Criticism of the European Court of Human Rights

Criticism of the European Court of Human Rights (not to count criticism of the ECtHR mechanism as laid by the member states through the European Convention on Human Rights and criticism of separate decisions) comes both from current and former judges of the Court and the international legal community, for a variety of reasons.
Criticism of legal approach
Criticism of alleged self-restraint and narrow understanding of rights
Former ECtHR judge Loucaides criticizes the Court for the "reluctance to find violations in sensitive matters affecting the interests of the respondent States".
Criticism of alleged judicial activism
British Law Lord Hoffmann considers that the Court has not taken the doctrine of the margin of appreciation far enough, being "unable to resist the temptation to aggrandise its jurisdiction and to impose uniform rules on Member States. It considers itself the equivalent of the Supreme Court of the United States, laying down a federal law of Europe". He was joined in the criticism by the president of Belgian Constitutional Court Marc Bossuyt.
ECtHR judge Kovler, explaining his reasons for rather often separate opinions, notes "I dislike when the Court evaluates non-European values as reactionary (Refah v. Turkey)".
Chairman of Russian Constitutional Court Valery Zorkin, pointing to the Markin v. Russia case, claims that Russia has right to create a mechanism of protection from Strasbourg Court decisions "touching the national sovereignity, the basic constitutional principles".
Criticism of administrative approach
Former ECtHR judge Loucaides criticizes the Court for introducing in its Rules a Bureau, "a separate collective organ that had nothing to do with the structure of the Court organs according to the Convention".

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu