MCC Brussels Discusses Human Rights and Democracy: Time to Revisit the ECHR?

The new report by MCC Brussels demonstrates how the Strasbourg court pursues political objectives, detailing the tools and methods it uses to extend its influence while limiting the sovereignty of EU member states. One of the most striking findings is how protections against illegal migration have been curtailed, which particularly affects Hungary whose right to self-determination is especially affected. These concerns were the focus of discussions at Wednesday’s event, where experts familiar with EU processes shared their insights with an audience of 200 participants.

Frank Füredi, Executive Director of MCC Brussels, opened the debate, who highlighted the growing entanglement between the judiciary and the political system. He warned that this undermines both judicial independence and the authority of courts over decision-makers. Mr Füredi noted that this event was only the beginning, with MCC Brussels committed to fostering ongoing intellectual renewal. As Frank Füredi explained to Politico, there is a growing recognition that the EU must “get real” about migration. “Orbán, on this issue in particular, has played his cards very well, realpolitik has triumphed over the luxury belief that mass migration has no consequences for society.”

Chairing the discussion, Jacob Reynolds, Head of Policy at MCC Brussels, stressed the escalating hostility to free speech- recalling the murder of Charlie Kirk as its most tragic consequence. He framed the debate around tensions between European and national courts, especially on migration, and the problem of politically charged interpretations of law. He called for “demystifying” legal language, a central theme in MCC Brussels’ research.

Marc Bossuyt, Professor Emeritus of International Law, University of Antwerp, opened the debate by questioning how the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) interprets the Convention, especially on migration – referring to the joint letter of 9 members of the Council of Europe. He traced the problem to the definition of “refugee,” heavily shaped by Strasbourg rulings. He argued that the Court’s broad rulings, such as blocking expulsions where torture is possible and expanding asylum seekers’ rights to “decent treatment,” have overwhelmed the system and undermined trust between EU states.  He drew attention the lack of a binding asylum framework beyond the 1948 Universal Declaration, and to the Convention’s reliance on the 1969 American model, which creates imbalances in Europe. Bossuyt concluded that asylum seekers should be returned to their first country of entry to prevent secondary migration.

Lawyer and columnist at Spiked, Luke Gittos highlighted the UK context, criticising how the ECHR blocked the Conservative government’s Rwanda plan and framing this as an example of judicial power overriding democratic choice. He warned of “rule by lawyers,” where international courts weaken sovereignty and accountability, and argued that leaving the Convention is ultimately a political, not just legal, decision.

From Hungary, Ministerial Commissioner, Bernadett Petri described the ECHR as a “juristocracy,” noting that most cases come from individuals or NGOs, often with foreign backing. She argued that expanding rights to living standards makes deportations nearly impossible, recalled Hungary’s €200 million EU plus €1 million daily fine until its asylum policies were changed as an example. She added further the Illias and Ahmed (two violent offenders) case which ECHR decision focused on their deprivation of liberty. For her, the growing power of judges – in cooperataion with the European Comission - over elected governments threatens Europe’s democratic order.