Council of Europe reaffirms judicial independence following call by nine EU countries to reinterpret human rights law
Backed by Italy and Denmark, a group of nine EU Member States has issued a letter calling for a new interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to facilitate the expulsion of foreign nationals convicted of crimes. While the letter's authors frame it as a call for open discussion, the move has raised concerns over judicial independence and the protection of fundamental rights in Europe.
In a letter dated 22 May 2025, the leaders of Italy, Denmark, Belgium, Austria, the Czech Republic, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia called for greater latitude in applying human rights standards in migration-related cases. They argue that recent case law from the European Court of Human Rights has, in some instances, limited their ability to make political decisions in the areas of internal security and public order.
The signatories argue that developments in the Court’s interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) have made it more difficult for governments to expel foreign nationals who have committed serious crimes. They call for "more room to decide on when to expel criminal foreign nationals" and "more freedom" to keep track of criminal foreigners who cannot be deported. They also refer to the need for effective responses to “hostile states” allegedly using migration as a tool of pressure.
Legal experts have criticised the initiative as lacking legal clarity and amounting to political pressure. Başak Çalı, a professor of international human rights law at the University of Oxford, said the letter “is not a legal way of participating in discussions” and instead constitutes a “political act.”
In a press release dated 24 May 2025, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Alain Berset, issued a statement in response to the letter. “Debate is healthy, but politicising the Court is not. In a society governed by the rule of law, no judiciary should face political pressure,” he said. He emphasised the need to preserve the independence of institutions that protect fundamental rights: “If they bend to political cycles, we risk eroding the very stability they were built to ensure. The Court must not be weaponised — neither against governments, nor by them.”
Other analysts have also questioned the premise of the letter. Alberto-Horst Neidhardt, a senior policy analyst at the European Policy Centre, said that the European Court of Human Rights is not the main reason for the difficulties States face in deporting certain individuals. “Neither European law nor the Convention prevent them from expelling persons who pose a security threat,” he explained. Rather, the challenges are often linked to “lack of cooperation between Member States,” “legal loopholes,” and “reluctance from third countries to take individuals back.”