Commissioner for Human Rights

People turn to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg because they feel unable to find justice at home. Though the majority of European states do comply with the Court’s decisions, there are some which are strikingly slow to abide by their obligation to execute the judgments. This is serious - a prompt, full and effective execution of the Court’s judgments is key for the effective implementation of the European Convention’s standards in domestic law.

The standards and procedures are clear. Under Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights, states “undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties”. The Council of Europe Committee of Ministers supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. It addresses the shortcomings identified by the Court in order to put an end to violations and prevent their recurrence.

It is however the states which are responsible for ensuring a better implementation of the Convention at the national level. States parties do usually pay the compensation due to the victim – “just satisfaction” - ordered by the Court. Also, those payments are in most cases made before the deadline set by the Court. However, executing a judgment is not limited to the payment of a certain sum of money; it also entails other obligations. One certainly is to take the necessary measures to redress the situation of the applicants. Another, when relevant, is to amend legislation and/or change practice.

Delays in implementation - a major source of concern

The slow execution of Court decisions is a problem in a number of cases. In its recent annual report on the supervision of the execution of judgments, the Committee of Ministers notes for instance that although the percentage of cases pending for less than two years has decreased, the percentage of leading cases under supervision for more than two years has increased in 2010, as compared to 2009. There are currently more than 9 000 cases awaiting execution.

Some important judgments have remained unimplemented after several years despite clear guidance given by the Court and the Committee of Ministers. The Court has for example found that Roma children had been discriminated against with respect to their right to education in some member states. Three years after the first major judgment of the Court on that issue (D.H. and others versus Czech Republic), little has changed on the ground in these states.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has repeatedly criticized the worrying delays in the implementation of judgments, particularly in nine states parties: Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Moldova, Poland, Romania, the Russian Federation, Turkey and Ukraine.

Delays in implementation mainly relate to cases of chronic non-enforcement of domestic judicial decisions; ill-treatment by law-enforcement officials and a lack of effective investigations thereof; unlawful detention; and excessive length of detention on remand.

The Court’s rulings strengthen human rights in Europe

The Committee of Ministers has proposed to member states that a national co-ordinator be appointed to follow the execution process and to keep national parliaments informed of the execution situation and the measures being taken [Recommendation (2008)2].

This might be one means of ensuring that the decisions by the Strasbourg Court are taken seriously in all cases. Such measures would also demonstrate that the responsible national authorities are keen to preserve the effectiveness of the European mechanism for the protection of human rights – which so far has given relief to thousands of individuals who could not obtain full justice at home.

Thomas Hammarberg