POLICY-DEBATE: (Non) Implementation of European Courts’ Judgments: A Rule of Law Priority for the New European Institutions
/
On October 15th, the European Implementation Network (EIN), jointly with Democracy Reporting International (DRI), organised a policy debate to raise awareness on the lagging implementation of relevant judgments of both the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), and to explore how the new institutions in Brussels and the Council of Europe can work together to address the deteriorating rule of law situation in connection to the growing disrespect for the European Courts’ findings.
As detailed in EIN-DRI's latest report ‘Justice Delayed, Justice Denied: Non-Implementation of European Courts’ Judgments and the Rule of Law’, this pressing and sui generis rule- of- law concern affects numerous EU member States. The implementation experts, key policymakers, and civil society leaders who participated to the debate held under the Chatham House Rule had the opportunity to dive into the key findings of our report, explore the real-world impact of non-compliance or delayed compliance, and identify opportunities for improving collaboration between Brussels institutions, the Council of Europe and civil society with a view to effectively tackling implementation challenges.
This debate, which was attended by more than 70 participants, marked another significant step in EIN’s ongoing mission to ensure that human rights judgments do not remain an empty word, but that they generate their full impact and potential for much-needed reforms by being fully and timely implemented.
Rule of Law, Democracy, and Non-Implementation
The consequences of non-implementation extend far beyond individual cases, threatening the very fabric of democratic governance and eroding public trust. As multiple speakers emphasised, failing to comply with court judgments undermines the rule of law, weakens the system of checks and balances, and contributes to a growing culture of impunity.
In the course of the discussion, attention was drawn to the broader implications of these failures, which were described as part of a deliberate attempt by some governments to undermine democracy itself. Emphasis was placed on the critical link between the rule of law and democracy, in particular on the fact that the systematic non-compliance observed in some countries reflects an intentional effort to dismantle democratic principles and to silence dissent, a trend that cannot be tolerated in the context of the EU, a landmark community of law.
Implementation-related perspectives from the Council of Europe and the relevant European Union bodies
Image by Vincent Lefebvre
The Council of Europe’s ongoing efforts to support implementation, including scaling up cooperation projects and strengthening dialogue with national institutions, were outlined during the debate. While acknowledging the complexity of many cases, which can result in important implementation delays, certain speakers also highlighted the need for a more nuanced approach when assessing implementation progress, particularly for cases requiring structural reforms. That said, the emphasis placed by the 2023 Reykjavík declaration on the crucial role civil society organisations have to play in helping uphold the Council of Europe founding principles, including in supporting the effectiveness of the implementation mechanism, was strongly recalled.
Attention was drawn to the significance of the dual quantitative and qualitative approach adopted by the EIN-DRI report in establishing findings, which depict an overall worsening situation across all implementation indicators. Additionally, particular concern was expressed regarding judgments that remain unimplemented or partially implemented for an unjustifiably long time, undermining the authority of the Court and the broader rule of law principle. It was deemed particularly problematic that, 75 years after the establishment of the Convention system, systemic violations such as unfair trials, unlawful detention, torture, and attacks on freedom of expression persist. Aligning with our report’s recommendations for increased European Union involvement in the enforcement of ECtHR judgments, the point was made that the accountability system for failing to respond to such violations in a timely manner needs to urgently be strengthened. For it to function effectively, however, it must be supported by genuine political will from national authorities.
In this regard, the essential role of law in upholding democracy was underscored, with particular attention given to the importance of tools designed to address non-compliance, such as financial penalties and rule of law conditionality mechanisms. It was observed that these measures remain underutilised and should be applied in a much more systematic manner. The lack of frequent recourse to financial sanctions under Article 260 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) for non-implementation of CJEU judgments was noted as a significant shortcoming, with a proposal for more automatic follow-ups in cases involving violations of EU values. Instruments such as the Rule of Law Conditionality Regulation and cohesion fund provisions were highlighted, showcasing the potential to link non-compliance to access to the EU budget. Optimism was expressed regarding the impact cases currently pending before the CJEU could have in enhancing the EU’s ability to address systemic issues.
The discussion also highlighted the EU’s growing involvement in monitoring rule of law issues, citing the recent inclusion of data on the implementation of European Court of Human Rights’ judgments in the European Commission’s annual Rule of Law Report. There was, in this regard, a suggestion to broaden the scope of EIN-DRI’s reports to encompass candidate countries, thereby strengthening the norm-setting influence of both the EU and the Council of Europe. Finally, the importance of fostering synergies between EU mechanisms and the Council of Europe’s execution procedures to strengthen compliance efforts was underlined, while also warning against the risks of fragmentation between the two systems.
Civil society's crucial role in safeguarding the rule of law
Image by arsenisspyros from Getty Images
The debate further underscored the indispensable role of civil society in bridging the gap between the delivery of judgments and their implementation. Civil society organisations act not only as watchdogs but also as proactive drivers of compliance, using their expertise, networks, and advocacy skills to ensure that human rights judgments are not left unimplemented.
The detrimental effects of non-implementation on public trust in democratic institutions were highlighted, illustrating how the failure to enforce judgments diminishes trust not only among directly affected individuals but also within the broader public. This erosion of confidence undermines the legitimacy of European legal frameworks and the values they represent, and must thus be urgently halted.
Strong support was lent to the concept of implementation hubs - collaborative, multi-stakeholder platforms spearheaded by civil society but also engaging academia, national human rights institutions, and other actors - as a potential solution to the implementation challenges. These hubs, already strongly supported by EIN, were identified as mechanisms to:
Track the progress of judgment implementation at national level, identifying barriers, and highlighting areas of concern;
Engage with national governments and international institutions to push for compliance and systemic reforms;
Provide training, resources, and technical support to local actors, including legal professionals and activists;
Formulate national-level policy recommendations based on evidence and analysis, ensuring a forward-looking approach to implementation.
The potential for civil society to directly support government-led initiatives through expert committees was underscored, emphasising the value of diverse stakeholder participation in providing technical advice and guiding the implementation process. Integrating civil society into formal mechanisms offers governments valuable on-the-ground perspectives and fosters inclusivity and transparency in implementation efforts. At the same time, civil society faces significant challenges, particularly in countries grappling with systemic non-compliance. The dual role of advocating for judgment implementation while defending their operational space presents a complex task for CSOs. Governments resistant to implementing court judgments often target civil society with restrictive laws, funding cuts, or public smear campaigns, making their watchdog work even more difficult. The importance of recognising the essential role of civil society within the democratic ecosystem was emphasised, including the need to enable these organisations to effectively contribute to implementation processes at both national and international levels.
Synergies and prospects for future cooperation
The debate concluded with a strategic discussion on future collaborations. Representatives from the European Parliament, Council of Europe, and civil society organisations agreed that more rigorous political action and consistent monitoring of compliance are essential.
Looking ahead, EIN and its partners are committed to maintaining pressure on national governments and EU institutions alike. By promoting synergies between the EU and the Council of Europe, and by enhancing civil society’s involvement, EIN continues to actively support the effort to turn judgments into rights through effective action.