Tampering with the ECtHR

On Human Rights Day, 10 December 2025, the Secretary Common of the Council of Europe convened an off-the-cuff ministerial convention. The explanation, he acknowledged, was that the European Courtroom of Human Rights (ECtHR, Courtroom) has come beneath strain from its member states. Given the continuing interference with the Courtroom, I suggest that the latter ought to outline and apply contempt-of-court (contempt) measures to sanction member states intruding on its independence and impartiality. Member states ought to pre-emptively settle for such measures. States that publicly put political strain on the Courtroom, attempt to affect its judgments outdoors of proceedings, weaponize it, try to intimidate it, blame or scapegoat it for populist functions, misrepresent its case legislation and function, or disrespect its authority in another method, ought to face accountability beneath the European Conference on Human Rights (ECHR, Conference), for the Courtroom to outline. At the least, the Courtroom may take into account drawing inferences towards such states in related instances and issuing injunctions towards them.

What’s contempt of courtroom?

Contempt of courtroom is any behaviour, act, or omission that disrespects or defies the authority, dignity, or means of a courtroom, interfering with justice, together with prejudicing a case (e.g., by (social) media). Britannica defines it as “speech or conduct that doesn’t present correct respect to a courtroom” and as “insult to, interference with, or violation of a sovereign courtroom”. It additional determines the “main significance of the notion of contempt [as] warrant[ing] judicial motion in protection of the judicial energy itself”.

Latest state contempt in direction of the Courtroom

In 2025, the Courtroom has confronted unhealthy politicization – political strain – with member states looking for to weaponize it, the Council of Europe Secretary Common has implied. The strain initially got here from states in an “open letter”, during which they overtly questioned the Courtroom’s interpretation of the Conference and proposed to alter the way during which it decides “migration” instances, by limiting the human rights of “legal foreigners”.

I argue that such political messaging looking for to stigmatise and management the Courtroom quantities to the authorized violation referred to as contempt-of-court. It blatantly disrespects the Courtroom, scapegoating it to cater to widespread xenophobic calls for to “cease the boats” (see additionally Donald). Furthermore, it overtly seeks to intervene with justice by instantly influencing the end result of a number of instances, prejudicing the basic rights of (whole courses of) (extremely weak) people. The “open letter” flagrantly disregards the Courtroom’s autonomy, its unique prerogative to bindingly interpret the Conference, taking the freedom to undermine and “proper” its interpretation.

Human rights commentators have concurred that this public problem by governments of the Courtroom’s case legislation goals to strain the Courtroom (see Steininger, Buyse, Hilpold, Forde, Donald). They’ve famous the illegitimacy of this governmental try to meddle within the Courtroom’s jurisprudence, subverting its authority, and marring its impartiality (see additionally Ní Chinnéide and Sevrin, and Vishchyk and Pizzi).

Moreover, the overtly xenophobic letter, which tries to discredit the Courtroom for defending migrants and assaults it based mostly on its perceived affiliation with “foreigners”, mirrors – and is equally deplorable as – the denounced method during which states vilify and search to suppress human rights defenders (HRDs) advocating for migrants (see right here concerning the European context of official destructive stereotyping and intimidation of such HRDs).

The Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner has recognized the letter’s blaming of the Courtroom as a type of the now normalised “laying of the blame for social ills on foreigners”, the persistent “othering” and “disparagement” of migrants, which additionally engenders hate crime.

Extra contempt

Belgium, one of many signatories of the mentioned letter, refuses to adjust to the ECtHR “reception disaster” judgments. United Kingdom politicians threaten to withdraw from the Conference, framing it as an impediment to frame management. Poland overtly refuses to adjust to ECtHR judgments on judicial reform (Vishchyk and Pizzi).

On the casual ministerial convention on Human Rights Day, 27 member states made a joint Assertion referring to, and growing, the letter of the 9. They claimed that “a proper steadiness needs to be discovered” between migrants’ rights and their very own pursuits, implying that the Courtroom-defined steadiness is incorrect. The states sought to “alter” the Courtroom-defined steadiness by depreciating the ECHR proper to household lifetime of “foreigners convicted of significant crimes”. The states explicitly acknowledged the aim of such “rebalancing” is to make sure they’re by no means unable to expel such foreigners.

On this Assertion, the states sought to rectify the Courtroom’s case legislation on freedom from inhuman and degrading remedy as effectively. Instantly instructing the Courtroom on find out how to interpret this freedom, they claimed that its scope must be “constrained to probably the most severe points”, permitting them to expel “international criminals” regardless of problems with healthcare and jail situations.

On the convention, the Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner admonished states “to make sure that all discourse and proposals do nothing to decrease the independence of the [Court] or certainly of another courtroom”. He affirmed: “The precept of independence of the judiciary is crucial to the rule of legislation state.”

ECHR accountability for all that contempt

I argue that such interference because the 9 states’ letter and the 27 states’ joint Assertion looking for to scapegoat the Courtroom and pressure it to alter its case legislation, which quantities to contempt of courtroom contravening the rule of legislation, ought to have authorized penalties beneath the ECHR. There must be ECHR accountability for such state acts in contempt of the ECtHR.

The ECtHR may outline and impose such legal responsibility, which states ought to embrace beneath the very declaration (or different instrument) that they’ll use in 2026 to restrict their very own ECHR duties vis-à-vis the human rights of migrants/foreigners.

What would such legal responsibility entail? For instance, in pending instances, the Courtroom may take into account drawing from such states’ statements inferences of their dangerous religion vis-à-vis migrants’ rights, together with for functions of interim aid. It may presume that the respondent states’ intent was to not respect such people’ ECHR rights, e.g., their rights as outlined by the Courtroom; that the states’ notion of “proportionality” in pursuing their purported official goals was not the identical because the genuine one – the one the Courtroom has outlined. It may take into account discovering ECHR violations and ordering structural aid (Article 46 ECHR) based mostly on the respondents’ failure to rebut such inferences.

Moreover, the Courtroom may take into account awarding enhanced compensation to candidates in related instances, as undue strain on the Courtroom to resolve in favour of states – and towards these candidates – adversely impacts the latter’s proper to a good course of beneath their proper to particular person software (Article 34 ECHR). Certainly, the Courtroom may take into account holding that such anti-migrant/xenophobic statements by states looking for to redefine their very own victims’ ECHR rights are a breach per se of the related candidates’ proper to particular person software, with the suitable penalties beneath the case legislation. On the very least, by doing so, the Courtroom would doc states’ infractions towards its integrity, exposing them, in addition to shine a lightweight by itself dignity by defending it. Furthermore, it could prepared the ground for embattled home courts and judges. Most significantly, it could present migrants that, irrespective of the price, it’s going to carry on recognising their persona earlier than the legislation because it ought to.

Maybe, as a consequence, the states would retaliate by looking for to restrict the Conference and curtail the Courtroom, but they might have an excellent motive to take action by the suitable procedures, in a way respectful of the Courtroom, e.g. of the rule of legislation.

Conclusion

Out of self-respect, Council of Europe states – which by their very membership self-identify as rule-of-law states – ought to proactively settle for ECtHR-defined and imposed contempt-of-court measures beneath the ECHR. It is a matter of (re)aligning with the rule of legislation. States ought to accomplish that utilizing the identical (political) instrument by which they’ll in 2026 search to curtail migrants’ ECHR rights. Most member states have proven no respect for the human rights of foreigners whom they different. However, they need to display respect for their very own (purported) rule-of-law character by accepting ECHR contempt-of-court accountability for themselves and their friends.