Today ends the deadline for stakeholder consultations for the 2022 EU rule of law report. The report is a welcome addition to the EU’s rule of law toolbox but it is missing a vital element: the non-implementation of judgments of international courts, including both the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights.
A few days ago, the British activist Gareth Lee failed with his complaint before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The Court declared the application inadmissible as Lee had not claimed the violation of rights under the European Convention on Human Rights in any of the national court proceedings and thus had not exhausted all national remedies. Lee v. the United Kingdom really was a missed opportunity for Europe’s regional human rights court to address the issue of homophobia in the context of access to goods and services.
The lack of a functional EU-level legal framework, designed for high immigration numbers, contributed to increasing recourse to practices of dissuading migrants away from the EU territory. This did not leave the European Court of Human Rights indifferent and it decided to give a legal green light to pushbacks under certain conditions. The Court applies its jurisprudence equally to all individuals and in all situations. In doing so, however, it violates the principle of the child’s best interests. A more nuanced approach should be taken, guaranteeing special protection to children, in accordance with the principle of the child’s best interests.
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.
The particular coming-out of the Tribunal, made in the judgment K 6/21 by admitting that the Constitutional Tribunal is not subject in general to the standards inherent in Article 6 EC, leads to the conclusion that the Polish Constitutional Tribunal and its judges need not be independent. Paradoxically, therefore, the judgment confirms (albeit by different reasoning) the disqualification of the Tribunal made in the Xero Flor judgment by ECtHR. And yet the Tribunal intended to remove the negative consequences for itself of the Xero Flor.
In the recent judgment of M.H. v Croatia, the European Court of Human Rights has recognized for the first time the pushback of migrants and asylum-seekers from Croatia. The case centers around the death of six-year-old Afghan Madina Hussiny, who was struck by a train after she and her family members were denied access to asylum, instructed by police officers to follow train tracks towards Serbia and pushed back from Croatian territory without individualized examinations of their circumstances. Her tragic death in Croatia — like that of Alan Kurdi in Greece or of Mawda in Belgium — put European audiences face-to-face with the unjust and deadly impact of Europe’s immigration policies.
This week, Poland has made headlines yet again for dispatching 12,000 guards to the border between Poland and Belarus and the use of tear gas to prevent third country nationals (TCNs), including children, from crossing into Polish territory. It is acutely problematic that Poland has foregone any semblance of conformity with EU law at all in the adoption of its domestic legislation on border procedures.
On September 16th, the ECtHR has ruled in the case X v. Poland that the denial of custody of a child must not be based on the sexual orientation of a parent. According to the Court, Poland has violated Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention of Human Rights when refusing the applicant full parental rights and custody of her youngest child. This ruling comes too late for the applicant, whose child has grown up, as the decision of the ECtHR took twelve years. Neverthelesess, in the current Polish context, the finding of the Court on this case sends an important message.
The case of the disciplinary proceedings against the Bulgarian judge Miroslava Todorova (Requête no 40072/13) which has recently been examined by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) caught the eye of those following the rule of law decay in the European Union. On the surface, it appears that the recent ECtHR judgment on Todorova’s case is a mere example of the ‘Justice delayed is justice denied’ legal maxim – after all, the application was submitted in 2013 and the Court ruled against Bulgaria only in 2021. However, a closer look reveals that the ECtHR found in favor of Bulgaria on the two most worrisome questions.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters