Difference Between the European Court of Justice and the Court of Human Rights

Two European courts carry names that sound similar enough to be routinely confused — by journalists, by clients, and occasionally by practitioners who have not worked in either system. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) are entirely separate institutions, established under different legal instruments, operating within different organizational frameworks, and exercising jurisdiction over fundamentally different subject matter. Knowing which court is relevant to a given situation is not a preliminary matter to be resolved later — it determines the entire legal strategy from the outset.

This article sets out the key structural and procedural differences between the two courts in a form that is practically useful to anyone working on a matter that may involve either institution.

European Court of Justice (ECJ)

The ECJ was established in 1952 and serves as the supreme judicial authority of the European Union. Its mandate is specific: to ensure that EU law is interpreted and applied uniformly across all member states. Where EU law means different things in different national courts, the ECJ settles the question. Where a member state’s conduct or a national law conflicts with EU treaty obligations, the ECJ adjudicates.

The Court currently consists of 27 judges — one from each EU member state — supported by Advocates General who deliver independent legal opinions on cases before the Court issues its rulings. The Advocates General do not decide cases, but their opinions carry significant persuasive weight and frequently anticipate the direction of the Court’s judgment. The ECJ sits in Luxembourg.

What the ECJ does:

The ECJ’s core functions fall into three categories.

First, it interprets EU law. When a national court encounters a question about the meaning or application of an EU treaty provision, directive, or regulation, it may — and in some cases must — refer that question to the ECJ through the preliminary ruling procedure. The ECJ’s answer is binding on the referring court and, in practice, on all national courts across the EU facing the same question.

Second, it resolves disputes between EU institutions and member states. The European Commission can bring infringement proceedings against a member state that has failed to implement EU law correctly, and the ECJ has the authority to impose financial sanctions on states that do not comply with its rulings.

Third, it conducts judicial review of EU institutional acts. Regulations, directives, and decisions adopted by EU institutions can be challenged before the ECJ on grounds of legal invalidity — for example, where the institution exceeded its competence or breached fundamental procedural requirements.

Who can bring cases before the ECJ:

• EU member states
• EU institutions (the Commission, the Council, the Parliament)
• Natural and legal persons — individuals and companies — in cases directly concerning them, typically through the General Court as first instance, with appeals to the ECJ

The legal framework within which the ECJ operates is defined by the EU treaties — primarily the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and the Treaty on European Union (TEU) — and by the secondary legislation (regulations, directives, decisions) adopted under those treaties.

The European Court of Human Rights

The ECtHR was established in 1959 and operates within an entirely different institutional framework. It is not an EU institution. It is the judicial organ of the Council of Europe — a separate international organization with 46 member states, which includes all EU member states but extends considerably beyond the EU’s borders to encompass states such as Turkey, Ukraine, Georgia, and Armenia.

The Court’s legal basis is the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), a treaty that entered into force in 1953 and which guarantees a defined set of civil and political rights: the right to life, the prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment, the right to liberty and security, the right to a fair trial, respect for private and family life, freedom of thought and expression, and others. The Convention’s scope is not economic or regulatory — it is focused exclusively on the relationship between states and individuals in the context of fundamental rights.

The ECtHR consists of 47 judges — one per state party to the Convention — elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe for non-renewable nine-year terms. The Court sits in Strasbourg.

What the ECtHR does:

The Court’s central function is to hear applications from individuals, groups of individuals, or states alleging that a Convention state has violated rights guaranteed by the ECHR. When an application is admitted and the Court finds a violation, it issues a judgment that is binding on the respondent state and requires the state to remedy the violation — through compensation, legislative reform, or changes to administrative practice, depending on the nature of the breach.

The Court also issues advisory opinions at the request of certain bodies, including the Committee of Ministers and — since the entry into force of Protocol No. 16 — the highest courts of member states.

Monitoring compliance with judgments falls to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which oversees the execution process and can take action against states that persistently fail to implement the Court’s rulings.

Admissibility requirements:

An application to the ECtHR must satisfy the following conditions before it will be considered on its merits:

• It must be submitted on the Court’s official application form
• The complaint must be directed against a state that has ratified the Convention
• The applicant must be a direct victim of the alleged violation — representative or abstract challenges are not permitted
• All available domestic remedies must have been exhausted before the application is lodged
• The application must be submitted within four months of the final domestic decision (the deadline was extended from six to four months by Protocol No. 15, which entered into force in August 2021)
• The complaint must be supported by sufficient evidence of the alleged violation

The preliminary examination of an application typically takes approximately one year. Admissibility and merits are often assessed together. Where a case proceeds to a full hearing, both written and oral evidence are considered, and the Court accepts third-party interventions from states, NGOs, and other bodies with a legitimate interest in the outcome.

Key Differences Between the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)

The following table summarizes the principal differences between the two courts:

Jurisdiction: Where the Difference Matters Most in Practice

The most practically significant distinction is jurisdictional, and it operates in two directions.

First, the ECJ has no competence over human rights claims as such. It applies the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in the context of EU law, but it does not adjudicate freestanding human rights complaints against member states. A person who believes their rights have been violated by a national authority — even in an EU member state — cannot bring that complaint to the ECJ unless the matter falls within the scope of EU law.

Second, the ECtHR has no competence over questions of EU law as such. It cannot rule on whether an EU regulation was correctly transposed, whether a state breached its obligations under a directive, or whether EU competition rules were properly applied. Where EU institutional action is itself alleged to violate Convention rights, the position is legally complex — the EU is not itself a party to the ECHR, though accession has been a long-standing political objective — and the interplay between the two systems requires careful analysis in specific cases.

In practice, many situations engage both frameworks simultaneously. A criminal prosecution may raise questions of EU law on evidentiary standards and simultaneously involve a fair trial complaint under Article 6 ECHR. A deportation decision may engage EU free movement law and Article 8 ECHR rights to family life. Identifying which court is capable of providing the relevant remedy — and in what sequence — is a core analytical task in transnational European litigation.

Enforcement: A Structural Distinction With Practical Consequences

The enforcement position of the two courts differs in a way that has direct practical consequences for clients seeking effective remedies.

ECJ rulings are directly enforceable. Where the Court finds that a member state has breached EU law, the Commission can initiate further proceedings leading to the imposition of lump-sum fines or periodic penalty payments. ECJ decisions on EU law take precedence over national law, and national courts are obliged to apply them regardless of contrary domestic legislation. The enforcement mechanism is institutional and automatic in its legal consequences.

ECtHR judgments are binding as a matter of international law, but the Court has no direct enforcement mechanism of its own. Compliance is supervised politically by the Committee of Ministers, which can — in cases of persistent non-compliance — refer the matter back to the Court or ultimately proceed to suspension or expulsion of the member state from the Council of Europe. In practice, states generally comply with judgments, but the process of implementing structural reforms can take years, and the Court cannot compel specific domestic legislative outcomes.

For a client seeking compensation for a violation, the ECtHR can award just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention, which is binding on the respondent state. For a client seeking to have a national law disapplied or an administrative decision set aside, the ECJ framework — where the matter falls within EU law — generally provides a more direct and enforceable route.

Which Court Is Relevant to Your Case?

The threshold question is whether the matter involves EU law, Convention rights, or both.

If the issue concerns the application or interpretation of EU legislation — a directive, a regulation, a treaty provision — and the dispute is between parties within the EU legal system, the ECJ framework is the relevant one, typically accessed through national courts via the preliminary ruling procedure rather than by direct application to Luxembourg.

If the issue concerns the conduct of a state authority — a court, a police force, a government ministry — and the complaint is that that conduct violated a right guaranteed by the ECHR, the ECtHR is the relevant forum, after domestic remedies have been exhausted.

Where the factual situation engages both frameworks — as it frequently does in extradition cases, immigration proceedings, criminal prosecutions with a cross-border element, and data protection disputes — the legal analysis must address both in parallel, since the remedies available and the procedural routes differ substantially between the two systems.

If you are involved in proceedings that may raise issues before either court, obtaining legal advice from counsel with specific experience in the relevant system is essential. The procedural requirements, admissibility conditions, and enforcement mechanisms of the ECJ and the ECtHR are sufficiently distinct that familiarity with one does not automatically translate into competence before the other.

Conclusion

Although closely related, the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights serve distinct roles within the European legal framework. While the former focuses on ensuring the uniform interpretation and application of EU law, the latter safeguards human rights and enforces compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights. Understanding the jurisdiction and functions of these institutions is crucial for lawyers and legal professionals involved in cases that pertain to EU law or human rights. By navigating these differing roles, legal practitioners can adeptly guide their clients and seek appropriate legal remedies.

Iryna Berenstein

Associate Partner

Mrs. Berenstein is a distinguished and outstanding lawyer with profound experience and exceptional legal knowledge in the field of International Private Law, Financial Law, Corporate Law, investment regulation, Compliance, Data Protection, and Reputation Management.

Phone:

+35796447475

Email:

[email protected]

Book a call

Current ECHR Practice and Analysis

The world of international law is dynamic: regulations change, new precedents are established, and the Convention’s interpretations are refined. To gain a deeper understanding of the nuances of rights protection and stay abreast of the latest trends at the Strasbourg Court, we have created a specialized information resource.

In our blog, you will find:

• Analyses of recent judgments and precedent-setting ECHR decisions.
• Expert articles on the intricacies of working with ECHR lawyers.
• Practical advice on protecting specific rights (from the right to property to freedom of expression).

Read current issues and fresh articles about the ECHR in our Blog