Jura Novit Curia and the European Court of Human Rights

Abstract

Abstract This article provides the first in-depth analysis of the European Court of Human Rights’ treatment of the jura novit curia principle. It explains how and why it has been used more frequently over the past 10 years, provides a classification of the case law and critically analyses the existing legal issues and debates that have emerged from the jurisprudence and doctrine. In particular, the 2018 Grand Chamber judgment Radomilja v. Croatia has brought jura novit curia and its potentially controversial role in the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights to light. Overall, this article demonstrates that this seemingly anodyne and previously understudied principle reveals conflicting views regarding the functions and purposes of the European Court of Human Rights’ human rights jurisprudence. I argue that the Strasbourg judges should be careful to use the principle consistently and refrain from overusing it, especially in the later stages of proceedings and in order to reduce its case docket.