The European Court of Human Rights (the ECtHR) is really relevant to the protection of human rights in Europe. This new fact is subject to many interpretations in the UK, especially since the country has pulled out of the European Union. The answer depends on the future consequences of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), already fully distinct from the EU regarding the UK. Though the court sits in Strasbourg and can operate in all member nations, the nation is also a member of the Council of Europe.
The European Court of Human Rights is an international court created in 1959 by the European Convention of Human Rights. This court takes cases from individuals, organizations, or states alleging violations of civil and political rights established in the Convention. Through the European Court of Human Rights, fundamental rights such as multiple rights, including the right to life, freedom, and a fair trial, are guaranteed in the 46 member states of the Council.
The UK has been a founding member of the Council of Europe since 1949 and ratified the European Convention on Human Rights in 1951. This means that the UK has accepted obligations under the Convention to protect the rights and to accept the authority of the ECtHR in Strasbourg.
Importantly, the UK’s position in the ECHR framework is not dependent on the UK being an EU member state; Brexit has not affected its obligations in respect of the convention. The Human Rights Act 1998 has also embedded ECHR rights into UK law, meaning that individuals can bring human rights claims to the UK courts so that individuals can raise the human rights dimension before making a case to Strasbourg.
Jurisdiction of the ECtHR on the UK
The European Convention on Human Rights governs the jurisdiction of the ECtHR in the United Kingdom. Any person, organization, or group who believes that the UK has infringed on his or her rights under the Convention can take their case to Strasbourg if they have exhausted all national judicial remedies.
The court is not a general appeals body; it simply assesses whether a state has breached the Convention rights. Depending on the ruling, it may require the UK to do something to put it right, which may require amending legislation, policy, or practice.
Scope of the European Court of Human Rights’ Jurisdiction in the UK:
The scope describes the range and boundaries of the ECtHR’s jurisdiction over the United Kingdom. This comprises
1. Matters Covered Under the Convention
Any reported infringement of rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights falls under the authority of the ECtHR. This holds true for both omissions and activities of the UK government, local councils, law enforcement agencies, and other public authorities. It addresses violations of privacy, unjust trials, freedom of expression limitations, and illegal incarceration.
2. Applicability to All Under UK Authority
Not just citizens of the UK, but everybody under its authority is subject to the jurisdiction of the court. Foreign nationals in the United Kingdom, asylum seekers, and even those impacted by UK military operations abroad are included here as long as the UK has strong control over the region or people concerned.
3. Limits of the Court’s Power
The ECtHR is not a universal appeals court for every UK legal controversy. It only covers issues relating to Convention-listed rights. Unless the state has failed to protect a person’s rights sufficiently, purely personal conflicts, that is, private arguments, fall outside its scope.
4. Requirement to Exhaust Domestic Remedies
The court’s scope is restricted to situations where all domestic legal routes have been exhausted initially. Before submitting to Strasbourg, an individual must bring their case through the British courts, including the Supreme Court if necessary.
How Cases Reach the European Court of Human Rights from the UK
Bringing a case before the ECtHR requires one to adhere to exacting standards. First, they have to exhaust every UK court process. They can apply to the ECtHR only after getting a last judgment nationally and must do so within four months. The case must also come within the convention’s enumerated rights. This guarantees the ECtHR serves as a final option for justice.
Binding Nature of ECtHR Decisions Regarding the UK
Under international law, rulings of the ECtHR are binding because the UK ratified the Convention. Although the court cannot expressly reverse decisions made in UK courts, it may demand that the government alter laws or policies to meet human rights criteria. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe keeps an eye on the UK’s respect for these decisions.
The Role of the Human Rights Act 1998
The Human Rights Act enables UK courts to directly invoke ECHR rights. It calls on judges to interpret legislation to match the Convention. If this is not possible, courts may make a “declaration of incompatibility,” which leads Parliament to consider legislative change. This relationship between our domestic law and the ECtHR ensures that human rights are a priority for the UK government.
Common misinterpretations regarding the jurisdiction of the ECtHR
The most misunderstood aspect of the ECtHR is its function as an EU organization. Not an EU institution, the ECtHR belongs to the Council of Europe, a different group with more members than the EU. The second most often held mistaken belief is that the ECtHR is able to overturn judgments handed down by the UK Supreme Court. The ECtHR can only decide whether the UK has violated the Convention; it cannot overturn rulings of the UK Supreme Court. Finally, it is not as simple as “leaving the ECHR.” It would mean leaving the Council of Europe entirely.
Key Cases Where the ECtHR Influenced UK Law
The ECtHR has impacted UK law in a few notable cases.
- Hirst v. United Kingdom (No. 2): The court found by a majority that the UK’s blanket ban on prisoner voting was in breach of the right to free elections.
- McCann and Others v. United Kingdom: The court found that British forces violated the duty to life during a Gibraltar operation in 1988.
These are just a couple of examples that show how the ECtHR’s rulings can lead to UK changes in law and policy.
Limitations of the ECtHR’s Authority in the UK
Contrary to the obligatory nature of its jurisprudence, the ECtHR depends largely on the UK for implementing change. Whereas it does enforce its judgments, the Court lacks the power to prompt Parliament to do anything. Specific members must comply with ECtHR rulings in view of negotiating the inevitable tension between sovereignty and authority arising from international obligations.
Brexit and ECtHR Jurisdiction
As the ECHR stands apart from the EU, Brexit did not alter how ECtHR jurisdiction operates in the UK. The UK is still bound by the Convention and is yet a member of the Council of Europe. Any political debates on Human Rights Act amendments may influence how judgments are locally applied in practice.
Political Argument on Leaving the ECHR
Some British politicians have advised some kind of departure from the ECHR to recover entire legal control. Opponents say that this action would undermine rights protection and damage the UK’s reputation abroad, while supporters contend that it would strengthen parliamentary sovereignty.