1. Introduction

This blog post is on the enforcement of European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) Judgments. That is, it looks at what happens after the ECtHR issues a final judgment, how European institutions supervise compliance, and what mechanisms exist to ensure that states follow through. The information reflects an overview provided in a legal presentation given on 10 December 2025 by Achilleas Demetriades on the topic of ECtHR execution and compliance.

When the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivers a judgment, its work is only partly done. The decision clarifies whether a state has violated the European Convention on Human Rights, but the judgment does not implement (or enforce) itself. The real challenge lies in ensuring that the state concerned actually complies, i.e. that it remedies the individual harm and prevents future violations. As we will see, the process is more structured and formalised than many people realise.

  1. The nature of an ECtHR Judgment

Under Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights, states are legally bound to comply with final judgments issued against them (they “undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties”). Once the Court has ruled and the judgment becomes final, the state must take action. The obligation is not optional, political or symbolic; it is a concrete legal duty.

Compliance involves two broad categories:

  1. Remedying the individual harm suffered by the applicant.
  2. Preventing similar violations in the future through legal or practical reforms.

The remainder of this blog post explains how these obligations unfold in practice.

  1. The building blocks of implementation

The ECtHR itself does not supervise the execution of its judgments. Instead, supervision is handled by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (discussed further below). To assist this process, states must submit two types of documents:

  • Action plan: outlining the steps the state intend to take.
  • Action report: confirming the steps the state has taken.

Execution measures fall into three main components:

(a) Payment of Just Satisfaction (compensation)

If the Court awards monetary compensation to the applicant, the state must pay it promptly, including any applicable interest.

(b)Individual measures

These are steps designed to restore the applicant, as far as possible, to the position they would have been in had the violation not occurred.

(c) General measures

These are changes aimed at preventing the same problem from arising again. These can include, for example, legislative amendments, policy changes, or reforms to judicial or administrative practices.

  1. The role of the Committee of Ministers

The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe is the body tasked with supervising execution of ECtHR judgments. It meets four times a year in a dedicated formation known as the Human Rights CM (DH) meetings.

During these meetings:

  • Representatives of all member states review progress made by states with outstanding obligations.
  • The Committee can adopt interim resolutions expressing concern or urging further action, or final resolutions closing the case once satisfied with compliance.
  • The Committee follows formal Rules for the Supervision of Execution, which provide structure to the process.

Importantly, individual applicants have no formal standing before the Committee. They are not participants in the meetings and cannot directly speak before the Committee.

However, as discussed below, applicants and civil society bodies can still play a role through written communications.

  1. Individual Measures: the specific rights of the applicant

Individual measures focus on the rights and redress owed to the person who won their case at Strasbourg. Common questions include:

  • Has the applicant been paid the compensation (and interest)?
  • Can the applicant be restored to their original position (restitutio in integrum)?
  • Can a domestic judgment that violated the applicant’s rights be revoked?
  • Should the applicant’s case be reopened before national courts?

The Convention system recognises that money alone may not be enough. For instance, in cases of unfair trial, reopening domestic proceedings may be essential. In property cases, restitution or return of land may be required.

Applicants may also send Rule 9(1) submissions to the Committee of Ministers. These are written communications informing the Committee whether the individual measures have (or have not) been carried out. Although applicants cannot attend meetings, Rule 9(1) provides a way for their voice to be heard.

  1. General Measures: fixing the underlying problem

General measures are often the most complex part of execution. A single ECtHR case can reveal systemic weaknesses, such as delays in courts, inadequate prison conditions, or discriminatory legislation. The goal of general measures is to fix the root cause of the violation so that similar cases do not arise in the future.

Examples include:

  • Amending legislation to comply with human rights standards.
  • Changing administrative practices or official policies.
  • Reforming judicial processes or establishing new oversight mechanisms.

Civil society organisations, including national bar associations, can provide written input through Rule 9(2) submissions, offering analysis and recommendations on necessary reforms. These submissions allow NGOs to directly influence the Committee’s understanding of the national situation.

  1. The role of the European Implementation Network (EIN)

The European Implementation Network (EIN) is a civil society initiative supporting effective execution of ECtHR judgments. It assists NGOs and lawyers in monitoring implementation and engaging with the Committee of Ministers.

One of EIN’s tools is the Early Warning Initiative, coordinated in cooperation with the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE). Ten weeks before each Committee of Ministers meeting, EIN helps prepare input highlighting key cases that require urgent attention.

This initiative strengthens the visibility of execution problems and provides technical support to those working on human rights compliance at the national level.

  1. The importance of amending national law

A recurring theme across ECtHR execution practice is that true compliance often requires legislative reform. In many cases, the violation stems directly from a law that is incompatible with the Convention. In such situations, the state must amend its legislation to prevent repeat violations.

Legislative amendments typically involve:

  • Drafting a bill, often with expert legal input.
  • Consulting relevant stakeholders, such as legal bodies or bar associations.
  • Submitting the bill to parliamentary committees for examination.
  • Passing the amendment through the legislature.

The role of the national bar association (such as the Cyprus Bar Association) in contributing to draft legislation and participating in parliamentary processes is to be noted. This engagement is important, as legal professionals often have frontline knowledge of how laws operate in practice.

  1. The specific challenge of executing Judgments against Turkey

Execution of judgments concerning Turkey, particularly those related to Cyprus, remains a complex and politically sensitive area. There several categories of cases that this area concerns:

  • Property rights cases
  • Cases concerning missing persons
  • The 4th interstate case Cyprus v. Turkey

Decisions in these matters were addressed during the Committee of Ministers’ DH meeting of 4 December 2025. Two significant actions are noted:

  • Cyprus sought clarification from the ECtHR by referring a question back to the Court.
  • Turkey received a final resolution closing certain aspects of the case.

Execution of judgments relating to long-standing political conflicts often involves complex diplomatic and legal considerations, and progress can be slow. Nonetheless, the Committee of Ministers continues to supervise these matters under the Convention framework.

  1. Why this process matters

For individuals who have suffered human rights violations, a judgment from the ECtHR represents recognition and justice. But the real-world impact depends on what happens after the judgment is issued.

Effective execution:

  • Ensures that applicants receive meaningful redress.
  • Promotes the rule of law and accountability within member states.
  • Strengthens public trust in human rights institutions.
  • Helps states modernise their legal systems and administrative practices.
  • Prevents repeat violations and reduces the need for future applications.

The execution process is therefore not merely administrative; it is a crucial component of human rights protection in Europe.

  1. Conclusion

The journey from an ECtHR judgment to full compliance is multi-layered and often challenging. It requires coordinated action by national authorities, oversight by the Committee of Ministers, engagement from civil society, and sometimes complex legal reforms. The information in the referenced presentation underscores that compliance is not automatic; it is a structured process involving individual and general measures, monitoring mechanisms, and in some instances, international political considerations.

Understanding this process helps demystify how human rights law operates beyond the courtroom. For individuals, lawyers, and the public at large, awareness of these mechanisms is essential to ensuring that rights recognised in Strasbourg translate into real protections at home.

 

* The content of this blog post is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this blog does not create a lawyer-client relationship.