Nearly half of judges at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) did not sit on the bench in their home countries before being promoted to the controversial court.
Analysis shows 19 of 44 justices had no experience of being a judge before joining the Strasbourg court.
Several of them were career academics and civil servants or diplomats with no experience of presiding over a case.
A further two of the total 46 judges – one for each member country – who sit at the ECHR were made ‘ad hoc’ justices despite having no previous experience in their homelands.
It comes amid growing concern about the quality of judges at Europe’s top human rights court and that it often overstretches its remit, with the Tories and Reform UK pledging to leave it if they win the next election.
Lord Blencathra, a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, said: ‘We complain about the quality of judges but nothing ever changes and we’re getting more and more of these people.
‘Some of these people have never tried a case in their lives and some of them would not be good enough to teach in one of our worst polytechnic universities.
‘We tend to think that we must follow what the Court says because we are dealing with top class judges like our Supreme Court. We’re not.’
The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has a total of 46 judges, one from each member country
The European Court of Human Rights (pictured), in Strasbourg, is the final arbiter of the European Convention on Human Rights
Lord Blencathra, a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, said there are growing concerns about the quality of judges at the ECHR
Referring to Green party leader Zack Polanski, he added: ‘Apart from those odd aberrations, the court is exceptionally liberal with a Polanski agenda even before Polanski came along.’
In April 2024, the Strasbourg court, which is the final arbiter of the European Convention on Human Rights, sparked a furious backlash after ruling that Switzerland had violated the human rights of its citizens by failing to take sufficient action to combat climate change.
In June 2022, it also blocked the then UK Tory government’s Rwanda deportation scheme from getting off the ground by issuing an 11th-hour interim injunction to halt it – while refusing to name the judge who issued it.
It has also ruled that the UK’s blanket ban on prisoner voting was a violation of Article 3 of Protocol 1, which guarantees the right to free elections, and that whole-life sentences for violent offenders amount to ‘inhuman or degrading treatment’ under Article 3 because there was no possibility of review or release.
According to the Mail audit, which looked at all of the judges’ CVs, Germany, Spain, Turkey, Greece and Austria were among the countries whose justices had no experience of being a judge before being promoted to the ECHR.
Judges are put forward by member nations and voted on by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the umbrella organisation for the Court and Convention which is separate to the European Union and which Britain remains a member of.
It comes after Sir Keir Starmer’s government today signed a ‘political declaration’ at a summit in Moldova aimed at limiting the European Convention on Human Rights, which the Court is the final arbiter of.
It aims to curb the number of illegal migrants and foreign criminals using the ECHR to avoid deportation. However, critics have branded it a ‘waste of time’ because previous similar political declarations have failed to make much difference and the treaty’s text remains unchanged.
A Council of Europe spokesman acknowledged that many judges previously never sat on the bench in their home countries, adding: ‘Judges at the Court may be highly specialised legal academics, who are well qualified for adjudicating on human rights issues.
‘Other international courts, such as the International Court of Justice, also include prominent academics as judges.
‘The diversity of experience among the Court’s judges, who come from all parts of Europe and reflect its different legal traditions, brings a valuable range of legal expertise and professional profiles to the Court.’
