Backsliding democracies around the world all face the problem of how to restore the rule of law. Precisely because it is already embedded in European law, with deep Hungarian roots that have long honored European traditions and its international law obligations, Hungary has the option of simply embracing European law to provide a legal path back to the rule of law
Something out of the ordinary, something very strange, something seriously concerning happened at the second section of the European Court of Human Rights on 23 November 2021.
The 25 September 2021 parliamentary elections in Iceland were challenged due to alleged irregularities in the election process of the Northwest-constituency (Norðvesturkjördæmi). On 25 November 2021, the Icelandic Parliament ruled on the validity of the 25 September 2021 parliamentary elections. Individuals as well as a legal entity have stated their intent to file a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights for the alleged violations of the European Convention on Human Rights. If they go forward, they are likely to succeed as Icelandic law fails to meet the standards set out by the ECtHR for post-election review.
Frankreich feiert dieser Tage die 40-jährige Abschaffung der Todesstrafe. Am 18. September 1981 wurde die loi n°310 portant abolition de la peine de mort mit 363 Parlamentarier-Stimmen gegen 117 angenommen. Am 9. Oktober 1981 trat das Gesetz in Kraft – seit 2007 hat die Abschaffung der Todesstrafe Verfassungsrang. Man könnte der Auffassung sein, dass es zur Feier einer französischen Rubinhochzeit zwischen Rechtsstaat und Sanktionensystem zumindest für den deutschen Diskurs keinen allzu großen Anlass gibt. Die Todesstrafe ist tabu – oder?
On the Polish-Belarusian border thirty-two Afghan citizens have been sitting quite literally between the Belarusian border guards on the one side and Polish border guards, army and police on the other for two weeks now. They sit there without access to water, food or medical aid. They sit there claiming their rights under EU and International law. Yet, they are not allowed to ask for asylum or establish any contact with the outside world. The tragic situation of those thirty-two hostages exemplifies both how devastating the consequences of rule-of-law backsliding might be and how closely linked the rule of law breakdown in Poland and the general denigration of EU values in the field of migration are.
On 22 July 2021, the European Court of Human Rights issued its third judgment concerning the rule of law crisis in Poland. In Reczkowicz v. Poland the Court ruled that the Disciplinary Chamber which dismissed the cassation complaint of the applicant did not meet the standard of a “right to a court established by law” guaranteed under Article 6 § 1 the Convention. The judgment is important not only because the ECtHR reviewed the status of the Disciplinary Chamber – a controversial body that was also the subject of a recent CJEU judgment – but also because it seems that the reasoning of the Court can be applied to hundreds of other newly appointed judges.
On 13 July 2021, the European Court of Human Rights published its judgment in Fedotova and Others v. Russia, a case which concerned the lack of legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the Russian legal system. The judges found the Russian laws to be in violation of Article 8 – the right to respect for private and family life and Article 14 – prohibition of discrimination. However, it is highly unlikely that Russia will enforce the judgment.
On 8 July, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in case Shahzad v. Hungary, concerning the denial of access to an asylum procedure and the forced removal of a Pakistani national by Hungarian police officers. The court found that the acts violated the prohibition of collective expulsion as well as the right to an effective remedy. With this decision, the Court on the one hand straightens out some possible misunderstandings, on the other hand returns to the line of argument opened in N.D. and N.T. v. Spain in ways that should be considered more closely.
The entry into force of a new Protocol in August 2021 indicates that the ECtHR will implement even more stringent admissibility criteria which provides the institution with more tools to reject legitimate applications and to hide the political motivation behind such decisions. The European Court of Human Rights has long faced burning criticism for declaring applications inadmissible when faced with prima facie flagrant human rights abuses by autocratic regimes, such as Turkey, putting in question the credibility of the Court which is expected to be a center of legal excellence.
In Turkey, Spain and Poland, lèse-majesté laws are weaponised against opposition: The conviction and imprisonment of Marxist rapper Pablo Hasél sparked mass protests across Spain, and the 20-year-old Wiktoria K. who shouted “f*** Duda” during last year’s demonstrations and received a guilty verdict on grounds of “insulting the President” in March 2021. The very existence of lèse-majesté laws poses a threat to the right to dissent. It is a vital democratic duty to cast such laws into the dustbin of history.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters