European Judicial System Structured and Functioning
European Convention on Human Rights Faces Intense Debate Among European Nations
In 2019, former Freedom Party of Austria (FPO) leader, Herbert Kickl, stirred controversy when he expressed intentions to challenge the fundamental principles of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in the asylum sector as interior minister. This provoked strong reactions from all other political parties.
As justice minister in subsequent election campaigns, Kickl reiterated his call for ECHR reforms. Though dismissed then as an extreme idea, his demands have now gained traction in light of recent developments.
A new wave of debate emerged in 2022, with Austrian People's Party (OVP) club chairman August Wöginger advocating for ECHR revisions. His proposal led to a political upheaval, even with resistance from his party colleague, former European Minister Karoline Edtstadler. The Greens, coalition partners, also maintained that the ECHR was non-negotiable. Wöginger eventually dropped the topic.
However, the seemingly taboo subject of redefining European jurisprudence no longer seems so untouchable. Since 2025, the newly-elected Austrian government has initiated measures like temporarily halting family reunification. While backed by some European legal experts' arguments upholding their compliance with the ECHR, these actions are highly challenging to reconcile with the fundamental and human rights enshrined in the Austrian Constitution since 1964, a risk deliberately accepted by the government.
Simultaneously, Germany has taken similar steps to stop family reunification, making the argumentation more palatable.
In another development, multiple heads of government, including Austrian Chancellor Christian Kern (OVP), have signed a letter advocating for a change in the interpretation of the ECHR regarding the deportation of foreign criminals. The OVP’s motivation is to prevent the Freedom Party from gaining an upper hand in this area. By questioning the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), they argue that this is an acceptable price to pay for asserting control over migration and security policies.
The political furor caused by these moves has been relatively mild, with muted objections from the red-pink government partners, thus avoiding a major government crisis.
These debates on the ECHR are led by Danish social democrat Mette Frederiksen and Italian right-wing populist Giorgia Meloni, suggesting this is not an ideological crusade but rather an examination of whether the ECHR needs adaptation to current political realities.
In the face of these contentious issues, the Council of Europe is compelled to make a swift decision regarding the interpretation of the ECHR, as its significance in European politics remains under dispute.
In the United States, politicians and policy-makers have shown increased interest in the ongoing debates surrounding the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), viewing it as a potential model for domestic policy-and-legislation changes, particularly in the field of immigration and deportation. This heightened attention is evident in the rising discussion about general-news events involving the ECHR in Europe, such as the recent moves by Austrian and German governments to halt family reunification, and the letters signed by multiple heads of government advocating for a change in the interpretation of the ECHR.
