What Will Happen to the European Court of Human Rights after Brexit

It will be interesting to see in immigration courts how human rights issues are interpreted in the context of asylum applications without using ECHR statements as precedents, as the majority of cases of national guidelines are based on the principles of the ECHR. While Priti Patel regularly throws tantrums over a bonfire similar to that of the savannah of EU human rights declarations and other multilateral human rights declarations; It is unlikely that the tentacles of the ECHR and other bodies of international law will be breached in UK national law in the foreseeable future. Other notable places relating to the protection of human rights in the Convention are the section on services and investments, which obliges parties to deny benefits to States that refuse to protect human rights (Article SERVIN.1.3) and in the section on Europol, where the sharing of data for the purpose of « promulgating or carrying out a death penalty or any form of cruel or inhuman treatment » is prohibited (Article LAW). EUROPOL.52). A European Commission brochure on the agreement goes beyond the published text stating that the agreement obliges the contracting parties « to continue to protect fundamental rights as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and to give them internal effect ». Human rights are likely to play a particularly important role in any future security cooperation agreement. Intra-EU cooperation in the field of criminal justice and security is based on the principle of « mutual recognition » of decisions taken by Member States, which is based on confidence in the integrity of those decisions and the treatment of individuals. This trust is largely based on compliance with the standards of the ECHR. The Charter summarises the fundamental rights of all people living in the EU, including the rights protected by the ECHR, the constitutional traditions of the Member States and the rights set out in other international conventions to which the EU or its Member States have acceded. In fact, the United Kingdom is an exemplary member of the Council of Europe. We obey the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/11/15/why-britain-usually-obeys-the-european-court-of-human-rights/), even if we do not like it very much. Although the coalition government`s demands in Parliament in 2010-2015 ruled out much of this when the Conservatives published their proposals to replace the HRA in 2014, they were formulated in language about sovereignty, with references to protecting « our laws » that would become a feature of the Brexit campaign in 2016. The proposal that the United Kingdom would treat the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights as advisory would, as one analysis suggested, be incompatible with the United Kingdom`s obligations under the ECHR, which indicate that the United Kingdom is withdrawing from the ECHR.

As the last page of the 2014 proposals made clear, « the UK`s relationship with the EU will be renegotiated in the next Parliament » and EU commitments in conflict with the UK`s new human rights framework will be `renegotiated`. European Union, which reaffirms the rights deriving in particular from the ECHR ». The DP also stated: « The parties agree that the scope and scope of future agreements should achieve an appropriate balance between rights and obligations. It should also be underpinned by long-standing commitments to the fundamental rights of individuals, including the continued respect and implementation of the ECHR. As such, this position constituted the preconditions for the EU-UK trade agreement and reinforced the UK`s commitment to the ECHR. The European Court of Human Rights has delivered numerous judgments concerning the human rights situation in Turkey, Russia, etc. It is true that these countries do not comply, because their poor human rights record goes hand in hand with a general disregard for the rule of law. In the rare cases where the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the United Kingdom has violated the European Convention on Human Rights, the United Kingdom has ultimately complied because it is committed to the rule of law and because this convention is part of British national law.

The UK is described by EU sources as « on the move » in negotiations on the issue in Brussels, having previously insisted that the government would not tie its hands in an agreement on the future relationship. Brexit could affect the protection of human rights in the UK, as the decision to adopt the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights after the UK`s departure from the EU has no impact We have now learned that Brexit hardliners tend to reject any supranational institution unless it is subject to British rules and ordinances. However, the UK`s weakness in the negotiations with the EU27 has already shown that the UK will simply not be able to develop its own credible solutions to supranational challenges. My prediction is that in 10 years, Britain will either be under US institutions or back in the EU. The UK government also published a « Charter of Fundamental Rights of EU Law after Legal Analysis », which aimed to identify other sources of the rights contained in the ECHR to ensure that the rights established and protected by the ECHR are not lost on the day of withdrawal. Furthermore, although the UK`s accession to the EU has no connection with its accession to the ECHR and therefore its obligations under the ECHR, it has control over its national legislation, which poses a major risk to the UK`s most fundamental human rights law, the HRA. The Conservative Party has long put forward intentions to amend the HRA, while Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the SNP have pledged to keep it. Amending or repealing the RHS, despite the current government`s assurances that the change would be in the public interest, would alter human rights at the national level. This is confirmed in the Brexit Trade Agreement (the Trade and Cooperation Agreement), which states under Title II: Basis for Cooperation, Article KOMPROV.4: Democracy, Rule of Law and Human Rights: « 1. The Parties shall continue to uphold the common values and principles of democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights that underpin their national and international policies. In this regard, the parties reaffirm their respect for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the international human rights treaties to which they are parties.

Eagle-eyed readers will notice; However, the agreement does not explicitly mention the ECHR, but this is called one of the international treaties to which they are parties. But the EU`s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, had publicly warned that respect for the ECHR was a red line for Brussels. « If the UK`s position does not change, it will have an immediate and concrete impact on the level of ambition of our cooperation, which will be based on international agreements but will not be as ambitious as we would like, » he said in March. The ECHR is not an EU institution; the ECHR was created by the Council of Europe in 1950, the founding text of the EU was the Treaty of Rome of 1957. The Council of Europe has 47 members out of the EU`s 27 members, and countries such as Norway, Switzerland and Iceland are parties to the ECHR but have different relations with the EU. Therefore, every law student rolls his eyes when the ECHR and the EU are treated as one and the same. Nevertheless, opposition to the ECHR and the EU overlaps in the UK; Allegations that the ECHR weakens parliamentary sovereignty were also made during the debate on the European Court of Human Rights` decision on the prisoner`s voters in 2011. As public hostility to immigration increased in the late 2000s, a common refrain in the focus groups was that asylum seekers and foreigners were using human rights to « play with the system. » The commitment to repeal the Human Rights Act (HRA), which transposes the ECHR into UK law, was first made by the Conservatives in 2006 and was part of a broader constitutional reform project that later included a commitment to a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. .