This paper contributes to an ongoing debate concerning the perceived judicial activism of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). It argues that the output of the Court should be better viewed as the phenomenon of judicial law-making, not unlike in domestic jurisdictions. However, unlike many domestic legal systems, the European Convention on Human Rights framework promotes large quantities of judge-made law. This outcome results from a combination of objective factors that, taken together, enhance the process of judicial law-making by the ECtHR. Those factors include the applied mode of interpretation of the Convention, the approach to its construction, the weak textual basis, the existence of positive obligations, the lack of the doctrine of precedent, the extremely high case law and judicial turnovers, the concurrent legislative inactivity, the existence of the inter-state jurisdiction and the doctrine of autonomous meaning. At the same time, the judicial law-making is only hindered by the doctrine of subsidiarity, the principle of margin of appreciation and the Fourth Instance doctrine. As a consequence of this overwhelming dominance of the factors enhancing the process of judicial law-making over those that hinder it, the ECtHR produces large quantities of judge-made law.

中文翻译：

---

欧洲法院的司法能动主义和法官造法

本文有助于正在进行的关于欧洲人权法院 (ECtHR) 的司法能动主义的辩论。它认为，法院的产出应该更好地被视为司法造法的现象，这与国内司法管辖区没有什么不同。然而，与许多国内法律制度不同，欧洲人权公约框架促进了大量法官制定的法律。这一结果是客观因素结合的结果，这些因素结合在一起，加强了 ECtHR 的司法立法过程。这些因素包括公约解释的适用模式、解释公约的方法、薄弱的文本基础、积极义务的存​​在、先例原则的缺乏、极高的判例法和司法更替率、同时发生的立法不作为, 国家间管辖权的存在和自主意义的学说。同时，司法立法仅受辅助性原则、评判幅度原则和四审原则的阻碍。由于促进司法立法过程的因素压倒性地支配阻碍司法立法过程的因素，因此欧洲人权法院产生了大量法官造法。