ABSTRACT
The chapter builds on the results of our empirical research on Czech apex courts and reflects on what they imply for the general effectiveness and life of the Strasbourg human rights regime and recent trends in the Council of Europe, stressing the role of Central and Eastern European post-transitioning judiciaries. The chapter argues that domestic judiciaries represent important actors in the Strasbourg regime, but their use of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) case law might serve both good and bad causes. Domestic judges can in good faith adopt the ECtHR’s doctrines and diffuse its conclusions among other stakeholders, filter European Convention on Human Rights violations and thereby reduce the docket of the ECtHR, and create a shield against abusive constitutionalism. In contrast to this bright side of judicial treatment, domestic judges can also fight against the proliferation of Convention rights, as interpreted by the ECtHR; challenge the ECtHR as such; or even abuse the Strasbourg case law domestically to arrive at conclusions that would have not been accepted by the ECtHR itself. The chapter identifies factors overcoming indifference and resistance of domestic courts and leading to the acceptance of the ECtHR’s jurisprudence.
