Council of Europe leaders propose reforming the ECHR — or even rewriting the Human Rights Convention
The idea came from Churchill. Shortly after the war, he proposed creating a kind of Charter of Human Rights that would «guarantee freedom of thought, assembly, and expression, as well as the right to form political opposition». This eventually led to the adoption of the European Convention on Human Rights. The United Kingdom was the first to ratify it in 1951, and eight years later, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) was established in Strasbourg to uphold it.
The ECHR handles around 30,000 cases annually, with roughly half dismissed as inadmissible. As a result, much of the court’s time is spent filtering through submissions to determine which cases will move forward. Nearly half of all applications are lodged against Russia and Turkey, though the court has ceased reviewing cases against Russia since March 16, 2022.
The institution itself is rather inflexible. Over the years, only 16 amendments and additional protocols have been adopted, while the rest of the system has remained largely unchanged and orthodox.
Today, the main grievance among Council of Europe leaders is that the ECHR openly obstructs the enforcement of verdicts issued by national courts, particularly in cases involving immigration and deportation. In practice, migrants and asylum seekers who lose their cases in countries like France or Belgium often appeal to the ECHR — which, more often than not, rules in their favor. Roughly 30% of such applications are, somewhat puzzlingly, classified as «exceptional cases».
The core issue lies in the court’s broad interpretation of Article 3 (prohibition of degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to family life) of the Convention, which it often uses to overturn rulings by national courts. Critics argue that these articles have become highly flexible — too flexible — allowing for expansive and, at times, questionable legal reasoning.
One Albanian robber, deported to his homeland, returned to the UK and successfully claimed the right to remain under Article 8. Another Albanian man, sentenced to over three years for operating a marijuana farm, avoided deportation on the grounds that it would deprive his daughter of a role model. Seriously. In another case, a woman’s removal to Grenada was postponed because her husband disliked Caribbean cuisine and would struggle with the heat. Yet another «gourmet» was allowed to stay because his 10-year-old son could only eat British chicken nuggets. Meanwhile, a family from Gaza was permitted to remain in the UK after persuading the court that the Ukrainian family reunification scheme should apply to them as well.
At the end of last month, the leaders of nine Council of Europe member states — Italy, Denmark, Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania — published an open letter calling for a «new and open dialogue» on how the ECHR interprets the intentions of its founding fathers. The main concern centered on Articles 3 and 8, which, critics argue, have become loopholes that even criminals can exploit to avoid deportation.
Here’s the problem: national governments pass and enforce anti-immigration laws, but their decisions are often overturned by the court — leaving them powerless to act. The Convention and the ECHR were created in a different era, with the aim of preventing the return of fascism. No one at the time could have imagined that these institutions would one day play a central role in managing mass migration.
«We believe that the court’s expansive interpretations in certain cases have constrained our ability to make political decisions. As heads of state, this undermines our capacity to effectively protect our nations from the challenges we currently face», the letter stated.
What’s more, even when the ECHR upholds a deportation order, 70% of those affected simply don’t leave. The rulings are effectively ignored. Among those who remain are criminals, terrorists, and suspects. In October 2023, a Tunisian national, Abdesalem Lassoued, carried out a terrorist attack in Brussels. It was later revealed that he had been deported multiple times but continued to live illegally in Italy, Portugal, Sweden, France, and Belgium.
Poland, Latvia, and Lithuania are also frustrated by the cases the ECHR has initiated against them following their forceful pushbacks of hundreds of migrants crossing from Belarus. The governments argue that the court’s rulings have left them effectively paralyzed. Deporting those who crossed back to Russia or Belarus has proven extremely difficult.
Between 2018 and 2024, asylum was denied to three million applicants. Yet only 826,000 were actually returned to their home countries — just 28%. That means more than 2.5 million people, not all of them law-abiding, have effectively disappeared across Europe.
There are essentially three options for resolving the issue. The most radical voices propose leaving the ECHR altogether if no reforms are made. This idea is under discussion in Germany, especially amid the growing popularity of the far-right AfD. However, the Merz-led coalition remains divided: the SPD considers the Convention and the court untouchable, while the more conservative CDU argues that greater authority over immigration should return to national governments. In the UK, there are no plans to exit the ECHR. Keir Starmer has pledged that this will not happen under his leadership: «British law already provides the necessary balance — our job is to adjust it in line with current circumstances».
The second option, backed by Italy, Poland, and Denmark, is to curtail the authority of ECHR judges specifically in matters related to deportation, expulsion, and asylum.
The third option, proposed by Council of Europe Secretary General Alain Berset, is even more radical: to rewrite the Human Rights Convention entirely.
All parties involved recognize the problems and are attempting to respond. In March, the European Commission proposed a new Return Directive under which rejected asylum seekers would be automatically barred from reentering the EU for 10 years — up from the current 5.
Criminals, terrorists, and suspected extremists would be detained in prisons or specialized holding centers — and under new judicial orders, they could be held for significantly longer periods than currently permitted.
Deportations would be carried out to the migrant’s country of origin, the country of transit (from which return to the EU could take as little as 3–4 hours), or a new option: a «return hub» in a third country. Italy is currently pursuing such a plan, having purchased a former airbase in Albania to construct a migrant processing center. A similar initiative in the UK — to establish a center in Rwanda — was blocked by none other than the ECHR.
Foreign criminals or rejected asylum seekers would no longer be able to delay deportation by filing appeals. Currently, many disappear after being released. Under the new plan, they would be required to await the outcome of their appeals from outside the country.
The initiative still requires approval from both the European Parliament and the Council of the EU. However, it would apply only to EU member states — not to all countries under the Council of Europe’s jurisdiction, such as the United Kingdom, Turkey, and others.