(Non) Implementation of European Courts’ Judgments: A Rule of Law Priority for the New European Institutions
On October 15, the European Implementation Network (EIN), jointly with Democracy Reporting International (DRI), organised a policy debate to raise awareness on the lagging implementation of relevant judgments of both the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and to explore how the new institutions in Brussels and the Council of Europe can work together to address the deteriorating rule of law situation.
As detailed in EIN-DRI's latest report ‘Justice Delayed, Justice Denied: Non-Implementation of European Courts’ Judgments and the Rule of Law’, this pressing rule of law concern affects numerous EU member States. The event brought together experts, policymakers, and civil society leaders to dive into the key findings of our report, explore the real-world impact of non-compliance and identify opportunities for improving collaboration between Brussels institutions, the Council of Europe and civil society.
This debate, which was attended by more than 70 people, marked another significant step in EIN’s ongoing mission to ensure that human rights judgments are not just rendered, but fully and timely implemented.
Rule of Law, Democracy, and Non-Implementation
The consequences of non-implementation extend far beyond individual cases, threatening the very fabric of democratic governance and eroding public trust. As multiple speakers emphasised, failing to comply with court judgments undermines the rule of law, weakens the system of checks and balances, and contributes to a growing culture of impunity.
Paul Nemitz, representing the European Commission, drew attention to the broader implications of these failures, describing them as part of a deliberate attempt by some governments to undermine democracy itself. He emphasised the critical link between the rule of law and democracy, noting that the systematic non-compliance observed in some countries reflects an intentional effort to dismantle democratic principles and silence dissent.
Building upon these points, Ioulietta Bisiuli, EIN’s Director, further underscored the dual nature of this issue, highlighting that what hides behind the rule of law problem downgrading in recent years could be considered a systematic effort to undermine democratic principles at their very core.
Perspectives from the Council of Europe and the European Commission
Frédéric Dolt, Head of the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, outlined the Council of Europe’s ongoing efforts to support implementation, including scaling up cooperation projects and strengthening dialogue with national institutions. While acknowledging the complexity of many cases, Frédéric stressed the need for a more nuanced approach to assessing implementation progress, particularly for cases requiring structural reforms.
On behalf of the European Commission, Paul Nemitz emphasised the essential role of law in democracy highlighting the relevance of existing tools to address non-compliance, including financial penalties and rule of law conditionality mechanisms. However, he noted that these tools are underutilised and could be applied more systematically. Nemitz also pointed to the EU’s evolving role in monitoring rule of law issues, including its recent decision to incorporate data on the implementation of European Court of Human Rights judgments into its annual Rule of Law Report. He and others suggested that EIN-DRI’s reports could similarly expand their scope to include candidate countries, reinforcing the norm-setting role of the EU and Council of Europe.
Civil society's crucial role in safeguarding the rule of law
The debate further underscored the indispensable role of civil society in bridging the gap between the issuance of judgments and their implementation. Civil society organisations not only act as watchdogs but also as proactive drivers of compliance, using their expertise, networks, and advocacy skills to ensure that human rights judgments are not left unimplemented.
Marta Pardavi from the Hungarian Helsinki Committee highlighted the impact of non-implementation on public trust in democratic institutions. She shared how the failure to implement judgments erodes trust in institutions, not only among the affected individuals but also among the broader public, undermining the legitimacy of European legal frameworks and the principles they stand for.
Marta highlighted how individuals who turn to courts like the ECtHR or the CJEU often do so as a last resort, placing immense trust in these institutions, and therefore called for national-level involvement, including expert committees and implementation hubs, to drive the process forward.
According to her, implementation hubs — collaborative, multi-stakeholder platforms led by civil society but involving academia, national human rights institutions, and other actors, for which we advocate at EIN —could serve to:
Track the progress of judgment implementation at the national level, identifying barriers, and highlighting areas of concern;
Engage with national governments and international institutions to push for compliance and systemic reforms;
Provide training, resources, and technical support to local actors, including legal professionals and activists;
Formulate national-level policy recommendations based on evidence and analysis, ensuring a forward-looking approach to implementation.
Further, Marta highlighted the potential for civil society to contribute directly to government-led efforts through expert committees, composed of a diverse range of stakeholders to provide technical advice and guide the implementation process. By incorporating civil society into formal mechanisms, governments can benefit from their on-the-ground insights and ensure that implementation efforts are inclusive and transparent.
However, civil society itself is under threat in many countries, particularly those with systemic non-compliance issues. Marta emphasised the dual challenge faced by CSOs: advocating for judgment implementation while simultaneously defending their own civic space to operate. Governments that resist implementing court judgments often target civil society actors with restrictive laws, defunding, or public smear campaigns, further complicating their ability to work effectively.
Beyond their immediate role in implementation, civil society organisations are crucial to the broader democratic ecosystem. They ensure that discussions about non-implementation remain connected to the real-world impacts on people’s lives. As Marta observed, non-implementation does not just delay justice; it deepens disenfranchisement and disillusionment and “When the delay in implementation is significant, when national governments fail or willfully fail to implement a judgment, this also means that the trust that citizens put into these institutions is being undermined”.
Synergies and prospects for future cooperation
The debate concluded with a strategic discussion on future collaborations. Representatives from the European Parliament, Council of Europe, and civil society organisations agreed that more rigorous political action and consistent monitoring of compliance are essential. One standout suggestion was the inclusion of candidate countries in future implementation-related reports to ensure a broader and more comprehensive approach to the issue.
Looking ahead, EIN and its partners are committed to maintaining pressure on national governments and EU institutions alike. By promoting synergies between the EU and the Council of Europe, and by enhancing civil society’s involvement, EIN seeks to turn delayed judgments into effective action.