Sir Michael Ellis.
Europe’s suicidal embrace of Left-wing judges is finally coming to an end.
Countries are reaching the dawning realisation that the ECHR should not be master of all it surveys.
Published 30 March 2026 6:00pm
Through the European Convention on Human Rights the rights of criminals are adjudged superior to the rights of the law abiding Credit: iStockphoto Western civilisation has a death wish…
Much of the European political class embraces a suicidal empathy towards those who wish to destroy them. A key mechanism for this gallows ideology has been the European Court of Human Rights. But its hitherto sacrosanct position may be cracking.
Denmark and Italy last year led nine countries (the others were Belgium, Austria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and the Czech Republic) in writing an open letter criticising the court for blocking their efforts to deport foreign criminals and illegal migrants.
Last month, a YouGov poll of five European nations found that most Europeans in each country surveyed (59-75 per cent) support changes to the ECHR so that migrants who commit serious crimes can no longer use separation from their families to prevent deportation. This was across the political spectrum.
It’s hardly surprising these cracks are starting to show.
Through the European Convention on Human Rights, the rights of criminals are adjudged superior to the rights of the law-abiding. The rights of illegal migrants are prioritised over the rights of settled society. The rights of beneficiaries supplant the rights of the taxpayers who provide for them. Rather like an errant grandchild demanding ever more generous gifts from an impecunious grandmother, the court has indulged ever-increasing demands from the increasingly undeserving.
The enforcer of much of this self-destructive ideology has been the European Court of Human Rights. The Left-wing activism of the court has created perverse incentives, not least of which is the failure of the court in its rulings to help its member states deal with untrammelled immigration.
The European Court’s reach has expanded incrementally over the years like bacteria in a Petri dish. One of the most egregious examples of this growth has been so-called “Rule 39 Orders” whereby the court invented for itself a brand new power to anonymously order an injunction against the UK to stop a plane deporting migrants from leaving the airport. The power they gave themselves had no proper basis in law but they foisted it on the UK anyway. This is “lexocracy”: not rule of law but rule by lawyers.The realisation that the ECHR doesn’t work for the people it is supposed to be serving has permeated the UK. Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative Party leader, has made withdrawal from the court Conservative policy and produced a well-reasoned analysis of how withdrawal would work. This put paid to critics who might otherwise have said the walls of Jericho would fall down if she blew that trumpet. Those predicting Armageddon if the UK withdrew from the ECHR were silenced.Now several other European states are coming to a dawning realisation that the court should not be master of all it surveys. This could be the beginning of the end. Bruno Retailleau, then French interior minister, said soon after his appointment in 2024 that the “rule of law is neither inviolable nor sacred…[it] is a set of rules, a hierarchy of norms, judicial control, a separation of powers, but the source of the rule of law is democracy, it is the sovereign people.” He was speaking after several criminal cases allegedly involving immigrants had shocked French society.
Needless to say his remarks were followed by the usual histrionics from the French bureaucracy, a group almost exclusively educated at the Sorbonne with as much understanding of the impact of illegal immigration as most other Leftist European politicians.
The Left-wing concept of the “rule of law” has been moulded into a deity which it is a sacrilege to criticise. But it isn’t the concept of the rule of law which is flawed – that remains as crucial as ever. Europeans are starting to notice that what is flawed is the courts which over-interpret the rule of law.
Giorgia Meloni of Italy also understands the problem. She recently held a referendum on judicial reform. Although she lost (it became a popularity poll of her own government) she had recognised the problem, complaining about “politicised” judges after they blocked her attempts to set up a Rwanda-type scheme of repatriation centres in Albania.
Eastern European countries, whose understanding of the importance of democracy is fresher than in the West, are also starting to recognise that democracy should be prioritised over the rule of lawyers. The calls will only get louder as Europe buckles under the strain of seismic levels of immigration. The court’s days may be numbered.
Much of the European political class embraces a suicidal empathy towards those who wish to destroy them. A key mechanism for this gallows ideology has been the European Court of Human Rights. But its hitherto sacrosanct position may be cracking.
Denmark and Italy last year led nine countries (the others were Belgium, Austria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and the Czech Republic) in writing an open letter criticising the court for blocking their efforts to deport foreign criminals and illegal migrants.
Last month, a YouGov poll of five European nations found that most Europeans in each country surveyed (59-75 per cent) support changes to the ECHR so that migrants who commit serious crimes can no longer use separation from their families to prevent deportation. This was across the political spectrum.
It’s hardly surprising these cracks are starting to show.
Through the European Convention on Human Rights, the rights of criminals are adjudged superior to the rights of the law-abiding. The rights of illegal migrants are prioritised over the rights of settled society. The rights of beneficiaries supplant the rights of the taxpayers who provide for them. Rather like an errant grandchild demanding ever more generous gifts from an impecunious grandmother, the court has indulged ever-increasing demands from the increasingly undeserving.
The enforcer of much of this self-destructive ideology has been the European Court of Human Rights. The Left-wing activism of the court has created perverse incentives, not least of which is the failure of the court in its rulings to help its member states deal with untrammelled immigration.
Bruno Retailleau, then French interior minister, said soon after his appointment in 2024 that the “rule of law is neither inviolable nor sacred…[it] is a set of rules, a hierarchy of norms, judicial control, a separation of powers, but the source of the rule of law is democracy, it is the sovereign people.” He was speaking after several criminal cases allegedly involving immigrants had shocked French society.
Needless to say his remarks were followed by the usual histrionics from the French bureaucracy, a group almost exclusively educated at the Sorbonne with as much understanding of the impact of illegal immigration as most other Leftist European politicians.
The Left-wing concept of the “rule of law” has been moulded into a deity which it is a sacrilege to criticise. But it isn’t the concept of the rule of law which is flawed – that remains as crucial as ever. Europeans are starting to notice that what is flawed is the courts which over-interpret the rule of law.
Giorgia Meloni of Italy also understands the problem. She recently held a referendum on judicial reform. Although she lost (it became a popularity poll of her own government) she had recognised the problem, complaining about “politicised” judges after they blocked her attempts to set up a Rwanda-type scheme of repatriation centres in Albania.
Eastern European countries, whose understanding of the importance of democracy is fresher than in the West, are also starting to recognise that democracy should be prioritised over the rule of lawyers. The calls will only get louder as Europe buckles under the strain of seismic levels of immigration. The court’s days may be numbered.