It Takes More than Two to Execute ECHR judgments

By Nikolaos Sitaropoulos*

Introduction

In early April this year the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (CM) issued its 2022 Annual Report on the execution of ECHR judgments (the annual report). As usual, this report did not hit national or European media headlines, although it refers to fundamental issues concerning rule of law, democracy and human rights in European states.

The Secretary General of the Council of Europe underlined this in her statement that accompanied this time the publication of the annual report. Noting the essential role played by execution of court rulings in the rule of law context, and the positive impact of ECHR on human lives in Europe over the years, she added that “[i]n order for this positive impact to continue, our member states must demonstrate the political will to implement judgments fully and consistently." This is also one the major issues that a number of stakeholders have proposed to be on the table of the forthcoming 4^th Summit of the Council of Europe (e.g. PACE Recommendation 2245 (2023) on The Reykjavik Summit).

Below an attempt is made to provide an overview of the major challenges states are faced with in the context of execution. They concern primarily their capacity to act promptly to ensure full and effective execution of ECHR judgments, a number of long-lasting challenges arising out of certain major, structural and/or complex human rights problems, and the need to further enhance the participatory character of execution at national level, engaging proactively with major national stakeholders such as parliaments, NHRIs and civil society organisations.

 

Challenges related to states’ capacity to execute promptly and effectively ECHR judgments

The data contained in the annual report clearly indicate that, although member states, under the principle of subsidiarity now enshrined in the preamble of ECHR, “have the primary responsibility to secure the rights and freedoms defined in this Convention”, the capacity of many of them to execute promptly and effectively the ECHR judgments remains feeble.

The annual report highlights that there has been a continuing rise of new judgments transmitted to the CM from the Court. In 2021 there was a 40% increase and in 2022 an additional one of 6%. This additional caseload pressure on the CM and on respondent states is arguably reflected on the fact that as of end 2022 there was a record number of 2,257 cases on which on information on payment of just satisfaction awarded by the European Court was not submitted to the CM by respondent states (1,847 of these cases concerned five states: Hungary, Romania, Russia, Türkiye and Ukraine). Also, in 2022 there was a delay by a large number of states in the submission of action plans or reports, which are due six months after the finality of ECHR judgments. Thus, a record number of 92 “reminder letters” were sent to 17 states by the Department for the Execution of ECHR Judgments which assists and advises the CM in its function of supervising execution.

Moreover, another record number of 11 leading cases/groups of cases concerning seven states were transferred the same year from standard to enhanced supervision. According to  the CM working methods, in enhanced supervision are placed, in principle, cases requiring urgent individual measures, pilot, structural/complex issues related judgments, and inter-state cases. 

Such “trigger ups” may also occur in practice if there exist other indications, such as slowness in execution, showing that the execution of a judgment requires the CM’s particular attention, notably through examination of this case in one of the four CM Human Rights meetings in Strasbourg, and reinforced dialogue with and support (through Council of Europe expertise) to the national authorities concerned.

It is also worthy to be noted that the number of leading cases, that is, cases which in principle require the adoption of general measures to prevent similar violations, despite many closures every year, remained relatively high in 2022: 1,299 (compared to 1,300 in 2021 and 1,258 in 2020). What is of particular and continuing concern in this context is that the main themes of leading cases under enhanced supervision (cf. section E.5 of the annual report) remain, more or less, unchanged for many years. They include, among others, actions of security forces (related primarily to ill-treatment and ineffective investigations), conditions of detention, length of judicial proceedings, enforcement of domestic judicial decisions, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and association. It is to be noted that the first theme concerning actions of security forces remains the bulkiest one among the leading cases under enhanced supervision for many years (12% in 2022 and 2021, while, ten years ago, in the 2013 CM annual report the relevant percentage was 16%). There is no doubt that the above themes are cross-cutting country-wise and are often of a structural and/or complex nature requiring particular attention and action by respondent states and the CM.

This situation has not gone unnoticed by the CM which, especially since the early 2000s, has adopted and issued a number of recommendations in order to enhance states’ capacity to respond and execute effectively ECHR judgments, and embed the European Court’s case-law in their legal systems. In September 2022 the CM adopted a useful set of Guidelines on the prevention and remedying of ECHR violations. The CM underlined therein that despite the progress achieved at national level,  “the Convention system continues to face significant and enduring challenges, including delays at different stages of its functioning, the persistence of serious or widespread violations, systemic and structural problems in the member States”. It  strongly encouraged national decision makers to take the ECHR requirements more proactively into account. It stressed that such proactive attitude should involve in particular the development of parliamentary, executive and judicial capacity in order to incorporate the European Court’s case-law in the national legal systems.

Particularly noteworthy is that the 2022 CM Guidelines highlighted not only the pivotal role and responsibilities of the respondent States but also the fact that the execution involves many more important stakeholders at national level with whom national authorities need to synergise to achieve prompt and effective execution of ECHR judgments. Thus, the Guidelines stressed the need for member states to enhance support to national co-ordinators/co-ordinating structures, through more resources, status/authority and capacity-building so that action plans are timely prepared and they achieve notably the resolution of structural or complex problems, such as those noted above.

It takes though many more to effectively execute ECHR judgments that pertain notably to structural/complex human rights issues. As stressed by Rosalyn Higgins in one of the early and then rare publications on execution concerning such issues (1978 RevHellDI, 39), “the question of execution of decisions of the organs of the [ECHR] is a subtle and complex matter, going beyond legal formalism”.

One of the major national stakeholders in this context is national parliaments which often have to adopt new legislation in response to leading ECHR judgments requiring adoption of general measures. It is thus logical that the above Guidelines underlined the need for national MPs and parliamentary legal staff to enhance their knowledge of the ECHR system and the case-law of the Court.  Secondly, and importantly, states are encouraged to further develop parliamentary mechanisms and procedures for the effective control of the execution of ECHR judgments. In a similar vein, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly in its recent Resolution  2494 (2023) on Implementation of ECHR judgments,  called on “human rights or constitutional committees of national parliaments to engage in monitoring the implementation of the Court’s judgments, including through taking a pro-active role in finding solutions to potential frictions with the Court, by proposing necessary legislative reforms”.

There is nonetheless much more  that states can and should do in order to have a “wide national dialogue to discuss matters related to the national implementation of the Convention”. As underlined also by the CM 2022 Guidelines, there is also a need for states to strengthen and engage with NHRIs, relevant civil society organisations (CSOs) and representatives of legal professions when implementing the Convention, given their rich expertise. As regards in particular the process of execution of ECHR judgments, this engagement should also take place “at the earliest possible stage” when draft laws and policy strategies are under consideration by respondent states.

The significance of participation in the execution process of NHRIs and CSOs had been highlighted by the CM already in 2006 when for the first time the CM Rules allowed the submission by NHRIs and CSOs of communications to the CM on the execution of ECHR judgments. Over the years, such communications have proven to be of particular value to the CM and have helped it have a more comprehensive picture of the human rights issues it examines. The NHRIs and CSOs’ communications have increased over the last years: from 47 in 2011 they reached 217 in 2022. However, the vast majority originate in CSOs, the NHRIs’ submissions remaining low (17 in 2022 and 11 in 2021). The enhancement of NHRIs’ engagement in the execution process is thus an important issue linked also to states’ national capacity, given the important human rights advisory role vis-à-vis national authorities that these institutions play.

Conclusion

When the 2012 Brighton Declaration proposed the inclusion of the principle of subsidiarity in the preamble of ECHR, it also recalled the states’ obligation and commitment to secure the human rights enshrined therein (cf. Explanatory Report to Protocol No 15 to ECHR). Indeed, the execution of ECHR judgments takes place “at home” and not in Strasbourg where only the supervision of execution happens. When structural or complex problems at national level arise, the execution process is certainly also complex and takes more than two (the respondent government and the CM) “to tango”. It requires the synergies of all the above-mentioned major national stakeholders.

The Council of Europe provides a wide range of cooperation projects to member states in this context and many of them have been benefiting therefrom for decades now. However, if lacunae persist in the national process of implementation of the Convention, including the execution of ECHR judgments, such lacunae are bound to affect and be reflected on the supervisory system itself which has been set up. The 2022 annual report provides a clear picture of these challenges, and the 2022 CM Guidelines propose a wealth of advice to member states on which the latter may draw in order to further reinforce their capacity to execute the ECHR judgments. To this end, political will is key. The 4^th Summit of the Council of Europe on 16-17 May provides another opportunity for member states to demonstrate that they have this will and say their own “yes we can”.

*The author is head of division in the Department for the execution of ECHR judgments, Council of Europe. All views expressed are strictly personal.

Webinar on Better Cooperation within the Council of Europe Institutions

On 9 May, from 12:00-14:00 (CET) SWPS University, Riga Graduate School of Law and the University of Cologne are organizing a webinar on better cooperation within the Council of Europe Institutions. Professor Konstantsin Dzehtsiarou (University of Liverpool), Dr Aleksandra Gliszczyńska-Grabias (Institute of Legal Studies of the Polish Academy of Science) and Dr Nikos Vogiatzis (University of Essex) will be speaking at the event. The event will be moderated by professor Adam Bodnar (SWPS University). 

This webinar is the third of the ''Road to Reykjavik. Chances and Challenges to the Council of Europe'' webinar series. As the Council of Europe is preparing for the 4th Council of Europe Summit of Heads of State and Government in Reykjavik in May this year, these webinar series discuss some pressing issues facing the Council of Europe. 

Here is a description of the webinar:

''The two meetings of the "Road to Reykjavik" webinar series in anticipation of the Council of Europe’s 4th Summit of Heads of State and Government in Reykjavik so far have focused on the momentous role of the European Court of Human Rights and its potential role in trying to judge Russian crimes in Ukraine. During the third meeting on 9 May from 13:00 – 14:40 (Riga time), we will reflect on the possibilities of deepening cooperation, as well as building a coherent message within the Council of Europe institutions.

As well as attempting to further discuss the challenges that have emerged with the fundamental change in the global political situation and the crisis of the previous security policy, the third webinar is also a follow-up to the issues identified during the two previous meetings. It was during these that voices and questions emerged regarding the deepening of cooperation between specific Council of Europe bodies and institutions.''

You can register here. 

New Romanian Judge Elected

Last week, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) elected Sebastian Răduleţu as judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Romania. He will succeed judge Iulia Antoanella Motoc.

In a tight race, Mr Răduleţu obtained a majority of votes cast and was elected judge of the European Court of Human Rights for a term of office of nine years. In Romania, he is currently a practising lawyer as well as a professor at the Law Faculty of the University of Craiova. He is closely familiar with procedures before the European Court, both having worked within its registry in the past, as well as having  represented several applicants before the Court in cases against Romania, and having taught on the ECHR. He also has particular expertise in domestic, European and international criminal law. His experience and expertise, as a practising lawyer, thus complement the current composition of the Court. Good luck to the newly elected judge!

New Special Issue European Human Rights Law Review

A new Special Issue of the European Human Rights Law Review entitled 'The Road to Reykjavik and Beyond' has just been published (Issue 2, 2023). The contributions discuss various issues to be considered at the upcoming Council of Europe Summit in Reykjavik in May, such as the implementation and execution of ECtHR judgments, the function and value of infringement proceedings under article 46 of the Convention, and the shrinking space available for civil society.

These are the contents of the issue:

* Alice Donald and Philip Leach, 'Responding to seismic change in Europe - the road to Reykjavik and beyond'

* Robert Spano, 'Inclusive democracy and the European Convention on Human Rights'

* Jeremy McBride, 'Protecting and engaging with civil society: a challenge for the Council of Europe'

* Nils Muižnieks and Rita Patrício, 'Using the summit to breathe new life into the Council of Europe'

* George Stafford, 'The urgent reforms needed to improve the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights'

* Helen Keller and Viktoriya Gurash, '"Upping the ante": rethinking the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights'

* Başak Çalı, 'The present and the future of infringement proceedings: lessons learned from Kavala v Turkiye'

* Nuala Mole, 'The Council of Europe and violence against women - past, present and future'

Workshop on Climate Change, Migration, Authoritarianism and the ECHR

On 16-17 November 2023, Başak Çalı, Esra Demir-Gürsel and Jens T. Theilen are organizing a workshop entitled 'Frames of European Human Rights - How are climate change, migration, and authoritarianism framed within the Council of Europe?'. The workshop is hosted by the Hertie School Centre for Fundamental Rights. The workshop will reflect critically on the frames and framers of climate change, migration, and authoritarianism in European human rights.

Here is a description of the workshop:

'Human rights set normative standards for states to adhere to – but they also contribute to shaping debates on politically, economically, and socially controversial topics at a deeper level, influencing our understanding of underlying realities, diagnosing problems, and leaving some aspects aside as irrelevant or less important. The aim of this workshop is to explore these constructions of realities and normativities within human rights law, focussing on the frames and framers of climate change, migration and authoritarianism in European human rights.

We invite contributions to critically analyse the emergence or shifts over time of the frames with regard to climate change, migration, and authoritarianism. What are the assumptions and terminology underpinning discussions of authoritarianism in Europe? What understandings of nature and its relation to the economy and human beings accompany discussions of climate change in the Council of Europe context? Along which lines are migrants classified within European human rights law, what kind of language is used to do so, and what gets invisibilised through these classifications? To explore the politics of different actors within the Council of Europe, we also seek to map the multiplicity of framers and how they interact with one another. To which actors can we trace certain frames used to address these topics? How do the vocabularies of various institutional actors within the Council of Europe and those of civil society and of scholarship overlap or conflict, and with what consequences?'

The deadline for abstract submissions is 23 June 2023. The full Call for Papers and more information can be found here. 

New ECHR Readings

Please find below our selection of recent publications, both articles and book chapters, related to the European Convention on Human Rights and its Court:

* Ivana Jelić, ‘Feminist Justice and the European Court of Human Rights’ in Ivana Krstić, Marco Evola, Maria Isabel Ribes Moreno (eds.), Legal Issues of International Law from a Gender Perspective (Springer International Publishing 2023), pp. 35-53:

 

‘Gender equality is clearly one of the pillar principles of the European Convention on Human Rights. Protection of women’s rights can be treated through an individual right, dealing with its substantial and procedural limb (ex. sex discrimination cases), or as an (aggravated) aspect or an attribute of a violation of a right enshrined by the Convention (ex. gender equality in connection with rights to freedom of expression or religion). Despite its principled position and having in mind the present state of jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court (ECtHR), it could be concluded that feminist justice is still underdeveloped in comparison with the growing need for the protection of women’s rights, insisting on personal integrity.

 

Observing from a broader perspective, the ECtHR’s case law regarding feminist justice can be categorized into three clusters: (1) cases relating to achieving formal equality between men and women and prohibiting direct gender discrimination, focusing on the idea of achieving “sameness with men” (jurisprudence under Article 14); (2) cases relating to issues that may, in theory, affect both men and women, but in reality, disproportionately affect women and require special (additional) protection, such as domestic violence and trafficking; and (3) cases relating to issues that are specific to women’s rights, such as violence against women and reproductive rights.

 

The Court has gradually widened its approach concerning the protection of women’s rights, giving rise to a ‘living instrument doctrine’ by interpreting the Convention “in the light of present-day conditions”. This approach of evaluative interpretation of the Convention is necessary in order to address actual challenges of violation of human rights of women and girls, which were not envisaged in the text of the Convention 70 years ago.

 

The author tends to make an analysis on how contemporary international law deals with feminist justice, with a special emphasis on the most important ECtHR cases. The contribution should give an analytical overview through the prism of direct and indirect gender discrimination, having in mind the mentioned three clusters, with an emphasis on the recent case-law.’

 

* Janneke Gerards, Elif Erken and Claire Loven, 'The Expanding Methodological Toolbox of the ECHR Scholar', Law and Method (February 2023):

 

‘Scholars who set out to study the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR or Convention) system will find an abundance in research methods to choose from. In the early years of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR or Court), the methodological toolbox of the ECHR scholar largely consisted of qualitative and classical-doctrinal methods to study the Court’s case law, as well as historical, philosophical and theoretical studies to contextualize the ECHR system. Today, these ‘traditional’ methods not only have evolved to reflect the enormous increase of, and scholarly interest in, the Court’s case law but have also been complemented by empirical qualitative and quantitative, statistical and machine learning research methods. This contribution traces these major developments in the methods applied to studying the Court. By providing a comprehensive discussion of the different approaches, including their application, value and potential weaknesses, this contribution helps scholars understand, use and learn from the rich methodological toolbox of the ECHR scholar.’

 

* Helga Molbæk-Steensig, ‘Subsidiarity Does Not Win Cases: A Mixed Methods Study of the Relationship between Margin of Appreciation Language and Deference at the European Court of Human Rights’, Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 36, Issue  1 (2023), pp. 83-107:

 

‘In August 2021, Protocol 15 inserted the doctrine of the margin of appreciation into the preamble of the European Convention of Human Rights, presumably cementing what President Spano has referred to as the ‘Age of Subsidiarity’, in which the European Court of Human Rights applies the margin of appreciation more often and increases deference to state parties. This insertion was done on the behest of the High Contracting Parties as part of the Interlaken reform process, and there is already a strong narrative in certain member states and parts of the scholarly literature that this focus has prompted the Court to increase the usage of the margin of appreciation and therefore the deference to states, judging more frequently in their favour. This article hypothesizes, however, that the increased usage of the margin of appreciation language which has been taken as proof for this narrative, might not, in fact, indicate higher levels of deference. Rather, the language of the margin of appreciation could be the result of usage by other actors or a marker of complexity for so-called ‘hard cases’. To investigate this relationship, the article applies a mixed legal-doctrinal and quantitative methodology to analyse who in the case law invokes the doctrine, what their purpose is for doing so, and what adjudicative consequences follow. It finds that usage of the margin-language topped well before the Interlaken process began, that governments are not the most frequent invokers and that, statistically speaking, states are no more likely to win margin-cases than other cases.’

* Andreas-Nikolaos Koukoulis, ‘The exercise of parental care of children born out of wedlock and the ECtHR: Reflections on Paparrigopoulos v. Greece’, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, Vol. 29, Issue 6 ( 2023):

 

‘This article analyses the recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Paparrigopoulos v. Greece and examines its implications for cross-border surrogacy in Europe. This judgment is significant because it sets new standards in terms of the concept of discrimination between parents under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights read in conjunction with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). The Court held that there was no reasonable relationship of proportionality between the preclusion of the applicant's exercise of parental responsibility and the aim pursued, which had been to protect the best interests of children born out of wedlock. Finally, this case note critiques the Court's findings and examines its likely impact on the parental care of the child, who was born and remains unmarried by his parents.’

* Daniela Alaattinoğlu, ‘Intersex interventions as human rights violations: The European Court of Human Rights sets out guiding principles in M v France’, Modern Law Review (14 February 2023):

 

‘In 2022, the European Court of Human Rights, for the first time, signalled that it regards non-consensual interventions on intersex individuals which are not motivated by medical necessity as human rights violations. This case note argues that the admissibility decision in question, M v France, albeit ruled inadmissible on procedural grounds, constitutes an important step towards binding supranational human rights standards, particularly regarding torture and ill-treatment. While M v France could inspire intersex people to further their claims as strategic litigation, the note reflects on the central questions invoked by the Court's decision and some of the legal hurdles that intersex people may face when approaching courts with claims for recognition and redress.’

New Book on Fairness in Criminal Appeal and the ECHR

Helena Morão and Ricardo Tavares da Silva, both of the University of Lisbon School of Law, have co-edited a book recently published by Springer, entitled Fairness in Criminal Appeal. A Critical and Interdisciplinary Analysis of the ECtHR Case-Law. This is the abstract:

'This book addresses the European Court of Human Rights’ fairness standards in criminal appeal, filling a gap in this less researched area of studies. Based on a fair trial immediacy requirement, the Court has found several violations of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights at the appellate level by at least eighteen States of the Council of Europe in a vast array of cases, particularly in contexts of first instance acquittals overturning and of sentences increasing on appeal.

On the one hand, the book critically engages this case-law with the law revisions it has recently inspired in European countries, as well as with the critiques and difficulties that it continues to raise. On the other hand, it interweaves insight from criminal procedure theory with new discoveries in the field of cognitive sciences (neuroscience of memory, philosophy of knowledge, AI), shedding an interdisciplinary light on the (in)adequacy and limits of the Strasbourg Court’s jurisprudence.'

New Thematic Factsheet on Excessive Formalism by Courts

Today, the Council of Europe's Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights has issued a new thematic factsheet on excessive formalism by courts. Here is a brief description:

''The European Court has underlined that the right of access to a court is an inherent aspect of the safeguards enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, referring to the principles of the rule of law and the avoidance of arbitrary power which underlie much of the Convention.  Possible limitations to the above right must not restrict the access left to the individual in such a way or to such an extent that the very essence of the right be impaired. Thus, the European Court has noted that, when applying procedural rules, the courts must avoid excessive formalism that would impair the fairness of the proceedings.

The new Thematic Factsheet issued today by the Execution Department provides examples of general and individual measures reported by States in the context of the execution of the European Court’s judgments focusing on the following specific issues: excessively formalistic rules of procedure; excessively formalistic interpretation of procedural requirements; assessment by courts of statutes of limitation; payment of court fees; clerical errors; and excessively formalistic decisions concerning detention.''

2022 Report on Execution of ECtHR judgments

Last week, the latest Annual Report 'Supervision of the Execution of Judgments and Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights' (covering the year 2022) of the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers was published. The report outlines some important achievements: the Committee's closure of 880 cases (including 200 leading cases), and there was a new record number of communications from national human rights institutions and civil society organisations. Nonetheless, as the report shows, the Committee is also facing a number of challenges. The total number of judgments pending full execution has increased. Moreover, the complexity and the sensitivity of the issues examined by the Committee of Ministers continue to increase. This is exacerbated by the issue faced by a number of States of insufficient capacity to execute in full the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. 

Apart from these general trends and developments this Annual Report, for the first time, contains a country-by-country statistical overview of the current situation regarding the execution of judgments and decisions of the Court in respect of each Member State.

The Court's Own Reykjavik Memorandum

Whether coincidental or not, but after last week Lize Glas reported on this blog that the Court's own memorandum for the Fourth Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe was not yet public, just yesterday it has been put on the Court's website. The memorandum, adopted on 20 March by the Plenary Court, is the Court's own message directed at those who will gather in the Icelandic capital next month. 

In a nutshell, it is a very diplomatically worded call to the state parties to the ECHR to put their money where their mouth is. The Court asks for commitment to the Convention system, including in the shape of providing sufficient resources. The Court squarely, and one may obviously not be surprised about this, underlines the centrality of the ECHR and its mechanisms to uphold and defend the values of democracy, rule of law and human rights which the Council of Europe stands for. It describes its own judgments and decisions as making these values concrete. In the Court's own words "A strong Court ensures a strong Council of Europe, and vice versa." - echoing in a way one of the other 'wish lists' for Reyjavik, The Hague Civil Society Declaration on Council of Europe Reform, on which we reported earlier, which states "The CoE needs civil society as civil society needs the CoE." Both documents show how the ECHR  is a legal-political ecosystem that can only function well if each of its components is in a healthy state and works productively with the others.

The memorandum has a didactic edge, pointing out how political stability, rule of law, good governance, economic growth (sic) and strong democratic institutions interrelate. It emphasises how strides have been made through the reform process of the ECHR system in the past decade, both through steps taken by state parties but also by the Court's own efforts to become more efficient, connect more strongly with domestic courts, open up to civil society interventions and more. Large swathes of the backlog of cases have been tackled, but with new waves of applications coming in, often on complex and systemic issues, the Court emphasises that its own internal improvements in working methods simply do not suffice. Not just because the quantity of cases is an issue, but also because of - as the Court identifies in a thinly veiled wake up call - political pressure on its own independence and impartiality as well as in relation to the execution of its binding judgments and decisions.

In this context it calls for strong renewed commitment by the state parties. Concretely in three areas: (1) resources; (2) accountability in inter-state and confect-related cases; and (3) execution of judgments.

In terms of resources, the shortages are made very explicit: in the last decade, the Court lost 51 posts, 7% of its staff is financed by voluntary contributions and then there is voluntary help in kind in the shape of secondments from national institutions  It also points out that, unlike other parts of the Council of Europe, it has no voluntary contributions from the part of the EU - an element that puts the ongoing (and currently seemingly almost finalised) EU accession negotiations in a different light as well. In short, as those following the Court know, there has been and still is a shortage. Concrete action to sustainably fund the Court is needed - a call that aligns with those of the other wish lists for Reykjavik.

Secondly, in terms of the inter-state and conflict related cases, the Court obviously points to the Russian invasion in Ukraine and its consequences, including Russia no longer being a party to the ECHR, but the Court still having to deal with all pending applications related to it. In addition, inter-state cases are complex and time- and resource-consuming. For all such cases, the crucial importance of accountability - and thus of means to deal with such cases - again demands support by way of funding.

Finally, in terms of execution, again the Court's call aligns with those of the other wish lists analysed on this blog last week. The vicious circle between faltering execution of judgments and the influx of new cases because of unresolved systemic or large-scale human rights issues is again identified. The fact that 4 out of 5 cases before the Court relate to issues legally clarified in well-established case-law and/or to repetitive cases, both pointing to problems in the actual implementation of the Convention more broadly at the national level. These are well-known facts of course and the Court can do little more, as it does in this memorandum, than to call for the umpteenth time for states to re-affirm their commitment to the execution of the Court's judgments.

Trying to grab the momentum - "as war rages on European soil..." (sic) - the Court with this document issues another strongly worded call which one may hope will be  finally taken up - the geopolitical context in Europe does not bode too well in that sense. The Court in the memorandum rightly calls the Convention system "the beating heart" of the Council of Europe's human rights protection. One may add: for the heart to keep functioning, it needs less stress and more oxygen - and only the states can make this happen.