Procedure for the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights
- Author(s):
- Parliamentary Assembly
- Origin
- Assembly
debate on 21 April 2026 (13th sitting) (see Doc. 16361, report of the Committee on the Election of Judges to
the European Court of Human Rights, rapporteur: Ms Petra Bayr). Text adopted by the Assembly on
21 April 2026 (13th sitting).See also Recommendation 2306 (2026).
1. The European Convention on Human
Rights (ETS No. 5, hereafter “the Convention”) enshrines the human
rights values at the heart of Europe’s post-Second World War peace
project as legal norms, and has made an extraordinary contribution
to maintaining democratic security and improving good governance
on the European continent for over seventy-five years. At a time
when the Convention system is facing unprecedented challenges, it
is more important than ever to strengthen the authority of the European
Court of Human Rights (hereafter “the Court”), ensuring that all
its judges possess the highest level of competence, independence
and impartiality, and that the procedure for electing them is fair,
transparent and efficient.
2. The election of judges to the Court is a multistage procedure
with a clear distribution of roles: it is the responsibility of
the High Contracting Parties, assisted by the Advisory Panel of
Experts on Candidates for Election as Judge to the European Court
of Human Rights (hereafter “Advisory Panel”), to nominate three candidates,
each of whom must fulfil the eligibility criteria laid down in Article 21.1
of the Convention; and it is for the Parliamentary Assembly, assisted
by its Committee on the Election of Judges to the European Court
of Human Rights (hereafter “Committee on the Election of Judges”),
to elect one of the three candidates, in accordance with the exclusive
competence conferred on it by Article 22 of the Convention. As underlined
by the 2018 Copenhagen Declaration, the Committee of Ministers and
the Assembly should “work together, in a full and open spirit of
co-operation in the interests of the effectiveness and credibility
of the Convention system, to consider the whole process by which
judges are selected and elected to the Court with a view to ensuring that
the process is fair, transparent and efficient, and that the most
qualified and competent candidates are elected”.
3. The Assembly honours this responsibility by being fully aware
that its role in the procedure provides a measure of democratic
legitimacy to the Court and is a unique feature which distinguishes
it from all the other international judicial bodies, including the
Court of Justice of the European Union.
4. The current procedure for the election of judges has been
developed through a number of Assembly resolutions and recommendations,
which have been adopted over a period of more than thirty years.
The last changes were introduced in 2018 (
Resolution 2248 (2018) “Procedure
for the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights”)
and 2019 (
Resolution 2278
(2019) “Modification of various provisions of the Assembly’s
Rules of Procedure”).
5. Over time, the Assembly has paid increasing attention to the
fairness and transparency of national selection procedures, taking
into account the Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers on the
selection of candidates for the post of judge at the European Court
of Human Rights, adopted in 2012 (CM(2012)40). The Assembly has,
for example, rejected lists of candidates on procedural grounds
when the Advisory Panel had not been duly consulted, when the national
selection procedure had been heavily dominated by representatives
of the government, when the procedure had not been sufficiently
transparent or when it could not be presumed that the members of
the selection body were free from undue influence. The Assembly
takes note of the Committee of Ministers’ decision of 7 February
2024 inviting the Assembly, when rejecting a list on procedural
grounds, to consider publishing its conclusions and reasoning. In
this regard, the Assembly stresses that the specific reasons for
rejections on procedural grounds are transmitted to the government
concerned and indicated in a succinct and non-country-specific manner
in the memorandum prepared by the Secretary General of the Assembly,
which is updated regularly. This should enable States Parties to
identify how the Assembly applies the Committee of Ministers’ guidelines
in practice, with a view to improving their selection procedures.
6. The Advisory Panel has also identified a number of challenges,
shortcomings and practices that fall short of the required standards
regarding national selection procedures. These include inadequate
publicity, a low number of people responding to the public calls
for candidates, unbalanced or politicised composition of selection
bodies, lack of transparent decision making or unjustified exclusion
of highly qualified applicants.
7. The Assembly, while conscious that States Parties have a certain
latitude in organising national selection procedures, stresses that
the Committee of Ministers’ guidelines, as well as its own relevant resolutions,
should be fully implemented. The explanatory memorandum of the guidelines
and the Advisory Panel’s activity reports provide examples of positive
practices that should be considered. The Assembly has also identified
examples of good practice in recent national selection procedures
that could help States Parties to make their own procedures fairer
and more transparent, while taking into account their legal, constitutional and
political specificities. These include the following requirements:
7.1 a minimum period of one month
is given for submission of applications;
7.2 the executive does not dominate the composition of the
national selection body, with the majority of its members coming
from outside the governmental structure, for instance from the judiciary,
the ombudsperson’s office, bar associations and academia;
7.3 the nominal composition of the national selection body
is disclosed in advance and made public;
7.4 the general composition of the national selection body
and details of the selection procedure are set out in the relevant
regulation (statutory law or governmental decree) and not left to
the discretion of the relevant minister;
7.5 measures are taken to ensure that national selection bodies
are as gender balanced as possible, as previously recommended by
the Assembly;
7.6 civil society, legal professions’ representatives and
independent institutions are entitled to be present during the interviews
as observers;
7.7 the national selection body seeks advice from former judges
at the Court in respect of the country concerned;
7.8 candidates’ linguistic abilities are tested in writing
and orally during the interviews;
7.9 if the final decision maker considers deviating from the
national selection body’s recommendation, it must ask the selection
body for an opinion on any applicants who were not shortlisted;
7.10 relevant documents from the Council of Europe on the election
of judges are translated into the national language and made available
to all members of the national selection body.
8. As regards the substantive criteria for candidates under Article
21.1 of the Convention, the Assembly emphasises the need to ensure
the authority of the Court and confidence in the quality and independence
of its judges. Candidates must therefore possess the relevant professional
experience and independence to exercise such a high judicial function
on an international court. The Assembly’s practice shows that rejections of
lists on substantive grounds, because not all of the candidates
fulfil the criteria, are necessary to preserve the freedom of choice
conferred on the Assembly, which it must exercise in the interests
of the proper functioning and authority of the Court. The Assembly
notes with concern the conclusions of the Advisory Panel in its
activity report of 5 November 2025, which stated that it had come
to a negative conclusion on a relatively significant proportion
of candidates (16% from July 2022 to July 2025) and that some governments
had a tendency to present younger and less-experienced candidates.
This shows that there is still room for improvement in attracting
and submitting highly qualified candidates, particularly those with
extensive judicial experience at the highest national courts. In
this context, the Assembly underlines the importance of addressing
the situation of judges after the end of their mandate, including
by formally recognising their service as judge within their domestic
legal systems, and facilitating their professional reintegration
and their inclusion in national pension schemes. Such measures would
increase the attractiveness of the post and contribute to the implementation
of the Convention at the national level.
9. The Assembly also stresses the importance for candidates to
have knowledge of the national legal system of the member State
in respect of which they would be elected. Since they will often
have to sit in cases against this State and adjudicate on how its
national authorities and courts apply the Convention, it is important that
they have an in-depth understanding of the relevant domestic legal
system and are able to brief the other judges on the judicial formation
concerned (Chamber or Grand Chamber). Competence and experience
in the field of human rights, although not strictly derived from
Article 21.1 of the Convention, should also be taken into account
in the overall assessment of candidates. At the same time, the Assembly
underlines the value of diversity among the Court judges in terms
of specific legal expertise and professional profiles.
10. Regarding gender balance, the Assembly regrets that women
are under-represented at the Court, as they make up less than 40%
of the total number of sitting judges. In this context, it accepts
the recent submission of all-female lists by some States and reiterates
that it strictly applies the “exceptional circumstances” threshold
to justify exceptions to the rule that the lists submitted should
contain at least one candidate of the under-represented sex.
11. The Assembly is deeply concerned by the delays in the presentation
of lists of candidates by some States Parties, including those that
need to replace one or more candidates following a rejection by
the Assembly. This situation results in the de
facto extension of the mandate of the sitting judges
(in some cases far) beyond their term of office by virtue of Article 23.2
of the Convention or in the absence of a sitting judge in respect
of that State. This not only creates inequality among the sitting
judges, problems and uncertainty for the workload of the Court and
the judges concerned but also goes against the spirit of the non-renewable
term of office of nine years introduced by Protocol No. 14 to the
Convention (CETS No. 194, entered into force in 2010). The Assembly
considers that the time has come to introduce a mechanism to discourage
this phenomenon and put pressure on the States Parties concerned
to submit appropriate lists of candidates in due time. This could
be achieved by amending Article 23.2 of the Convention to allow
a maximum of one additional year for a sitting judge after the term
of nine years.
12. The Assembly notes that its rules and procedures on the election
of judges have constantly evolved over the years. Those currently
applicable to the Committee on the Election of Judges have allowed
the committee to effectively fulfil its role of interviewing candidates
and assisting the Assembly in electing the most qualified judges
to the Court, while protecting the reputation of all shortlisted
candidates. Since the creation of the committee in 2015, the Assembly
has almost always followed its recommendations, which must be seen
as a sign of trust and respect for its members, all of whom are
required to have a legal background. The Assembly considers, however,
that the following modifications to the procedure for the election
of judges ought to be made in order to improve certain aspects and
codify certain practices:
12.1 the
chairperson or a representative of the Committee on the Election
of Judges should have the right to speak in the debate on the progress
report of the Bureau and the Standing Committee, to present the
committee’s recommendations when necessary;
12.2 the list of candidates for the election of a judge to
the Court, once submitted to the Assembly, can only be withdrawn
or modified by the government concerned as long as the deadline
set for its transmission – as specified in the letter from the Secretary
General of the Assembly – has not yet expired. After the expiry
of the deadline, the government can no longer withdraw or modify
the list of candidates on its own initiative;
12.3 the Assembly should interrupt the election procedure if
one of the three candidates on the list withdraws before the recommendation
of the Committee on the Election of Judges is made public. It should
then ask the government concerned to complete the list of candidates,
by replacing the candidate who has withdrawn. This will be followed
by another hearing of all three candidates by the committee. The
withdrawal of a candidate after the publication of the committee’s
recommendation is not possible.
13. Furthermore, the Assembly:
13.1 calls
on the States Parties to the Convention to follow and implement
the Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers on the selection of
candidates for the post of judge at the European Court of Human
Rights, as well as the Assembly’s resolutions on the election of
judges and the guidance and opinions of the Advisory Panel, bearing
in mind the good practices identified;
13.2 calls on the governments of the States Parties to submit
the lists of candidates to the Assembly in due time, providing full
details of national selection procedures, including the composition
of the national selection bodies, when transmitting the names and
curricula vitae of the candidates;
13.3 calls on the national parliaments of the States Parties,
as well as national human rights institutions, to inform themselves
of their ongoing national selection procedures and to raise awareness at
the national level of the selection and election of judges to the
Court;
13.4 encourages national human rights institutions, civil society
and legal professional associations to closely monitor national
selection procedures and contribute to their ongoing improvement;
13.5 invites the Advisory Panel to maintain and enhance its
ongoing co-operation and dialogue with the Committee on the Election
of Judges, including through the current participation of its chair
or a representative in the committee’s briefing sessions to present
the Advisory Panel’s views before the interviews take place, and
through joint annual meetings to discuss issues of common interest;
13.6 invites the Advisory Panel to clearly indicate any shortcomings
it has identified regarding specific national selection procedures
in its opinions to governments and its written observations to the Assembly;
13.7 invites the Court to strengthen its dialogue with the
Committee on the Election of Judges on issues of mutual interest,
including those relating to judges’ active time in office;
13.8 welcomes the latest changes to the Rules of Court regarding
ad hoc judges and invites the governments of the States Parties
to apply the same procedural requirements to the selection of elected and
ad hoc judges alike, noting that ad hoc judges must also possess
the qualifications required by Article 21.1 of the Convention;
13.9 reiterates that former judges are covered by the Court’s
Resolution on Judicial Ethics and that they should accordingly refrain
from expressing themselves in a manner which may undermine the authority
and reputation of the Court;
13.10 invites the Secretary General of the Council of Europe,
the Secretary General of the Assembly and the Registry of the Court
to consider organising an information campaign on the election procedure and
the office of judge at the Court, with the aim of enhancing visibility
and knowledge of these issues among the general public and potential
candidates, in line with the Committee of Ministers’ decision of 7
February 2024;
13.11 invites the Committee on Rules, Ethics and Immunities
to consider those proposed changes in the election procedure before
the Assembly that would require amendments to the Rules of Procedure and
to submit any such proposals to the Assembly in due course.
