Plaidoyer for the European Court of Human Rights

In this article, the author debates the reasons for the current strained relationship between some Contracting Parties and the European Court of Human Rights. The author argues that much of the criticism addressed to the Court is ultimately aimed at the founding principles of the European human rights protection system, like the principles of evolutive interpretation and European consensus, as well as at the Court’s soft law and social rights friendly stance. He briefly analyses the contradictory reaction of the Court to this criticism. In this context, he considers that both the UK rebellion against Hirst and the Court’s backtracking from its own principles of interpretation in some major cases have had a negative “snow ball” effect on other Contracting Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights, as the recent confrontational attitude of the Russian legislator towards the Court has shown. The article concludes with a defence of the Court’s traditional mode of reasoning and a pledge for reform of some practices of the Court based on three steps: more independence, more transparency and more accountability.