[_osud]

Depends on how you interpret the ECHR.

Does it allow blocking half the internet during football games?

It almost certainly does not: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-115705%...

AFAIU this is common because lower courts often deliberately choose to not try to interpret ECHR, leaving that for appeals courts.

[input_sh]

I interpret ECHR as what it is: not a regulatory body by any stretch of the imagination. It can recommend changes to the national law, but it cannot force any state to do so. You seem to be interpreting it as some sort of an equivalent to the US supreme court, which it is not.

But now we're straying even further from my original argument which boils down to "laws mean something" into arguing the intricacies of how laws are supposed to be changed. I'm not interested in having that discussion, as it has nothing to do with my original claim.

[_osud]

ECHR decisions are (supposed to be) legally binding. If they're not obeyed, that's not a good look for rule of law in Europe.

ECHR decisions are certainly not mere recommendations.

>It can recommend changes to the national law, but it cannot force any state to do so

ECHR can simply invalidate national law.

[input_sh]

According to whom? You?

The only thing ECHR cares about is one piece of "legislation", which is not a law, but a declaration (Declaration of Human Rights), so that you have some sort of internationally recognised body to go to whenever you feel that your local judicial system has done you injustice. That is all it does. That is all it is meant to do. That is the sole reason of its existence. It is not a legislative body at all.

> ECHR can simply invalidate national law.

It can't. You're either making things up or severely misunderstanding the court. It can say "this law doesn't align with the Declaration" and that's it. The law still exists. ECHR relies on signatories being willing to make the necessary changes themselves. Some are and get right on it, some aren't. The election law in my country has lost 5 cases in the ECHR and not a single one of the verdicts are fixed as of now, the oldest of which dates back to 2009. This is horrible, I want to see them fixed, but ECHR can't force us to fix it and we as in the country face 0 consequences for not addressing any of them (as of yet).

There is a separate court called European Court of Justice which is the equivalent of the US supreme court and is tasked with interpreting EU-wide laws and making sure national laws are aligned as much as possible. That is a legislative body with an enforcement mechanism. ECHR is not, you don't know what you're talking about.

[ohhman11]

>According to whom? You?

According to the European Convention on Human Rights, it's sort of the whole point.