ABSTRACT
This chapter discusses how the Court’s practice has evolved. It draws the examination of the scope of the Court’s powers in making a decision on a violation of the Convention and on the consequences. It shows the Assanidze judgment as the point of reference for the Court’s recent practice. The chapter highlights both what it means that the respondent State is to abide by a Court judgment finding a violation and which tasks are entrusted to the Committee of Ministers. It explores the critical issues of whether how the Convention can be interpreted as providing the Court with the power to include prescriptive orders in the operative part of its judgments. The Constitutional Court found that in the light of common European legal tradition it would be wrong to deny the Luxembourg Court the power of ‘Rechtsfortbildung’. No less can hold true for the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
