How often has the European Court of Human Rights found the UK to have violated the ECHR?
The first judgment in which the Court found a violation of an ECHR right against the UK was in 1975. It established the principle that Article 6 of the ECHR, the right to a fair trial, guarantees the right of access to a court.
The number of judgments finding violations in UK cases is less than 1.5% of the almost 24,500 judgments of the Court which have found a violation against any state since its inception in 1959.
In the 50 years up to the end of 2025, the Court issued 335 judgments finding at least one violation of an ECHR right against the UK, and 154 judgments finding no violation.
What was the UK’s record at the European Court of Human Rights in 2025?
In 2025, 261 applications made by individuals or organisations in the UK were processed by the Court - this was the lowest per capita of all the 46 countries in the Council of Europe.
Of the applications found admissible that resulted in a judgment on the merits of the case:
- 4 judgments found a violation
- 5 judgments found no violation
How often does the European Court of Human Rights issue urgent injunctions against the UK?
Interim measures (or ‘Rule 39 orders’) are urgent injunctions issued by the Court in exceptional circumstances, where there is an imminent risk of irreparable harm.
In 2025, the Court issued no interim measures against the UK - and rejected 21 requests, mostly in expulsion cases.
How has the UK’s record at the European Court of Human Rights changed since the Human Rights Act?
There has been a downward trend in the annual number of judgments finding violations against the UK since the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force (i.e. began to have legal effect) in October 2000.
The reduction in the number of judgments by the Court against the UK in the past decade could reflect the impact of the HRA in three ways.
First, the HRA creates a legal obligation for all public bodies to protect rights in all their decisions and actions, meaning that people’s rights are less likely to be breached in the first place.
Secondly, as a result of the HRA, UK courts are the first port of call for any human rights claimant, and UK judges consider human rights more explicitly and intensively than they could before. This means that fewer cases are likely to find their way to Strasbourg, because claimants will have been able to obtain justice through UK courts.
Thirdly, when a case does reach Strasbourg, the Court is more likely to follow the reasoning and conclusions of UK courts and the decisions of public authorities where they are informed by human rights considerations, as the HRA requires.
About the project
This explainer is part of the project “Human Rights: Informing the UK Debate”, a collaboration between the Modern Slavery and Human Rights Policy and Evidence Centre (University of Oxford), the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights (University of Oxford), and Middlesex University.
The project aims to improve the quality of public discourse on human rights by providing expert content grounded in robust evidence and rigorous analysis. It seeks to identify and respond to inaccurate or misleading reporting or commentary about human rights. It also explores what human rights mean for ordinary people in their everyday lives, and for the values they care about such as security, dignity, accountability, democracy and national sovereignty. The project is funded by a gift from the Sigrid Rausing Trust.
