The European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI) calls on the Member States of the Council of Europe to respect and safeguard the independence of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court).

In a context of increasing polarization and conflicts both in Europe and globally, the Court constitutes a fundamental pillar of peace, democracy, the rule of law, and the effective protection of human rights for every individual in Europe, within the system of separation and checks and balances of powers that the member states have jointly committed to build.

On 22 May 2025, at the initiative of Denmark and Italy, nine governments of Council of Europe Member States, including Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, published an open letter calling for a “new and open dialogue on the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights.”

The concerns expressed by these governments relate mainly to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in the field of migration. In particular, the letter argues that the Court’s judicial practice concerning the expulsion of migrants convicted of criminal offences undermines governments’ discretionary space to make decisions in this area.

ENNHRI expresses concern regarding the open letter of the nine governments. While it is a legitimate right and responsibility of governments to guarantee the security of society—as emphasized in the letter—and while open debate on these issues is essential in a democratic system, every action must be carried out in full compliance with national and international legal norms and obligations, including the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The Court plays a crucial role in ensuring the uniform interpretation and application of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) across all Member States. Its judgments contribute to strengthening legal certainty for individuals and guaranteeing consistent and coherent protection of human rights throughout the Council of Europe area.

The Court was established by the sovereign decision of the Council of Europe Member States to oversee the implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This Convention reflects the minimum and inalienable rights inherent to every human being, independent of nationality. It includes non-derogable rights, such as the prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment, which cannot be suspended or restricted under any circumstances; these rights are considered fundamental to human dignity.

ENNHRI stresses that the Court does not prevent governments from making decisions to enhance the security and stability of society, including the expulsion of migrants convicted of criminal offences. However, in accordance with the rule of law, the Court exercises independent and impartial oversight over the compliance of such decisions with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The Court requires that every expulsion decision be assessed individually, taking into account the specific circumstances of the person concerned, including the nature of the criminal offence, the individual’s ties to the host country, as well as preventing the risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment upon return. This individualized approach reflects a balanced application of the European Convention on Human Rights, respecting both the interests of the state and human rights.

The Court leaves a margin of discretion to Member States regarding the manner in which they implement and interpret the rights set forth in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), particularly when balancing individual rights with broader public interests, including societal security. In the field of migrant expulsions, the Court grants Member States a wide margin of appreciation, with a significant number of cases decided in favour of the state. However, in certain cases, after careful and balanced analysis of conflicting rights, the Court has found that expulsion decisions violate the ECHR. In line with the rule of law, these judgments, like all others of the Court, are binding and must be executed by the States Parties to the Convention.

While public and critical debate is essential for the functioning of democracy, it must not undermine the independence of the European Court of Human Rights. Attacks on the legitimacy of the Court’s decisions by governments risk weakening its authority and its position as an independent judicial body. This is particularly concerning in a global context where some governments, under the pretext of national security and migration control, repeatedly challenge the independence and legitimacy of judicial institutions at both national and international levels.

Seventy-five years ago, the determination and leadership of European Member States in the post-war period led to the adoption of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the establishment of the European Court of Human Rights.

These actions were based on the unshakable conviction that human rights constitute the foundation of justice and international peace. In today’s unstable geopolitical context, including the presence of conflict on the European continent, it is imperative that European governments demonstrate the same level of leadership and commitment as then. This requires unwavering dedication to the rule of law, respect for democracy, and the protection of human rights, as well as upholding the independence of judicial institutions that guarantee the effective implementation of these principles.