Keywords
European consensus
European integration
fundamental rights
values of the European Union
How to Cite
Abstract
This article examines the doctrine of European consensus as a constitutional tool in the case law of the ECtHR and CJEU, particularly in value-laden areas. It argues that consensus facilitates soft convergence of norms among Member States, not only guiding interpretation but shaping constitutional evolution. The article formulates and tests two hypotheses: first, that supranational courts guide domestic legal evolution through convergence without enforcing uniformity; and second, that European consensus both reflects and drives constitutional development. It analyses the legitimising role, transformative capacity, and limitations of the doctrine, including the lack of clear methodology, the risk of majoritarian bias, and political contestation. It concludes that the effectiveness of the doctrine depends on transparency and contextual sensitivity. Amid growing value-based tensions in the EU, European consensus remains a key – though imperfect – mechanism for balancing integration and pluralism.
References
390/2021, Romanian Constitutional Court, Decision of 8 June 2021, Monitorul Oficial al României, Part I, No. 612, 22 June 2021.
Alekseyev v. Russia, App. no. 4916/07, 25924/08 and 14599/09, ECtHR, Judgment of 21 October 2010.
Bayatyan v. Armenia, App. no. 23459/03, ECtHR [GC], Judgment of 7 July 2011.
Bogdandy A. von, Spieker L. D. (2019), Countering the Judicial Silencing of Critics: Policy Proposals for a New Rule of Law Mechanism, “European Constitutional Law Review”, 15(1).
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2012), OJ C326/391.
Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, App. no. 28957/95, ECtHR, Judgment of 11 July 2002.
Coman and Others v. Inspectoratul General pentru Imigrări, Case C673/16, CJEU, Judgment of 5 June 2018, ECLI:EU:C:2018:385.
Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union (2012), OJ C326/13.
Council of Europe, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (opened for signature 4 November 1950, entered into force 3 September 1953, as amended) ETS No 5.
Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, App. no. 7525/76, ECtHR, Judgment of 22 October 1981.
Dzehtsiarou K. (2015), European Consensus and the Legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139644471
Egenberger v. Evangelisches Werk für Diakonie und Entwicklung e.V., Case C414/16, CJEU, Judgment of 17 April 2018, ECLI:EU:C:2018:257.
Eurobarometer (2023), Special Eurobarometer 535: Discrimination in the European Union, European Commission, Brussels.
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2022), LGBTI Survey II: A Long Way to Go for LGBTI Equality, Vienna.
Foret F., Vargovčíková J. (2022), Value Conflicts and the EU in Crisis, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003153863-1
Frischhut M. (2022), The Ethical Spirit of EU Values: Status Quo of the Union of Values and Future Direction of Travel, Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-12714-4
Gerards J. H. (2011), Pluralism, deference and the margin of appreciation doctrine, “European Law Journal”, 17(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2010.00540.x
Haas v. Switzerland, App. no. 31322/07, ECtHR, Judgment of 20 January 2011.
Helfer L. R., Slaughter A.-M. (1997), Toward a Theory of Effective Supranational Adjudication, “The Yale Law Journal”, 107(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/797259
Henrard K. (2019), How the ECtHR’s Use of European Consensus Considerations Allows Legitimacy Concerns to Delimit Its Mandate, in: Building Consensus on European Consensus, eds. P. Kapotas, V. P. Tzevelekos, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108564779.008
ILGA-Europe (2022), Rainbow Europe Index and Annual Review of the Human Rights Situation of LGBTI People in Europe and Central Asia, Brussels.
K 1/20, Polish Constitutional Tribunal, Judgment of 22 October 2020, Dziennik Ustaw, item 175/2021.
K 3/21, Polish Constitutional Tribunal, Judgment of 7 October 2021, Dziennik Ustaw, item 1852/2021.
Kapotas P., Tzevelekos V. P. (2019), How (difficult is it) to build consensus on (European) consensus?, in: Building Consensus on European Consensus: Judicial Interpretation of Human Rights in Europe and Beyond, eds. P. Kapotas, V. P. Tzevelekos, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108564779
Kleinlein T. (2017), Consensus and Contestability: The ECtHR and the Combined Potential of European Consensus and Procedural Rationality Control, “European Journal of International Law”, 28(3). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chx055
Ladele v. the United Kingdom, App. no. 51671/10, ECtHR, Judgment of 15 January 2013 (joined in Eweida and Others v. the United Kingdom). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0956618X13000173
Letsas G. (2006), Two Concepts of the Margin of Appreciation, “Oxford Journal of Legal Studies”, 26(4). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gql030
Łącki P. (2021), Consensus as a Basis for Dynamic Interpretation of the ECHR – A Critical Assessment, “Human Rights Law Review”, 21(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngaa042
NH v. Associazione Avvocatura per i diritti LGBTI – Rete Lenford, Case C507/18, CJEU, Judgment of 23 April 2020, ECLI:EU:C:2020:289.
Peroni M. de L., Timmer A. (2013), Vulnerable groups: The promise of an emerging concept in European Human Rights Convention law, “International Journal of Constitutional Law”, 11(4). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mot042
Pew Research Center (2022), Global Attitudes Survey: Social Issues and Morality, Washington, D.C.
Pretty v. the United Kingdom, App. no. 2346/02, ECtHR, Judgment of 29 April 2002.
Right to be Forgotten II, 2 BvR 2735/14, German Federal Constitutional Court, Judgment of 6 November 2019.
Robertson J. A. (1994), Children of Choice: Freedom and the New Reproductive Technologies, Princeton University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400821204
Römer v. Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg, Case C147/08, CJEU, Judgment of 10 May 2011, ECLI:EU:C:2011:286.
Sadurski W. (2012), Constitutionalism and the Enlargement of Europe, Oxford University Press, Oxford. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199696789.001.0001
Schalk and Kopf v. Austria, App. no. 30141/04, ECtHR, Judgment of 24 June 2010.
Schultz A. (2023), The Role of Judicial Dialogue in the Preservation of the Rule of Law in the European Union, Wolters Kluwer, Warszawa.
Theilen J. T. (2021), European Consensus between Strategy and Principle: The Uses of Vertically Comparative Legal Reasoning in Regional Human Rights Adjudication, Nomos. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5771/9783748925095
Tinière R. (2023), Use of ECtHR Case Law by the CJEU: Instrumentalisation or Quest for Autonomy and Legitimacy?, “European Papers”, 8(1).
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – Consolidated version of the (2012), OJ C326/47.
Tryfonidou A., Öberg M.-L. (2024), Introduction, in: The Family in EU Law, eds. M.-L. Öberg, A. Tryfonidou, Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009498838.004
Vallianatos and Others v. Greece, App. nos. 29381/09 and 32684/09, ECtHR, Judgment of 7 November 2013.
Wolthuis B., van Duin A., Westerman P. (2023), Democracy and Pluralism after European Integration, “Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy”.
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Małgorzata Puto
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.