In this article, I have analysed the flexible interpretation of the European Convention by the European Court of Human Rights and the historical causes of this method of interpretation. At the same time, I have identified the main weights and counterweights with which the Court operates in the context of the interpretation of the Convention, showing that the process in question resembles a balancing exercise, in which various interpretation techniques are used. I have analyzed the effective interpretation of the Convention, its evolutive interpretation in the context of the margin of appreciation of states and the emerging consensus doctrine, as well as the theory of positive obligations. In conclusion, I have pointed out that the interpretation of the Convention appears to be 'unbalanced' in the direction of the effective protection of fundamental rights, which is preferable to a 'balanced' interpretation, which would leave us vulnerable to state abuses.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.