COVID-19-Related Cases before the European Court of Human Rights: A Multiperspective Approach

Abstract

This study overviews how the COVID-19 pandemic is framed in five cases before the European Court of Human Rights (the ECtHR). By reconstructing the heteroglossic system of genres at the ECtHR, the study contributes to the limited literature on the Court’s discursive practices and genres. The analysis looks into the framing of the COVID-19 pandemic as a human rights violation and identifies preferred interpretation schemata across the participation framework of the cases considered using critical discourse analysis and framing. The findings identify a scaffolding of dialogical frames, where most applicants advanced politicized frame systems built on the core denial of the existence or seriousness of COVID-19, framing the governments’ actions or omissions as civil and political human rights violations. The Governments built on the general healthcare crisis framing, and counterframed societal limitations as agency stemming from a “health and safety first” frame. The Court refuted most of the politicized framing choices and accepted most healthcare-related frames, operating under the “exceptional and unforeseen circumstances” frame.