The Chamber of First Instance shall rule on both the admissibility and the merits of the case. In general, both issues are dealt with in the same judgment. In final judgments, the Court finds that a Contracting State has violated the Convention and may order the State Party to pay the pecuniary and/or non-pecuniary damage and legal costs incurred by the national courts in bringing the action. Following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the EU is legally obliged to accede to the ECHR. Article 6(2) states: `The Union shall accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Such accession shall be without prejudice to the competences of the Union as defined in the Treaties. The court can award pecuniary or moral damages, known as « just satisfaction. » Arbitral awards are generally small compared to judgments of national courts and rarely exceed £1,000 plus court fees. [30] Moral prejudice is correlated with what the state can afford rather than with the actual harm suffered by the complainant. In some cases, repeated human rights violations lead to higher rewards for punishing the responsible State, but paradoxically, in other cases, they lead to lower compensation or complete suppression. [31] [32] In 2001, the WG-HR-EU working group was mandated to carry out a study on the legal and technical issues that should be addressed by the Council of Europe in the event of the possible accession of the EU to the ECHR and on ways to avoid any conflict between the EU legal system and that of the ECHR.

Nevertheless, the relationship between fundamental rights as general principles of law and the Charter is complex. These two sources have the same legal status and very often overlap in terms of the protection guaranteed (indeed, the Court`s case-law on general principles has influenced the content of the Charter and the sources underlying the Charter and the general principles overlap significantly). The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has the task of supervising the execution of court judgments. The Committee of Ministers monitors changes made by States Parties to their national legislation to ensure that it is in conformity with the Convention or with the individual measures taken by the State Party to remedy violations. The judgments of the General Court are binding on the respondent States concerned and the States generally comply with the judgments of the Court of Justice. [16] In addition, under the Lisbon Treaty, the EU is legally obliged to accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, better known as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The ECHR, which entered into force in 1953, was created by the Council of Europe, an international human rights organisation that currently has 47 member states, 28 of which are EU member states. It was officially announced in Nice in December 2000 by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. A second proclamation of the Charter followed in Strasbourg in 2007 to recognize a number of changes to the original version. In 1999, 8,400 applications were made available to consultants.

In 2003, 27,200 cases were filed and the number of pending cases increased to approximately 65,000. In 2005, the court opened 45,500 cases. In 2009, 57,200 applications were approved, of which 119,300 were pending. At that time, more than 90% of applications had been declared inadmissible and the majority of cases decided – around 60% of the Court`s decisions – concerned so-called repeated cases: when the Court had already delivered a judgment finding a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights or where there was consistent case-law on a similar case. The opinion mechanism provided for in Protocol No 16 to the ECHR undermines the autonomy and effectiveness of the preliminary ruling procedure provided for by the TFEU. In particular, the draft agreement excludes the possibility of referring a question of interpretation of secondary legislation to the Court of Justice which affects the competences of the Union and the competences of the Court of Justice. However, in order to establish the existence of a link between national fundamental rights and the fundamental rights of the EEC, the Court has also held that it is required to `draw inspiration from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States` (see 4-73, paragraph 13, Nold). Similarly, she referred to « international human rights treaties to which Member States have collaborated or to which they are signatories » as an indication (ibid.). The Court has also held that the ECHR is of particular importance (see Case C-260/89 ERT in paragraph 42). The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has given an ad hoc mandate to its Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) to draw up, in co-operation with the European Commission, the legal instrument necessary for accession. Next, the Court has held that national legislation falling within the scope of (then) EEC law must also respect the fundamental rights protected by Community law as general principles (see Case C-60/84 Cinéthèque, paragraph 26). The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and its European Court of Human Rights are part of a completely different legal system from that of the EU.

The ECHR and its Court are part of the Council of Europe, which comprises 47 member states, including Russia and the United Kingdom. The EU, on the other hand, consists of 27 Member States. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is responsible for monitoring compliance with EU law within the EU. However, the EU and Council of Europe systems are closely linked, as the ECHR underpins many general principles of EU law and its provisions have served as the basis for the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The 27 EU member states are also members of the Council of Europe. However, the fact that the EU is not currently a party to the ECHR does not mean that the Convention is not relevant under EU law.