Nearly half of the judges serving on the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) have never sat as judges in their own countries before their appointment in Strasbourg, a Daily Mail analysis reveals. This includes 19 out of 46 justices, encompassing career academics, diplomats, and civil servants with no prior bench experience.
The finding raises fresh questions over the court’s legitimacy and expertise in Europe’s top human rights tribunal.
Judges Without Judicial Background
Among the nations with ECHR representatives lacking domestic judicial experience are Germany, Spain, Turkey, Greece, and Austria. Two additional ad hoc judges also had no prior judicial roles before joining the court.
Judges are nominated by member states and approved by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, a body separate from the European Union. The UK remains a member of the Council but is debating its role in relation to the court’s rulings.
Council Of Europe Defends Appointments
The Council of Europe has defended the court’s makeup, stating that many judges are highly specialised legal academics well qualified to rule on human rights issues. It cited other international courts like the International Court of Justice, which also includes academics among their judges.
However, critics argue that the lack of judicial experience undermines the court’s authority.
Strong Criticism From UK Politicians
Lord Blencathra, a member of the Parliamentary Assembly, condemned some judges for never having tried a case, claiming some would not even meet the standards of teaching at British polytechnic universities. He emphasised that the public is often misled into believing the court comprises judges of Supreme Court calibre, which he disputes.
Impact On UK And Europe
The controversy comes amid growing scrutiny of the court’s powers and judgments. Recent rulings have sparked backlash, including the 2024 decision declaring Switzerland violated citizens’ human rights by insufficiently tackling climate change, and the 2022 injunction blocking the UK government’s Rwanda deportation plan.
The court has also ruled against UK policies on prisoner voting bans and whole-life sentences, stoking calls from Conservative and Reform UK parties to withdraw from the ECHR.
Political Moves To Limit Court
Following the signing of a political declaration in Moldova to reduce the use of the Convention by illegal migrants and foreign criminals, critics have dismissed the agreement as ineffective. They argue that without amending the Convention text itself, the court’s reach remains mostly unchanged.
Originally published by UKNIP.
