The ECHR Deserves To Die

The destruction of the ECHR would be a good first step to getting rid of ALL the so-called "European Institutions", including the EU itself.

From The European Conservative

By Lauren Smith

Unelected, unaccountable judges in Strasbourg are forcing governments to prioritise foreign criminals over their own citizens.

Across Europe, governments are grappling with record-high immigration and growing public discontent to go along with it. Many countries—like Germany, the UK, and Greece—are vowing to police their borders more effectively, particularly when it comes to deporting foreign criminals or closing the door to excessive asylum claims. One of the most egregious obstacles blocking this from happening right now is the Council of Europe’s European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). 

Last month, Italy and Denmark led a coalition of nine countries in signing a joint letter to the Council of Europe, demanding that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which interprets the ECHR, allow more deportations. The signatories—including Austria, Greece, Poland, and the Netherlands—argued that the ECHR was making it practically impossible to expel dangerous offenders, even after being convicted of serious crimes. The letter accused the court of preventing member states from “making political decisions in our own democracies.” 

France, meanwhile, has openly defied the ECHR by planning to deport Islamist extremists in spite of court rulings. In Germany, the governing Christian Democrats suggested during the most recent election campaign that they would consider leaving the ECHR altogether if it continued to prevent the country from getting a grip on migration. This all comes at a time when the EU is still pressing ahead with plans to formally join the convention as a bloc, even as member states revolt against its authority. 

It shouldn’t be difficult to understand why EU states have started to take matters into their own hands. It should go without saying that a government’s top priority should be to ensure its own citizens are safe, rather than concerning itself with the comfort of foreign nationals who put them in danger. The ECHR makes it virtually impossible to maintain the rule of law. 

Take Denmark, for example. In a series of rulings last year, the ECtHR found that the Danish government had violated the rights of convicted foreign criminals by banning them from returning for too long. In the case of Sharafane v Denmark, a convicted Iraqi drug trafficker was told he must be allowed to return to Denmark eventually—even though he’d been lawfully deported after serving time in a Danish prison. The ECtHR declared his six-year re-entry ban to be a de facto lifetime ban, something that is forbidden under the convention. 

In another ruling from 2023, the court ruled against Denmark for deporting long-term residents convicted of multiple criminal offences, insisting the state had not adequately considered their social ties to the country. 

Similar rulings have come down against Switzerland, Italy, Greece, and elsewhere. In January, the ECtHR accused Greece of systemically pushing back asylum seekers to Turkey without processing their claims. The case revolved around a Turkish woman, known only as A.R.E., who was forcibly returned by Greek police in 2019 after crossing the border without documentation and claiming asylum. The court ruled that she had been denied any opportunity to apply for asylum and awarded her €20,000 in damages. Naturally, Greek officials worried that the ruling would only encourage more illegal crossings. 

Perhaps some of the most bizarre examples of the ECHR’s overreach come from the UK, which remains a signatory to the ECHR even after leaving the EU. This has produced a constant barrage of headlines such as “Albanian criminal’s deportation halted over son’s distaste for chicken nuggets,” “Illegal immigrant claims husband would find Caribbean too hot,” and “Judge allows Jamaican drug dealer to avoid deportation after being told he has a transgender child.” These are usually justified with the vague argument of the ‘right to a family life.’ 

In some instances, criminals are stopped from being sent back because they have committed a crime. One sex offender was allowed to stay in the UK despite being convicted of “outraging public decency and exposure,” because his behaviour was likely to result in “ill treatment” in his native Afghanistan. In another case, a rapist could not be deported back to Jamaica because his criminal record was so extensive that he would not be allowed into witness protection, and therefore his life might be in danger from gangs. 

Why is the safety of foreign offenders so regularly being prioritised over that of the existing population? How have we reached a point where it is easier to guarantee the rights of a convicted rapist, drug dealer, or jihadist than it is to ensure ordinary people do not fall victim to crime? The ECHR has effectively made it illegal for European nations to protect their own borders and their own people. 

Public opinion could not be clearer on this. Polling has found that majorities across Europe—including in France, Germany, and the UK—support the deportation of failed asylum seekers and immigrants living in their countries illegally, especially those convicted of serious crimes. Yet time and again, national efforts to respond to this mandate are frustrated by the ECtHR’s outrageously vague interpretations of human rights law. The result is a growing gap between what European citizens demand and what their governments are allowed to do.

It should be completely unacceptable that a foreign court of unelected judges is able to determine how a nation controls its own borders. Perhaps worst of all, the ECtHR is completely unapologetic in its undermining of national sovereignty. Responding to the recent pushback led by Italy and Denmark, Council of Europe chief Alain Berset declared last month that “debate is healthy but politicising the court is not.” He also warned that the ECtHR adopting a harder stance on deportations might “risk eroding the very stability [the ECHR was] built to ensure.” 

Stability is, of course, already being eroded in European countries by unchecked migration. That an unelected, unaccountable body in Strasbourg is able to dictate to governments who they can and cannot keep in their countries is an affront to democracy. No nation should be forced to protect foreign criminals over its own citizens. The ECHR is a rotten institution that deserves to die.