‘Principled Resistance’ to ECtHR Judgments: Dogmatic Framework and Conceptual Meaning

Principled resistance and future of the ECtHR

“…We arrived at the Yukos case in 2017 which bound the State to its execution both for the illegitimacy and the interpretative activity of the ECtHR and also for the opposition to the related Russian constitutional system (Starzhenetskiy, 2019). Time obviously runs and goes on and the cases follow a continuous phenomenon identifying the term of principled resistance (Breuer, 2019a).…”

“…A symptom that needs treatment above all when the convicted State voluntarily decides not to implement the relative sentence through ad hoc measures at national level by putting as an argument for pressure and justification the limits reserved to the authority of the State (De Londras & Dzehtsiarou, 2017). We are not so much interested in the internal inertia of the State and/or of its excessive bureaucracy as for the political desire not to implement a definitive sentence (Breuer, 2019a).…”

“…Of course, the first problem is that the ECHR includes the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) as a jurisdictional body in the case of resolving human rights disputes as a Court super partes. A decision of the ECtHR is in conflict with the national political or judicial institutions and at the same time it is a super party body that manifests its resistance to the obligation to implement the related decisions of the ECtHR (O'Cinneide, 2017; Madsen et al, 2018;Breuer, 2019a;Kosař et al, 2020). If we talk about resistance, it differs from the implementation of the sentences by the States up to the motivated non-fulfillment of the will of the national institutions which must give an obligation to execute the relative sentence/s and which consider the relative prerogatives as unjust and restrictive (Breuer, 2019b).…”