A coalition of nine EU member states, led by Italy and Denmark, has issued a formal critique of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), challenging its interpretation of migration laws. In a recent interview with Le Monde, public law professor Peggy Ducoulombier characterizes this move as an unprecedented “frontal attack” on the institution. She warns that the timing of this political pressure, coinciding with pending judgments against signatory states, risks compromising the Court’s independence.

Ducoulombier argues that the signatories are effectively scapegoating the judiciary for political hurdles, noting that migration cases make up less than 2% of the Court’s activity and that over 90% of such requests are rejected. She emphasizes that in liberal democracies, the judiciary serves as a counter-power to protect fundamental rights, regardless of the popularity of the claimants. By framing the Court as an obstacle to democratic mandates, these governments risk eroding a system designed to protect all citizens, not just migrants.

Our Take

This development illustrates a concerning expansion of the “attack surface” surrounding critical institutions. At The 451 Institute, we view the independence of the judiciary as a non-negotiable check and balance against majority overreach. When political leaders, frustrated by complex policy challenges, attempt to pressure a court into altering its legal interpretations, they are effectively trying to subordinate a critical institution’s core mission, impartial justice, to a political agenda. The legitimacy of collective decision-making relies on the existence of neutral arbiters who are insulated from the pressures of the “majority of the day.” To preserve the rule of law, we must ensure that courts remain free to deliver verdicts based on legal principles, not political expediency.