Does European human rights law matter? Implementation and domestic impact of Strasbourg Court judgments on minority-related policies

Abstract

Since the 1990s, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has witnessed an unparalleled growth in its caseload, in tandem with the expansion of its jurisprudential authority vis-à-vis states. Yet, scholars studying European integration and political scientists have paid little attention to the complex and variable ways in which the ECtHR judicial rule-making interacts with national political systems and societies. This article examines the implementation of ECtHR judgments in cases brought to it by individuals from sexual minorities, historical ethnic and religious minorities, and immigrants and asylum seekers from five countries: Greece, Bulgaria, Austria, France and the UK. It argues that European human rights case law matters, and that its implementation can influence domestic legal and policy change under particular preconditions. It is most likely to do so, in the first place, through repeat litigation and legal mobilisation by interested civil society and minority actors, capable of exerting pressure and linking Court rulings to policy issues and reforms. Furthermore, the ability of European human rights case law to expand rights at the national level crucially depends on support by domestic political and other influential elites.