Europe Ministers Seek Modernised ECHR Interpretation Amid Migration Pressure

Ministers from Council of Europe member states met in Strasbourg on Wednesday to debate growing concerns that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) are constraining national efforts to curb irregular migration.

In May, nine European Union governments—including Denmark, Italy and Poland—called for a reassessment of how the convention is interpreted, echoing long‑standing critiques previously voiced by the United Kingdom, which is a Council of Europe member but not an EU member.

The Council of Europe was established after World War II to safeguard human rights across the continent. Its 46 member states are parties to the ECHR, and the treaty’s implementation is overseen by the ECtHR, which acts as a court of last resort for individuals and states.

However, several governments say that some rulings and the court’s evolving case law have, at times, limited their ability to make and implement migration policy. They want the convention’s interpretation to be updated so it better reflects contemporary challenges while remaining faithful to human rights principles.

Calls For Modernisation And A Defence Of The Court

Writing in The Guardian, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said ministers in Strasbourg would "push for a modernisation of the interpretation" of the ECHR so it can "evolve to reflect the challenges of the 21st century."

Council of Europe Secretary General Alain Berset, who convened the meeting, described the convention as a "living instrument" and acknowledged that some states believe the court's interpretation "has limited their political discretion in certain situations." He stressed the meeting aimed to strengthen the integrity of the convention system rather than to undermine it.

"The challenges posed by illegal migration are real and legitimate," Berset said, while also calling the European Court of Human Rights "our bedrock."

UK Justice Minister David Lammy, deputy to Prime Minister Starmer, said it was important for member states to "work together and achieve consensus in the coming weeks on the interpretation as it relates to irregular migration," calling the issue a concern across the Council’s membership.

Points Of Contention

A key legal flashpoint is the ECHR article on the right to private and family life, which some governments argue has been interpreted in ways that prevent removal of people they regard as having no right to remain. The ECtHR has, in recent years, issued emergency injunctions that have temporarily blocked deportations and has delivered multiple judgments criticising Italy’s handling of migrants.

The previous UK Conservative government’s scheme to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda was also found incompatible with the ECHR, illustrating how human‑rights litigation can shape national migration initiatives.

Ministers in Strasbourg are seeking a pragmatic recalibration: states want clearer scope for national migration policy, while defenders of the convention stress the need to preserve fundamental rights and the court’s independent oversight.

Any change to case law or interpretation would involve complex legal and political negotiations among the Council’s 46 members and could take time. The meeting in Strasbourg marks the start of those discussions rather than their conclusion.