixed, with rights groups championing the court’s influence in protecting migrants while conservative commentators lamented the “assault on British democracy.” The ECHR has protected the rights of migrants in other contexts, but none with so dramatic an effect.

But the ability of international human rights law and specialized courts to stop policies of migrant externalization is unclear. The ECHR’s decision was not a revocation of Britain’s policy, merely a stay of deportation until the policy is reviewed ina Britishcourt. Moreover, the ECHR has not signaled whether it would override the Rwanda policy if it were to be deemed legal under U.K. law. And even if it did, the United Kingdom could just leave the ECHR—as Prime Minister Johnson suggested was under “constant review” in the wake of K.N .

Outside Europe, the picture is even gloomier. Other international human rights bodies have not been as successful in challenging the domestic immigration schemes of powerful nations. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR), for example, has conducted visits to the U.S.-Mexico border and has condemned the MPP policy—but to no avail.  Indeed, the United States has never ratified the IACHR’s underlying Convention, and is bound as a participant in the Court only by its earlier ratification of the much vaguer American Declaration on the Rights of Man . United Nations envoys have warned about the dangers posed to migrants by the externalization of asylum-seekers, but United Nations organs like the Human Rights Committee are hamstrung by political alliances and act mainly on a “name and shame” model of aspirational enforcement. Policies are also shielded from international review by other forms of inaction—a submission to the International Criminal Court to investigate Australia’s migrant policy for potential crimes against humanity was rejected in 2020. 

The ECHR’s decisive move garnered excitement and evocative headlines, but the chance of a movie-perfect ending is limited. With the British government vowing to push back, the fate of K.N. and other asylum-seekers rests largely in the hands of their domestic government. In July, a British court will deliver its own judgment on the Rwanda policy’s validity under U.K. law. What its decision will be, and whether asylum-seekers’ allies will mount successful challenges to the policy in the ECHR, is yet to be seen. K.N. and his fellow asylum-seekers may remain in the United Kingdom for the time being, but they are far from finding the peace and finality for which they have already journeyed so far. 

The views expressed in this article are those of the author in her personal capacity and should not be understood as representing those of any United States government entity.

• Human Rights
• International Law

More from the Blog

The anti-regulation quartet and internationally informed regulation.

• Elena Chachko

Conundrums of Constraint: United States v. Rahimi and the Future of the Bruen Test

• Bianca Corgan

Measuring Broadband Policy Success

• Haarika Manda
• Varshika Srinivasavaradhan
• Laasya Koduru
• Kevin Zhang
• Xuanhe Zhou
• Elizabeth Belding
• Arpit Gupta
• Tejas N. Narechania

Select site language

• Slovenščina

Case Law Database

Here you can find case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) with direct references to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as a selection of national case law with direct references to the Charter from all EU Member States.

1683 case law references found

• CJUE C-196/23 / Judgement Subtitle: CL, GO, GN, VO, TI, HZ, DN, DL v DB, acting in the capacity of sole successor to FC, Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa) Deciding body type: Court of Justice of the European Union Deciding body: Court (Second Chamber) ECLI (European case law identifier): ECLI:EU:C:2024:596 Decision date: 11/07/2024 Policy area: Employment and social policy
• CJUE Joined Cases C-554/21, C-622/21 and C-727/21 / Judgment Subtitle: Financijska agencija v HANN-INVEST d.o.o. (C‑554/21), MINERAL-SEKULINE d.o.o. (C‑622/21), and UDRUGA KHL MEDVEŠČAK ZAGREB (C‑727/21) Deciding body type: Court of Justice of the European Union Deciding body: Court (Grand Chamber) ECLI (European case law identifier): ECLI:EU:C:2024:594 Decision date: 11/07/2024 Policy area: Institutional affairs
• CJUE C‑144/23 / Opinion Subtitle: KUBERA, trgovanje s hrano in pijačo, d.o.o. v Republika Slovenija Deciding body type: Court of Justice of the European Union Deciding body: Advocate general ECLI (European case law identifier): ECLI:EU:C:2024:522 Decision date: 18/06/2024 Policy area: Justice, freedom and security
• CJUE C-646/21 / Judgment Subtitle: K, L v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid Deciding body type: Court of Justice of the European Union Deciding body: Court (Grand Chamber) ECLI (European case law identifier): ECLI:EU:C:2024:487 Decision date: 11/06/2024 Policy area: Asylum and migration
• CJUE C-53/23 / Judgment Subtitle: Asociația ‘Forumul Judecătorilor din România’, Asociația ‘Mișcarea pentru Apărarea Statutului Procurorilor’ v Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie – Procurorul General al României Deciding body type: Court of Justice of the European Union Deciding body: Court (First Chamber) ECLI (European case law identifier): ECLI:EU:C:2024:388 Decision date: 08/05/2024 Policy area: Justice, freedom and security
• CJUE C-470/21 / Judgment Subtitle: La Quadrature du Net, Fédération des fournisseurs d’accès à Internet associatifs, Franciliens.net, French Data Network v Premier ministre, Ministre de la Culture Deciding body type: Court of Justice of the European Union Deciding body: Court (Full Court) ECLI (European case law identifier): ECLI:EU:C:2024:370 Decision date: 30/04/2024 Policy area: Justice, freedom and security
• CJUE C‑650/22 / Opinion Subtitle: Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) v BZ Deciding body type: Deciding body: Advocate general ECLI (European case law identifier): ECLI:EU:C:2024:375 Decision date: 30/04/2024 Policy area: Free movement and equality
• CJUE C-178/22 / Judgment Subtitle: Criminal proceedings against Procura della Repubblica presso il Tribunale di Bolzano. Deciding body type: Court of Justice of the European Union Deciding body: Court (Grand Chamber) ECLI (European case law identifier): ECLI:EU:C:2024:371 Decision date: 30/04/2024 Policy area: Justice, freedom and security
• CJUE Joined Cases C-684/22 to C-686/22 / Judgment Subtitle: S.Ö. v Stadt Duisburg (C‑684/22), and N.Ö., M.Ö. v Stadt Wuppertal (C‑685/22), and M.S., S.S. v Stadt Krefeld (C‑686/22) Deciding body type: Court of Justice of the European Union Deciding body: Court (Fourth Chamber) ECLI (European case law identifier): ECLI:EU:C:2024:345 Decision date: 25/04/2024 Policy area: Free movement and equality
• CJUE T‑255/23 / Judgment Subtitle: Escobar Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) Deciding body type: Court of Justice of the European Union Deciding body: General Court (Third Chamber) ECLI (European case law identifier): ECLI:EU:T:2024:240 Decision date: 17/04/2024 Policy area:

• Search Search Search …
• Search Search …

The European Court of Human Rights’ April 9 Climate Rulings and the Future (Thereof)

Across Europe, activists of all ages have taken to the streets to pressure their governments to take effective action against climate change. As domestic decision-makers failed them, they knocked at Strasbourg’s door. Three generations of right-holders turned to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR): senior women, young citizens, and a middle-aged ex-mayor. They complained about the past and current effects of climate change on their enjoyment of human rights, as well as the expected worsening of the climate crisis and its future effects on their rights. Expectations were high. Not only would the ECtHR deal with the nexus between climate change and human rights in the here and now but also for the future, including the thorny question of “intergenerational equity,” i.e. , the duties owed today to individuals too young to have a voice, or even not-yet-born.

Did the ECtHR live up to these expectations? The answer is bittersweet. Some room was definitely given to future generations and intergenerational equity considerations—almost as a common thread through the cases (especially in Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland and, more incidentally, in Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Other States ). At the same time, the April 9 rulings seem to have been heavily influenced by the ECtHR’s concern for preserving its own future and its refusal to become some sort of great global climate change court. While foreseeable, this compromise may have disappointed a few future generations aficionados. In this blog post, we briefly touch on the bitter and the sweet.

Future Generations in the April 9 Rulings: The Future is Not Now

The ECtHR made a decisive statement on the impact of climate change, not just on current generations, but future ones too. As it noted, while individuals currently alive already suffer from climate change, “it is clear that future generations are [also] likely to bear an increasingly severe burden of the consequences of present failures and omissions to combat climate change […] and that, at the same time, they have no possibility of participating in the relevant current decision-making processes” ( KlimaSeniorinnen , para. 419). In the context of climate change, “intergenerational burden-sharing assumes particular importance both in regard to the different generations of those currently living and in regard to future generations” (ibid). This clear statement by the Court is most welcome. It is an important recognition by the key European human rights judicial authority of the importance of protecting future generations who cannot themselves participate in today’s decisive debates.

Beyond this symbolic statement, the Court also accounted for future generations in at least two ways. First, in KlimaSeniorinnen , the ECtHR justified granting legal standing to the applicant non-profit association partially on the basis of the necessity to guarantee that future generations do not suffer from an absence of timely reaction today. The ECtHR emphasized that “members of society who stand to be most affected by the impact of climate change” are “at a distinct representational disadvantage” ( KlimaSeniorinnen , para. 484). Consequently, “collective action through associations or other interest groups may be one of the only means through which the voice of those at a distinct representational disadvantage can be heard and through which they can seek to influence the relevant decision-making processes” ( KlimaSeniorinnen , para. 489). Second, the detailed and interventionist Article 8-related positive obligations imposed on Switzerland in KlimaSeniorinnen were designed with an eye to “avoid[ing] a disproportionate burden on future generations” ( KlimaSeniorinnen , para. 549). For that very reason, the ECtHR declared that “immediate action” ought to be taken and “adequate intermediate reduction goals [ought to] be set for the period leading to neutrality” (ibid).

Hence, protecting future generations helped shape two major wins in the April 9 rulings: (i) the legal standing of non-profit associations and (ii) the positive obligations under Article 8. Still, this welcome development of the case law by no means constitutes a groundbreaking change in future generations’ legal situation. In fact, the greatest question of all remained unanswered as the ECtHR failed to rule on the victim status of young generations in Duarte —we will come back to this below.

One easily understands why future generations received only slender room in the April 9 rulings. To start with, these cases were never intended to be the panacea for all current and future generations’ fate in the face of climate change. The ECtHR remains, after all, only one among many actors with a potential role to play in addressing climate change. Plus, while it is hard to disagree with the argument that future generations deserve equitable treatment, it is easier to bicker over the practical implementation of this broad argument in the here and now.

The current debate on what to do about the interests of people not-yet-born is obscured by the impossibility of pinpointing whom exactly we are talking about when we talk about “future generations.” Generations are best understood as an endless, seamless chain rather than strictly separated categories. The principle of intergenerational equity underscores this understanding of human life as an endless cycle. This may be the principle’s main added value in the climate change litigation context. At any given time, three broad “generational groups” coexist: (i) youngsters, including all those who were just born; (ii) adults roughly through the age of retirement; and (iii) seniors. Interestingly, these three groups were represented in the three climate cases taken up by the Grand Chamber. Missing were future generations as such: the yet-to-be-born youngsters, adults, and seniors of tomorrow. One could argue that the Court tried to insert these yet-to-be born citizens back into the loop with the abovementioned considerations. However, their meager role in the rulings reflects the inner limitations of the exercise: the nature of the Court’s judicial function is, after all, “by definition reactive rather than proactive” ( KlimaSeniorinnen , para. 481), and there is indeed no legal basis in the European Convention on Human Rights for protecting future generations against future risks. There is also the difficulty of ruling on intergenerational equity without discussing the fair distribution of responsibility between “the West” and “the Rest.” In other words, there were many complex legal questions around which the ECtHR had to make its way on April 9. In the remainder of this post, we argue that it did so with one obvious concern in mind: self-preservation.

Judicial Self-Preservation in the April 9 Rulings

In KlimaSeniorinnen , the ECtHR immediately set the tone. While the threat posed by climate change is real, so are the dangers of going beyond the permissible limits of evolutive interpretation of the Convention in climate change cases. The question is “no longer whether, but how, human rights courts should address” climate change matters ( KlimaSeniorinnen , para. 379), while safeguarding the principle of the separation of powers, the role of the Court, and its sacrosanct subsidiarity. We could even venture that the Court’s own future was at stake on April 9 as it sought by all means possible to avoid becoming this heroic figure of a savior-like global climate change court.

The three April 9 rulings were each tainted by this objective of judicial self-preservation. One visible strategy used by the ECtHR to avoid becoming the global arbiter of climate change was to underscore the specificity of its review: as the ECtHR emphasized time and again, it was tasked with hearing specific claims brought by specific applicants, arising out of a specific set of facts, and based on a specific set of human rights protected in the Convention. Self-preservation concerns were also reflected in the ECtHR’s overall approach to these cases, which was extremely pragmatic and, at times, bordering on the cynical. For instance, under Article 34 of the Convention, the Court ruled that, since climate change affects an indefinite number of persons, to be granted victim status, one would have to showcase a need for protection more pressing than the need of one’s peers of the same generational group ( KlimaSeniorinnen , para. 487). The ECtHR was also extremely rigorous when it came to avoiding actio popularis , which goes against the foundations on which the Convention system was built, though it appears to be the ideal avenue for protecting future generations’ interests.

All of this is unsurprising. The ECtHR operates within a defined system of rules and is understandably mindful of maintaining its relevance and legitimacy in already troubled times. Much of the criticism of the ECtHR relates to how the overall European human rights framework is built and should probably be addressed elsewhere. That being said, the ECtHR could have been more ambitious in dealing with future generations. The most striking illustration of the Court’s limited ambition in this matter relates to the victim status of representatives of the younger generation in Duarte . In its decision, the ECtHR decided simply not to address the individual applicants’ victim status, as it was a “complicated matter and that [the ECtHR] did not need to look at it” (paras. 229-230).

One might have hoped the ECtHR would have welcomed the opportunity created by Duarte to pave the way for other (domestic) adjudicators by expanding on how to assess the victim status of youngsters who suffer from the current effects of climate change and legitimately worry about its future effects, all the while being virtually deprived of a voice in the public sphere. Of course, the ECtHR was not strictly required to rule on their victim status in Duarte : it had already found the case to be inadmissible on the grounds of the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, amongst others. But nothing prevented the ECtHR from addressing it nonetheless. Admittedly, no decision on youngsters’ victim status is probably preferable to a sparsely reasoned decision blankly denying them such status. Yet one cannot help but feel somewhat let down by the ECtHR’s refusal to deal with a thorny question of profound relevance to climate action because it is “too complex.” The somewhat counterintuitive consequence of this refusal is that future generations enthusiasts will have to dig into the case brought by a collective of senior women to find some guidance as to how the interests of future generations can and should be protected in European human rights law.

Concluding Remarks

To close this short post, we argue that the principle of intergenerational equity can be viewed as extending beyond just the direct relationship between current decision-makers and future right-holders. The principle also suggests that current decision-makers may have a responsibility not only to future citizens but also to future decision-makers. Accordingly, the principle of intergenerational equity can be understood to encompass the duties owed by today’s adjudicators, like the ECtHR, to the judges of tomorrow. This extended understanding of intergenerational equity is meant as a provocation. But we believe it is useful in that it highlights the continuity between generations (of decision-makers) and also because the sense of responsibility toward “colleagues not-yet-born” captured by the outstretched interpretation we propose is reflected in the April 9 rulings.

By recognizing the responsibility they have toward future individuals who will be standing in their shoes, current decision-makers are encouraged to adopt long-term perspectives and consider the broader implications of their actions beyond the immediate. This responsibility is echoed in numerous statements by the ECtHR in its rulings about how it understands its own role in European society and the world, and about the deference it believes it owes to domestic decision-makers on the one hand, and to its own past and future work on the other hand. In this light, the ECtHR has struck a pragmatic yet slightly cynical balance between the great demands it was faced with and the great responsibilities it owes to European citizens, to other institutions, and to itself.

Antoine De Spiegeleir

Antoine De Spiegeleir is the Sabin Center's rapporteur for Belgium.

• Sabin Center’s Network of Peer Reviewers Responds to African Commission’s Call for Comments on Climate Change and Human Rights
• The 2022 Qatar World Cup Was Greenwashed: The Swiss Fairness Commission Finds In Favor of Six NGOs Alleging Misleading and Unfair Advertisement by FIFA
• Climate Docket and the Future in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights
• The Role of Human Rights Institutions In Tackling Climate Change: A Case Study of the Philippines

Anais Brucher

Anaïs is a PhD researcher at the European University Institute .

You may also like

Sabin Center launches Peer Review Network of Global Climate Litigation

Sabin Center launches Peer Review Network of Global Climate Litigation By Maria Antonia Tigre Climate change litigation is growing worldwide. As part […]

U.S. Climate Change Litigation in the Age of Trump: Year Two—A New Sabin Center Working Paper

By Dena Adler The Trump Administration is losing on climate in the courts. More than two and a half years into the […]

Environmental, Consumer and Labor Groups File Lawsuit Challenging President Trump’s Executive Order on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs

Michael Burger and Jessica Wentz Last week, we published a blog entry highlighting some of the fundamental legal problems with President Trump’s […]

Upstream and Downstream Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Fossil Fuel Production and Transportation: New Working Paper Examines Scope of Federal Analysis Required under NEPA

The Sabin Center has recently posted a working paper, Downstream and Upstream Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The Proper Scope of NEPA Review.  The […]

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Numismatics
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Social History
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Emotions
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music and Media
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Legal System - Costs and Funding
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Restitution
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Oncology
• Medical Toxicology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Cognitive Psychology
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business Ethics
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Social Issues in Business and Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic History
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Social Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Sustainability
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• Ethnic Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Politics and Law
• Politics of Development
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Qualitative Political Methodology
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Disability Studies
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

11 The European Court of Human Rights

• Published: January 2014
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter examines the effectiveness of the European Court of Human Rights. It discusses the goals of the Court, identifies the factors that may influence judicial outcomes, and assesses the goal-attaining implications of these outcomes. It suggests that the Court has made at least some progress towards achieving its latter-day intermediate goals, and that it may have been effective in the sense of improving primary norm-compliance and contributing to the achievement of the broader goals of the Council of Europe. Evidence regarding the legitimization of associated norms and institutions and the peaceful settlement of disputes is somewhat more tenuous, but this does not mean that the Court has necessarily been ineffective regarding these goals either.

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Latest news
• UCL in the media
• Services for media
• Student news
• Tell us your story

AI predicts outcomes of human rights trials

24 October 2016

The judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) have been predicted to 79% accuracy using an artificial intelligence (AI) method developed by researchers at UCL, the University of Sheffield and the University of Pennsylvania.

The method is the first to predict the outcomes of a major international court by automatically analysing case text using a machine learning algorithm. The study behind it was published today in PeerJ Computer Science .

"We don't see AI replacing judges or lawyers, but we think they'd find it useful for rapidly identifying patterns in cases that lead to certain outcomes. It could also be a valuable tool for highlighting which cases are most likely to be violations of the European Convention on Human Rights," explained Dr Nikolaos Aletras, who led the study at UCL Computer Science.

In developing the method, the team found that judgements by the ECtHR are highly correlated to non-legal facts rather than directly legal arguments, suggesting that judges of the Court are, in the jargon of legal theory, 'realists' rather than 'formalists'. This supports findings from previous studies of the decision-making processes of other high level courts, including the US Supreme Court.

"The study, which is the first of its kind, corroborates the findings of other empirical work on the determinants of reasoning performed by high level courts. It should be further pursued and refined, through the systematic examination of more data," explained co-author Dr Dimitrios Tsarapatsanis, a Lecturer in Law at the University of Sheffield.

The team of computer and legal scientists from the UK, alongside Dr Daniel Preoţiuc-Pietro from the University of Pennsylvania, extracted case information published by the ECtHR in their publically accessible database.

"Ideally, we'd test and refine our algorithm using the applications made to the court rather than the published judgements, but without access to that data we rely on the court-published summaries of these submissions," explained co-author, Dr Vasileios Lampos, UCL Computer Science.

They identified English language data sets for 584 cases relating to Articles 3, 6 and 8* of the Convention and applied an AI algorithm to find patterns in the text. To prevent bias and mislearning, they selected an equal number of violation and non-violation cases.

The most reliable factors for predicting the court's decision were found to be the language used as well as the topics and circumstances mentioned in the case text. The 'circumstances' section of the text includes information about the factual background to the case. By combining the information extracted from the abstract 'topics' that the cases cover and 'circumstances' across data for all three articles, an accuracy of 79% was achieved.

"Previous studies have predicted outcomes based on the nature of the crime, or the policy position of each judge, so this is the first time judgements have been predicted using analysis of text prepared by the court. We expect this sort of tool would improve efficiencies of high level, in demand courts, but to become a reality, we need to test it against more articles and the case data submitted to the court," added Dr Lampos.

*Article 3 prohibits torture and inhuman and degrading treatment (250 cases); Article 6 protects the right to a fair trial (80 cases) and Article 8 provides a right to respect for one's "private and family life, his home and his correspondence" (254 cases).

• Research paper in  PeerJ Computer Science
• Dr Vasileios Lampos' academic profile
• UCL Computer Science
• Courtroom at the European Court of Human Rights (Credit: Adrian Grycuk )

Media contact

Bex caygill.

Tel: +44 (0)20 3108 3846

Email: r.caygill [at] ucl.ac.uk

ECtHR: New Case Processing Strategy

On 17 March 2021, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) introduced a new case management strategy that establishes a new category of “impact” cases. The Registry published a summary document on the Court’s website describing the main aspects of this new strategy.

As a result of the Interlaken reform process (2010-2020), the Court has reduced its backlog from 160,000 pending cases in 2011 to 65,000 at present. During this period, a prioritization policy based on seven categories, ranging from urgent to obviously inadmissible applications, allowed for acceleration of processing times. Nevertheless, there are currently 17,800 potentially well-founded category IV cases, which do not involve core rights and take the court an average of 5-6 years to process. Among these category IV cases, a small percentage may raise very important issues of concern for the State in question and/or the Convention system as a whole, justifying more expeditious case processing. These cases are identified and labelled as “impact” cases under the new category IV-High. To date, approximately 650 such cases have been identified so far, based on a list of examples and the following criteria:

• The conclusion of the case might lead to a change in or clarification of international or domestic legislation or practice;
• The case touches upon moral or social issues;
• The case deals with an emerging or otherwise significant human rights issue.

If any of these criteria are met, the ECtHR may take into account whether the case has had significant media coverage domestically and/or is politically sensitive.

On the one hand, the new strategy aims to ensure that priority cases in categories I-III and in the newly categorized “impact” cases (category IV-High) are identified, processed, and decided even more quickly by the Court. This will be achieved through increased use of the Court’s resources and rigorous internal monitoring. On the other hand, the strategy will ensure a balanced and productive output through increased standardisation and streamlining of the processing of non-impact category IV cases by using existing working methods and IT tools. In the future, the handling of non-priority and non-impact cases will be handled by committees of three judges instead of chambers of seven judges. The ECtHR will strive to produce shorter and more focused draft judgments in these cases.

Dr. András Csúri

Institution: Vienna University of Economics and Business

• Advice and guidance
• Our projects
• Our research
• Publications library
• Legal responses
• Legal casework
• Inquiries and investigations
• What are human rights?
• The Human Rights Act
• Exercising your human rights
• Our human rights work
• Equality Act 2010
• Know your rights
• Protected characteristics
• Equality Act FAQs
• Corporate reporting

This site will taken offline on 22 July 2024

• Human rights case studies
• Secondary education resources
• Useful information
• Lesson plan ideas
• Why teach equality and human rights?
• Understanding equality
• Understanding human rights
• Equality case studies
• Glossary of terms
• Useful links
• Secondary education resource acknowledgements and testimonials
• Assembly plans
• Lesson videos

A selection of case studies relating to human rights

Youth cases, right to respect for private and family life (article 8, echr).

A young man called Graham Gaskin was very badly treated in care for many years. He wanted to read his social services files, which were kept by Liverpool City Council. The Council refused to let him see all his files. Graham Gaskin went through the courts in the UK to try and force the Council to let him see his files, but the courts agreed with the Council. So he took his complaint to the European Court of Human Rights.

The European Court of Human Rights said the Council had breached Graham Gaskin’s rights. The Court agreed he needed to see his social services files in order to try and make sense of his childhood and his treatment in care. As a result of Graham Gaskin’s complaint, which was decided by the European Court in 1989, it is now much easier for people in care or in contact with social services to see information that is written about them. Councils must now keep files concerning children in care for 75 years.

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9, ECHR)

In 2004, a 16 year-old girl called Shabina Begum complained to the UK courts about her school’s uniform rules. Her older brother helped her work with a lawyer to bring her case. Shabina’s lawyer said that her human rights had been breached because the school would not let her wear a jilbab, which she considered necessary to wear because of her religion. The UK Court of Appeal agreed Shabina’s rights had been breached, but then the case went to the House of Lords, which disagreed and said that her rights had not been breached.

Even though Shabina lost her final court case, there was a lot of discussion about school uniforms in the newspapers and on TV. The Government wrote new rules for schools emphasising that students and parents must be asked their views when uniform rules are being made.

Right to a fair trial (Article 6, ECHR)

In 1999, two boys complained to the European Court of Human Rights that their rights under the ECHR had been breached. They had been put on trial in court for killing a two year-old, and were just 10 years old when they committed the murder. The boys' lawyers said that they had not had a fair trial because their case was dealt with in an adult court. There were a number of journalists present, which made the boys confused and frightened.

Judges in the European Court of Human Rights agreed that the boys' right to a fair trial had been breached. The judgment said the UK Government should make changes to protect the rights of other children and young people appearing in court in future. A lot of changes were made, though many human rights organisations and campaigners are still concerned about how children who commit crimes in the UK are treated.

Prohibition of torture (Article 3, European Convention on Human Rights)

In 2007, the families of two boys who had died in custody, during or after being restrained, complained to the UK courts about a new law which allowed staff to use physical force a lot more often on children in some prisons (called Secure Training Centres). The lawyers said that the new law breached the boys right to prohibition of torture. The UK Court of Appeal agreed and said that the new law was in direct conflict with human rights law. This meant that the new law was revoked.

Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8, European Convention on Human Rights)

Two children and an adult got help from lawyers to complain about the police. They had been stopped and searched by the police while at a protest in Kent about protecting the environment. The children were told that they were being searched for items because they were going to the protest. They were frightened by the experience. They complained to the UK courts, but before the case finished the police agreed they had breached the children’s rights. A settlement was agreed and each child received compensation of £1,125 and a personal apology from the police. A letter was also sent to every UK police force explaining why 'stop and searches' that are carried out disproportionately are against the law and what should be done differently in future.

Note: These case studies are from the Children’s Right Alliance. For more on children’s rights, visit the CRAE website . 

How human rights benefit children and young people's lives

Stop and search.

In January 2010 the European Court of Human Rights said that police blanket 'stop and search' powers, introduced under counter-terrorism legislation, are unlawful as ethnic minorities were disproportionately more likely to be stopped and searched. Between 2007 and 2009, nearly 310,000 young people aged 10 to 17 were stopped and searched by the police; 40% of these were Black children.

Corporal punishment

In February 2005 the Law Lords rejected the claim from a group of Christian head teachers, teachers and parents of four independent schools that the corporal punishment of children is central to their religious beliefs and to prohibit this in private schools is a violation of their right to practice their religion. The Law Lords found the ban on corporal punishment to be legitimate and proportionate.

In November 2004 the European Court of Human Rights said an 11 year-old boy did not have a fair trial because he did not understand the consequences of any penalty, including imprisonment. An independent psychologist said the boy was functioning between the age of a six and eight year-old.

Protection in prison

In November 2002 the High Court said children in prison must be given the same protection from abuse and harm as children in families and other institutional settings such as children's homes.

Protection from harm

In January 2001 the High Court stopped three powerful news organisations from publishing the details of two 18 year-olds who had served custodial sentences for a murder they committed when they were 10 years old. The judge said the injunctions were necessary because of "real possibility of serious physical harm and possible death".

Balancing human rights

Foreign criminals who are jailed for more than one year may be considered for deportation. In some cases, the foreign criminal may be given the right to stay in the UK if deportation breaches their human rights. A breach of human rights may include the right to private and family life if their family lives in the UK or right to life or to protection from torture if their lives could be put at risk by being deported to their own country.

This could cause a conflict of rights between the criminal and the UK public. For example, if a foreign criminal was granted the right to stay in the UK because their lives would be at risk by returning to their country, but they committed a crime that presented a threat to public safety, then this could be a conflict between the following rights:

• Rights of Criminal - The right to life (Article 2, European Convention on Human Rights) and to be protected from torture (Article 3, ECHR).
• Rights of UK Public - The right to protection of property and peaceful enjoyment of possessions (Article 1, Protocol 1, ECHR) if for example the individual has been convicted of burglary or theft.

Freedom of expression (Article 10, European Convention on Human Rights) is a fundamental right to a democratic society. However this can often conflict with the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9, European Convention on Human Rights). For example, when Sion Owens, a BNP candidate for the Welsh assembly, burnt the Koran he was exerting his freedom of expression. However, this act could incite hatred and violence against Muslim’s, threatening and conflicting with their freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The extent that people’s freedom of expression should be limited causes much debate. To review an interesting article about the limits of freedom of expression, visit here .

Examples of human rights myths

Myth 1: human rights lets travellers break the law.

Myth busted The Human Rights Act (HRA) does not provide new rights for Travellers. Even before the Human Rights Act, the 1976 Race Relations Act (now part of the Equality Act 2010) recognised Traveller's need for housing, education and health. There is a 'right to respect of his private and family life, his home and his correspondence' under the Human Rights Act, but these rights do not entitle them to set up camp anywhere, and they can be punished if they don't obey an order to vacate. But decisions about planning and how and when to vacate sites must be taken with human rights in mind, to ensure that treatment isn't disproportionate and that everyone - regardless of culture or heritage - has access to appropriate accommodation.

Examples in the media 'If you want to build a new home you have to get planning permission first. But if you are a Traveller you can bend the planning law - building where you like thanks to the Human Rights Act' - Michael Howard 2005.

Myth 2: Prisoners have human rights to video games and porn

Myth busted The Human Rights Act does not give prisoners the right to receive pornography, games machines, TV or similar items while in prison. Some prisons may allow controlled access to these privileges as part of its management regime, but this is not related to prisoner's human rights.

Rather than having more human rights, prisoners have in fact been deprived of one of their human rights - the right to liberty. However, people in prison are still human, so they don't lose access to all their rights under the Human Rights Act. Prisons have to conform to the Human Rights Act in that they are not allowed to inhumanely treat prisoners. Some of the standards prisons have to meet include educational, medical and religious facilities as well as recreation. What that recreation entails is decided by prison managers, not human rights law.

Examples in the media The Sun newspaper reported that 'Serial killer Dennis Nilsen, 60, received hardcore gay porn in jail thanks to human rights laws' (The Sun 13 May 2006). In fact, he had challenged a decision by the governor of Whitemoor prison to deny him access to pornographic material by arguing that the ban breached his human right of freedom of expression. The case failed at the very first hurdle: it never entered the judicial system at all, apart from to be thrown out. Of course human rights legislation would never legitimise his request for pornography.

Myth 3: Human rights gives criminals the right to Kentucky Fried Chicken

Myth busted This is a story that has been repeated again and again; a lot of people think that the Human Rights Act actually required the police to give the prisoner, who had escaped to the roof of his prison, to be fed Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC). The Government investigated this allegation and made it clear publicly that the Human Rights Act had nothing to do with the decision that was made. The police responded to his refreshment demands as part of their negotiating strategy.

Examples in the media The Sun reported this story with a headline of: 'Finger-nickin' good. Police gave the suspected car thief a meal because of his Human Rights' - The Sun 7 June 2006.

The Daily Telegraph summarised this case as being about 'A suspected car thief who bombarded police with bricks and tiles during a rooftop siege [in Gloucester] was given a Kentucky Fried Chicken takeaway meal by officers to ensure his "well-being and human rights".

Myth 4: Even the police don't think the Human Rights Act is a good idea

Myth busted There is nothing in the Human Rights Act that prevents the prosecution of offenders. In fact, it's the opposite: both the Government and the courts have a duty (under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights) to take steps to protect the public and courts sentencing criminals have to take into account the severity of the crime and the danger to the public. It wouldn't make sense to have a Human Rights Act that doesn't protect all people, especially victims.

Examples in the media This was reported in the Daily Express as an attack on the Human Rights Act, with the headline reading: 'A top detective has attacked the way the Human Rights Act is being used by killers and rapists to try to give themselves a better life.' - Daily Express 14 May 2008.

Myth 5: Human Rights Act allowed rapist to be placed with children

Myth busted This myth refers to a very sad situation where a couple with children took in a foster child who then assaulted the children. It turned out that the foster child had a history of violence. However, the Human Rights Act does not prevent public authorities from disclosing information that will allow parents to protect their children. On the contrary, the Act specifically allows for such disclosure where it is justified in the interests of public safety, for the prevention of crime or for the protection of the rights of others. The Human Rights Act had no bearing on the case whatsoever.

Examples in the media Despite this, the Daily Mail reported that 'As the rapist, now 19, began an indefinite sentence last night, there were suspicions that the local authority might have used aspects of the Human Rights Act to prevent the couple from knowing about the teenager's past.' - The Daily Mail, 3 March 2009.

Myth 6: Human rights laws stop people from taking photos in public parks

Myth busted A former BBC newsreader has hit out after a council banned him from taking pictures of flowers in public parks - in case it infringed people's human rights. In fact, there is nothing in human rights law that prevents someone taking photographs of flowers in a public place for their own use. If the photographer intended to use the photographs commercially then they might need the permission of the park's owners, but that has nothing to do with human rights law - rather to do with commercial interests.

A person's right to privacy under Article 8 of the ECHR might apply if a photographer was intrusive in taking photographs of an individual without their consent. Each case will depend on its facts, how the photograph is taken, what it is going to be used for, and whether there is any justification for this. An example of when this might apply is if a press photographer was aggressively chasing a celebrity so that they could take an unauthorised photo of their child, with the intention of publishing it for commercial gain.

Examples in the media This story was reported widely, in the Daily Express - (26/08/2010), Daily Mail - (26/08/2010), The Sun - (26/08/2010), Daily Record - (26/08/2010).

Myth 7: Human Rights Act gives students a right to junk food

Myth busted This myth came about from the initiative of schools to promote healthy eating by preventing the students from leaving the school at lunch times. The reporting was positioned so that it looks like the Human Rights Act is the reason that the healthy eating scheme will fail, seeming to say that forcing them to eat health food or denying them junk food is against their rights. In fact, it is common practice for many schools to only allow pupils outside the grounds if they have a parental note giving permission or if they have been awarded special privileges by the school. Guidelines from the Schools Food Trust recommend that students are kept on the school site as a way of stopping them from buying unhealthy food. It neither suggests that school gates are locked to prevent students leaving at lunchtime or that pupils are forced to eat specific foods.

Schools have a legal responsibility for their pupils during school hours. This means that they are allowed to make students stay on school premises. Human rights law says that this is a legitimate aim. However, a school would probably be breaching this legitimate aim if they either locked pupils in the school or physically forced them to eat.

Examples in the media This story was reported by the Daily Mail (Scotland), which stated that a school that wanted to lock pupils in at lunch time to break their bad eating habits could be under the Human Rights Act and Teachers would be powerless to physically detain pupils who exercised this right.

Myth 8: Human rights means that you can't publish 'WANTED' posters

Myth busted This isn't true; the right to privacy is not an absolute right, so that it can be limited in order to prevent criminal offences. Circulating suspect's photographs and the crime for which they are being sought may be proportionate. Other examples that don't breach human rights are police signs asking for information placed at the scene of the crime and Crimewatch-style reconstructions. The police do need to be careful that they do not imply that these individuals have committed crimes for which they have not been convicted as that would be libellous (covered by libel laws, not the Human Rights Act).

Examples in the media Details of 25 of Britain's worst convicted offenders are published on the Serious Organised Crime Agency's website in the hope of reducing reoffending. However, when Essex police used a similar initiative in 2003, one convicted thief claimed this use of his photograph was a breach of privacy under the Human Rights Act, as reported in the times 'Rogues Gallery of career criminals', The Times, Sean O'Neill

Myth 9: The Human Rights Act means that terrorists can stay in Britain

Myth busted No-one would argue that the state should not be able, after a fair trial, to deprive dangerous or harmful individuals of their liberty. However, most people would also agree that it is not acceptable to send people into situations where they may be tortured. Human rights do protect all individuals from torture, and if the government knows that individuals may fact torture or death in their own home countries, they have an obligation to protect them.

Calls for the Human Rights Act to be scrapped following this decision don't take into account that whether or not the Act was in force, the same decision would have been reached. The UK has signed up to numerous international treaties including, the Convention Against Torture and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights - all of which expressly forbid the government, and courts, from allowing people to be deported to face torture.

Examples in the media The Daily Telegraph reported that a court had ruled that a pair of terror suspects with links to Al Qa'eda will remain in the UK after judges ruled it would breach their human rights to deport them because their lives would be in danger if they were sent back to Pakistan. 20-May 2010, Daily Telegraph

Myth 10: Human Rights gives prisoners the right to vote

Myth busted This myth is actually true! The right to participate in free elections is a human right, and although people in prison have lost their right to liberty, they still retain other human rights. They still have the right to life, the right to be free from torture, and the right to participate in elections. This was agreed by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Hirst v the United Kingdom (No 2). In this case, John Hirst brought a case to the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that to deny him the right to vote was a breach of his human rights, specifically under Article 3, Protocol 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights. In October 2005, the Court found that a blanket ban preventing prisoners from voting was a violation of their human rights, specifically, the right to participate in free elections. The Article states that: 'the High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature', and denying prisoners the ability to participate in elections was breaching that right.

The government is now considering how to implement this ruling, which is required by law, but also gives prisoners a sense of dignity and participation. One of the hallmarks of citizenship is the right to vote; it is also a responsibility. As the Howard League for Penal Reform commented: 'If we want prisoners to return safely to the community, feeling they have a stake in society, then the right to vote is a good means of engaging individuals with the responsibilities of citizenship.'

Further examples

For more human rights case studies, visit:

• www.crae.org.uk/

Last updated: 13 Sep 2017