An article published by Le Figaro on November 10, as well as a report from the European Center for Law and Justice (ECLJ) put online days ago explains how the ECHR manages to impose its ideological whims.
On November 28, the ECHR must consider the request of a 46-year-old Hungarian, suffering from neurodegenerative disease, to overturn his government’s refusal to allow euthanasia. Unless there is a reversal, there is no doubt that some judges will decide that prohibiting assistance in dying for incurably ill people violates the European Convention on Human Rights. The decision will be binding on the EU.
The ECHR was founded in 1959 and has been based at the Human Rights Palace in Strasbourg for 25 years. The ECLJ, a pro-life think tank, carefully monitors its activity and has already warned about its bias, its ideology, and the multiple conflicts of interest that run through it through its members. The first report dates from 2020.
The ECLJ revealed the existence of a structural problem of conflicts of interest. It showed that between 2009 and 2019, 18 judges 88 times judged cases introduced or supported by 7 NGOs of which they were previously directors or collaborators. Among these NGOs, George Soros’ Open Society emerges, due to the fact that the majority of judges are linked to it and that it finances the 6 other NGOs.
In response to this report, the veracity and merits of which have been recognized, the ECHR and the Council of Europe proposed measures to improve the selection, independence and impartiality of the Court’s judges, as well as the transparency of the action of NGOs. But a new report published eight days ago finds that conflicts of interest between judges and NGOs persist, and have even increased.
Over the last three years, from 2020 to 2022, the ECLJ noted 54 situations of conflicts of interest, including 18 for Grand Chamber judgments, the most important decisions of the ECHR. These conflicts concern 12 judges of the ECHR out of 46. They sat 54 times in cases supported by a foundation or NGO that they founded, directed, or with which they previously collaborated.
In addition to conflicts of interest, the new report points to problems with impartiality. Thus, the ECHR does not provide for a challenge procedure; judges do not publish declarations of interests; and the handling of cases is marked by opacity, which undermines the right to a fair trial. Finally, some judges have embellished their credentials and do not have the necessary qualifications.
The basic problem is that the ECHR is not subject to the control of any judicial body likely to note its dysfunctions. Governments have not wanted to carry out this control until now, out of respect for the independence of the Court. It is therefore up to civil society to take on this work of external control and whistleblowing, and this is what the ECLJ has undertaken.
Grégor Puppinck, Doctor of Law and director of the ECLJ explains: “On social issues, LGBT rights, the anonymity of sperm donation for artificial insemination, sex change in civil status, progressive judges imposed all the decisions they wanted. Their program has been strictly adhered to over the past 10 years.”
The jurisprudence of the ECHR on surrogacy (GPA) is emblematic. In 2014, married men who had used American surrogate mothers requested recognition of their child’s parentage, a recognition prohibited in France. The ECHR ruled in their favor, and the Court of Cassation followed its opinion, even though surrogacy is still prohibited in France.
“The judgments of the ECHR condemn the signatory countries of the European Convention on Human Rights to submit to a concept of individual freedoms that takes precedence over the general interest as the people define it,” summarizes Grégor Puppinck.
The conclusion of Le Figaro’s investigation targeting the ECHR is clear: with its judicial authority over member nations, the ECHR manages to impose on the entire continent its ideological whims, one by one, from surrogacy to euthanasia.
Next November 28 risks seeing the imposition of the legalization of euthanasia on all countries of the European Union (EU) by a simple legal act of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). It was issued at the request of a Hungarian, to whom his government refuses to grant assistance in dying. How can the ECHR impose its vision on all of Europe?