Europe is sliding into a ‘juristocracy,’ where unelected judges and NGOs, backed by the European Court of Human Rights, increasingly overrule democratically elected governments on issues like migration—undermining political sovereignty in the name of expansive rights.
This was the central conclusion of the debate held yesterday at MCC Brussels under the title Judiciary-Political Relationship Analysis, where academics, jurists, and analysts laid out how Europe lives under a “government of judges” that erodes democratic sovereignty.
The event was part of a series of debates on the relationship between the judiciary and politics, sparked by a recent letter from several European heads of government criticizing the overreach of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Based in Strasbourg, this court has developed what participants called a “juridification” of political life.
“The courts are imposing their authority over political decision-making,” warned one of the organizers in the opening, stressing that judges now go beyond policing illegality to shaping public policy itself.
Much of the debate focused on how the migration crisis has sharpened this phenomenon. Professor Emeritus Marc Bossuyt recalled that neither the European Convention on Human Rights nor the Geneva Convention explicitly guarantees a right to asylum, yet the ECHR has effectively created one, through broad interpretations of the ban on torture and the principle of non-refoulement.
“The Court boldly interpreted torture and extended that obligation even to providing a reception standard in receiving countries,” he explained.
As a result, countries like Belgium are being overwhelmed: “In Belgium, 40% of asylum seekers should be handled by other Member States. But before returning them, we must provide housing and the possibility of going before a judge. This makes the system unsustainable,” he said.
Hungary was cited as a prime example of how judicial rulings can cripple migration policy. Budapest was fined one million euros per day for maintaining transit zones, which was considered illegal detention.
“What we are seeing is an aristocracy of judges and globalist NGOs who, supported in Strasbourg, limit the room for democratically elected governments,” said Dr. Bernadett Petri, Ministerial Commissioner for the Coordination of Direct EU Funds, coining the term “juristocracy.”
The United Kingdom was another recurring example. The government’s Rwanda asylum plan—passed by Parliament and signed into law—was blocked by interim measures from the ECHR.
“It was a moment of drastic change: a democratically voted policy was paralyzed by judges in Strasbourg,” noted Luke Gittos, lawyer and columnist at Spiked. This has fueled talk in Britain about leaving the Convention altogether.
Beyond the immediate context, the issue is about democracy itself. “The central question is who controls the parameters of freedom: the people and their representatives, or an unelected judiciary with no accountability?” he asked. He noted that, right from the start, some of the Convention’s drafters defended “placing certain areas of political life beyond democratic contestation.”
Speakers argued that power is shifting towards courts and lawyers, weakening democratic control. This “rule by lawyers” means major decisions are judged not by political or moral legitimacy, but by ever-expanding international legal obligations.
“What should be a counterbalance has turned into a political tool at the service of an ideological elite,” one participant said. And he warned: “If judges dictate the final word on sovereign matters, Europe ceases to be a full democracy.”
The event ended with a call to restore the balance between judicial independence and political sovereignty. Proposals included treaty reform, restricting courts from imposing decisions on other countries, and redefining rights that courts have stretched far beyond their original scope.
MCC Brussels pledged to keep the debate going. In the organizers’ words, it is about “offering a space to question dominant ideas and to remind that power must reside in elected representatives, not in a closed circle of judges and bureaucrats.”
