Set up to ensure observance of the engagements undertaken by states party to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has become a precious platform of support for less privileged individuals and communities. The examination of ECtHR case law against Greece discloses that litigants belonging to various politically disempowered or socially marginalised groups resort to the Court, alleging breach of the civil and political rights, enshrined in the ECHR.

With the exception of cases dealing strictly with due process, land expropriation, family life and privacy, Strasbourg case law against the Greek state has primarily stemmed from applications, filed by aliens and individuals who assert a religious or ethnic minority identity. Cases founded on rights claims by foreigners and Roma condemned acts of police brutality, force abuse and/or glaring omissions in the investigation of the incidents under dispute. Violations of the Convention for unlawful detention of foreigners and degrading detention conditions in police premises and prisons were also detected. Other rulings revealed deficiencies of the judicial system, which though relevant for nationals and non-nationals alike, substantially affected the right of access to justice and fair trial for non-Greek citizens.

ECtHR judgments, originating in applications lodged by individuals alleging a minority belonging, involved Jehovah’s Witnesses, Protestants, Old Calendarists, the Catholic Church, Turkish Muslims, and the Slav-speaking communities inhabiting the north of Greece. Although some of these cases dealt with shortcomings of the Greek justice system (i.e. excessive duration of domestic proceedings), many revealed hindrances to religious conduct and impediments to active involvement in socio-political life. Erroneous judicial interpretation of national legislation making proselytism a criminal offence, administrative obstacles to the creation of non-Orthodox places of worship, state interference with religious representation, and non-registration of specific associations on national security grounds were some of the themes touched by the Court. The ECtHR also accepted allegations about discrimination on account of religious beliefs, unlawful detention for refusing to bear arms, and breach of freedom of assembly.

Pursuant to Article 46(1) ECHR, the Greek state, as all states party to the ECHR, needs to abide by the Court’s final judgments. In the wake of ECtHR rulings, individual and general measures serve to remedy the effects of the violation identified and avert similar human rights infringements. Out of 49 cases discussed on the merits and finding a violation of the ECHR, judgment implementation has so far been concluded in 17. Most resolutions, issued to that purpose by the Committee of Ministers, concerned religion-related cases and cases based on litigation pursued by aliens. However, controversial cases regarding distressing detention conditions, ill-treatment of foreigners and Roma, and breach of freedom of association/assembly have remained at the fringes of the state’s implementation agenda.

Various factors may obstruct smooth execution of ECtHR judgments, ranging from budgetary constraints to structural impediments and reticence to adopt unpopular measures. The attitude of governmental and judicial elites can bear heavily on the nature of measures, devised to comply with the Court’s rulings. Moreover, implementation of ECtHR judgments may be less problematic when the Court’s interpretations meet strong social support domestically, with human rights defenders mobilising and exerting pressure for apposite implementation.

In your view,

- What factors account for an effective implementation of ECtHR case law?

- When and under what conditions do ECtHR judgments promote rights and justice for individuals and vulnerable groups who seek redress in Strasbourg?