The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is facing increasing scrutiny and criticism, with some political figures and media outlets accused of spreading misinformation regarding its rulings and impact. This has led to a skewed public debate, particularly concerning deportation cases, and raises concerns about the level of factual accuracy informing political discourse.

The core of the issue lies in misinterpretations and misrepresentations of specific ECHR judgments. For example, claims made by members of the Liberal Alliance (LA) that the court overturned deportation orders of Afghan men convicted of rape and robbery have been proven false.

In reality, the ECHR ruled in favor of Denmark in two cases involving foreign nationals convicted of rape and robbery, allowing for their deportation. The cases where Denmark “lost” concerned Afghan men, but their cases were unrelated to these violent crimes. This factual inaccuracy undermines the credibility of the criticism leveled against the court.

Furthermore, critics often conflate the ECHR’s role with that of EU law, specifically the residence directive. This demonstrates a lack of understanding of the distinct legal frameworks and further contributes to the misleading narrative.

The spread of misinformation extends to media outlets as well. A Berlingske article highlighting a rape case in Germany incorrectly suggested that the perpetrator, who had been deported, was about to return to Europe due to the ECHR. This claim was also false, as the man’s lawyer merely requested a review of the deportation, and no court had approved his return.

It is important to note that Denmark is rarely convicted by the ECHR. The cases against Denmark primarily concern issues such as excessive use of force, inadequate investigations, and protection of journalists. In fact, Danish courts annually issue over 1,000 judgments to deport criminal foreigners, where human rights do not impede the process.

The concern is that the criticism against the ECHR is based on poor factual understanding or intentional disinformation. It is crucial for politicians and media outlets to accurately represent the court’s rulings and the scope of human rights conventions to ensure an informed public debate.