The Human Right to Enforcement: A Critical Analysis of Strasbourg’s Case-Law on Unenforced Arbitral Awards

The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly held that the refusal of a Member State court to recognize and enforce an arbitral award may violate the award-holder’s property rights under Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. This contribution discusses the Court's growing case-law on unenforced awards. It argues that the framework developed by the Court in this context should be better aligned with the international standards governing the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, and that the Court’s review should focus on whether a Member State court’s decision to annul an award or refuse its enforcement complied with such standards. Under Article 1 of Protocol 1, the Court might make this assessment without the deference that it normally extends to domestic courts when evaluating their interpretation and application of domestic or international law.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of International Arbitration
Published
2025-02-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.54648/joia2025004
Primary Topic
International Arbitration and Investment Law
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Human Right to Enforcement: A Critical Analysis of Strasbourg’s Case-Law on Unenforced Arbitral Awards

Johannes Hendrik Fahner
Journal of International Arbitration
International Arbitration and Investment Law
article

The Human Right to Enforcement: A Critical Analysis of Strasbourg’s Case-Law on Unenforced Arbitral Awards

Johannes Hendrik Fahner
article en

Abstract

The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly held that the refusal of a Member State court to recognize and enforce an arbitral award may violate the award-holder’s property rights under Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. This contribution discusses the Court's growing case-law on unenforced awards. It argues that the framework developed by the Court in this context should be better aligned with the international standards governing the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, and that the Court’s review should focus on whether a Member State court’s decision to annul an award or refuse its enforcement complied with such standards. Under Article 1 of Protocol 1, the Court might make this assessment without the deference that it normally extends to domestic courts when evaluating their interpretation and application of domestic or international law.

Journal of International ArbitrationVol. 42(Issue 1)
Openalex Percentile: Top 98%
International Arbitration and Investment Law
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.