Nearly half of the judges at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) never served as judges in their home countries before joining the Strasbourg-based court, according to an analysis of their professional backgrounds.
The review found that 19 out of 44 justices had no prior experience of being a judge before their appointment to the ECHR. Several of these individuals were career academics, civil servants, or diplomats with no background in presiding over legal cases. Additionally, two of the total 46 judges—one from each member state—were appointed as ad hoc judges despite lacking any judicial experience in their home countries.
This revelation has intensified concerns about the quality of judges at Europe's foremost human rights tribunal, amid criticisms that the court often oversteps its mandate. Both the Conservative Party and Reform UK have pledged to withdraw from the ECHR if they win the next general election.
Lord Blencathra, a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, expressed his frustration: "We complain about the quality of judges but nothing ever changes, and we're getting more and more of these people. Some of them have never tried a case in their lives, and some would not be good enough to teach at one of our worst polytechnic universities. We tend to think we must follow what the court says because we are dealing with top-class judges like our Supreme Court. We're not."
Referring to Green Party leader Zack Polanski, Lord Blencathra added: "Apart from those odd aberrations, the court is exceptionally liberal with a Polanski agenda, even before Polanski came along."
The ECHR, which serves as the final arbiter of the European Convention on Human Rights, has been at the centre of several controversial rulings. In April 2024, it sparked a furious backlash by ruling that Switzerland had violated its citizens' human rights by failing to take sufficient action on climate change. In June 2022, it issued an 11th-hour interim injunction to block the UK government's Rwanda deportation scheme, without naming the judge who issued it. The court has also ruled that the UK's blanket ban on prisoner voting violated Article 3 of Protocol 1, which guarantees free elections, and that whole-life sentences for violent offenders constitute "inhuman or degrading treatment" under Article 3, as there was no possibility of review or release.
The analysis of judges' CVs revealed that Germany, Spain, Turkey, Greece, and Austria were among the countries whose justices had no prior judicial experience before being promoted to the ECHR. Judges are nominated by member states and elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the umbrella organisation for the court and convention, which is separate from the European Union and which the UK remains a member of.
This comes after Sir Keir Starmer's government signed a "political declaration" at a summit in Moldova aimed at limiting the European Convention on Human Rights, which the court ultimately interprets. The declaration seeks to curb the number of illegal migrants and foreign criminals using the ECHR to avoid deportation. However, critics have dismissed it as a "waste of time," noting that previous similar declarations have failed to effect significant change and the treaty's text remains unchanged.
A Council of Europe spokesman acknowledged that many judges had never sat on the bench in their home countries, stating: "Judges at the court may be highly specialised legal academics who are well qualified for adjudicating on human rights issues. Other international courts, such as the International Court of Justice, also include prominent academics as judges. The diversity of experience among the court's judges, who come from all parts of Europe and reflect its different legal traditions, brings a valuable range of legal expertise and professional profiles to the court."
