The European Convention on Human Rights 1950 (the Convention) has long been associated with the idea of democracy. Its preamble speaks of the importance of an ‘effective political democracy’ while several articles refer to the ideal of a ‘democratic society’.

This chapter discusses the Court's free expression jurisprudence. This supports a liberal democratic conception of democracy but there are other concepts discussed also. A substantive conception comes across in some of the earlier case law on obscenity and blasphemy and more recently a substantive commitment to pluralism, tolerance and broad-mindedness is emphasised. The case law on free expression during elections and political advertising suggests a more deliberative conception of democracy, while recently there is a stronger commitment to freedom of information, essential for a participatory democracy.

The conclusion summarises the Convention's commitment to a liberal, representative and substantive democracy and highlights how the Convention might be interpreted to support more deliberative, participatory and inclusive models of democracy,

This chapter discusses how the European Court of Human Rights interprets and applies the European Convention on Human Rights. It examines the Court's approach to interpretation which stresses the Convention receives an effective, evolving and autonomous interpretation. The key principles involved in deciding whether a right has been appropriately limited or restricted are presented: legality or lawfulness, legitimate aim and proportionality. The margin of appreciation and positive obligations doctrines are explained.

This chapter examines different theories of democracy, highlighting the relevance of liberal, representative and substantive democracy for the European Convention on Human Rights. It outlines deliberative, participatory and inclusive models of democracy that address limitations of liberal representative democracy.

This chapter reviews the historical context for the creation of the Council of Europe and the drafting of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the decision to enshrine a provision about free elections in a separate protocol.

The chapter looks at how the European Court of Human Rights deals with restrictions on the right to run for election. It includes a discussion on how the Convention deals with issues of inclusion in respect of women and minorities.

This chapter explores how the European Court of Human Rights deals with the design of electoral systems and the electoral process. It highlights the largely deferential attitude of the Court as to the question of choice of electoral system, but also notes the willingness to develop more procedural protections.

We emphasise the most important effects of the concentration of litigation against certain Eastern countries: the politicisation of human rights and the rise of tensions between the EU, the US and nationalist regimes. We demonstrate how the growing role played by private foundations impacts international relations and contributes to the birth and development of a new Cold War between these countries. In particular, we show that through a combination of litigation and advocacy, NGOs can increase pressure on the European human rights system and on certain national states, maximise the extent to which the CoE monitors certain Eastern countries and, in the process, bring judicial and political changes, which may lead in the mid- and long-term to regime change in Russia and in other Eastern countries. The potential lack of compliance of some Eastern member states with reinforced monitoring allows private foundations to stigmatise them as unreliable rogue states responsible for the ECtHR backlog and for the general malfunction of the ECHR system. We draw on Eastern legislation and on EU and US foreign policy to analyse these political tensions.