The rule of law and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights: issues of enforcement of court decisions

Throughout the history of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the rule of law has been the guiding star directing the evolution of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. In recent years, the normative influence of the rule of law in its judicial practice has increased, particularly in cases concerning the independence of the judiciary. The independence of the judiciary is just one of the main manifestations of a broader shift towards a stricter application of the rule of law, which is conceptually incapable of being transformed in line with the political agenda of those who seek unlimited power. The rule of law is a fundamental principle that determines the content and direction of the activities of the entire system of state power, in particular the judiciary. It is a fundamental guideline for the functioning of a state governed by the rule of law, which provides for the subordination of all subjects of legal relations to the law and the recognition of human rights and freedoms as the highest social value. One of the key elements of this principle is ensuring the effective enforcement of court decisions, because without their actual implementation, judicial protection itself loses its meaning. From this point of view, the practice of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) with regard to Ukraine has not only legal but also conceptual significance for understanding the state of the rule of law in the country. The practice of the ECHR clearly demonstrates that a state that is unable to enforce court decisions effectively deprives its citizens of their right to justice. The real implementation of the principle of the rule of law is only possible when a court decision is perceived as a final and unconditional norm of behaviour, rather than a declaration whose enforcement depends on the will of an official. In judicial practice, the rule of law and democracy are both contrasted (the concepts are used in the same argument, but are not necessarily combined) and superimposed on each other (the concepts are used almost as synonyms). This is more than simple ambiguity; this combination reveals the rule of law, which, as a guarantee of the democratic quality of the regime, can be analysed alternately as an idealised political goal or as a means of achieving that goal.