The Alliance for Rights-Oriented Drug Policies
Your Rights Watch
As Germany and other countries regulate cannabis to protect public health, it can no longer be assumed that prohibition fulfils a legitimate purpose under human rights law.
To the extent that a regulated market is demonstrably better for public health, the prohibition regime fails to meet the requirement of a legitimate aim. In recent years, the European Court of Human Rights has been asked on multiple occasions to examine this issue.
In Mikalsen v. Norway, the applicant argued that the right to use cannabis — as recognised by constitutional courts in countries such as Mexico and South Africa — should include access through a regulated market. The case was supported by expert evidence and raised fundamental questions about the compatibility of cannabis prohibition with the European Convention on Human Rights. With an increasing number of Council of Europe member states moving towards regulation, there is a growing need for the European Court of Human Rights to provide clear guidance and help harmonise legal standards across its 46 member states.
Despite this, the European Court of Human Rights has consistently declined to examine the merits of such challenges. On 11 June 2026, the Court once again refused to consider the substance of an application concerning Norwegian drug laws. This decision was delivered by Judge Lorraine Schembri Orland, following similar refusals in previous cases.
This repeated refusal to engage with the core legal questions is significant. It leaves millions of people across Europe without an effective remedy when challenging laws that significantly interfere with private life, personal autonomy, and the right to health. Both the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Pompidou Group have previously called for clearer guidance from the Court on drug policy and human rights. To date, this guidance has not been provided.
A Pattern of Non-Examination
Since 2012, the European Court of Human Rights has dismissed multiple applications concerning cannabis prohibition without substantive reasoning. These decisions have been taken despite the submission of extensive documentation showing that prohibition continues to generate widespread harm — including arbitrary interference with private life, over-criminalisation, and preventable health damage — while failing to achieve its stated objectives.
Norwegian courts have similarly refused to conduct a full review of the proportionality and legitimate purpose of the drug laws, despite repeated constitutional challenges and the presentation of expert evidence. This has created a situation in which individuals face criminal sanctions without any meaningful opportunity to challenge the underlying policy.
The consistent refusal to examine whether prohibition serves a legitimate purpose, or whether less restrictive alternatives exist, raises serious questions about the effectiveness of the Convention system in this area. When courts decline to scrutinise policies that have far-reaching consequences for millions of people, the protective function of human rights law is weakened.
The Need for Accountability and Legal Development
For more than fifteen years, applicants have sought a principled examination of cannabis prohibition under the European Convention on Human Rights. Instead of engaging with the substantive issues, the Court has repeatedly declared such applications manifestly ill-founded. This approach prevents the development of clear legal standards at a time when an increasing number of European states are moving towards regulation.
The integrity of the Convention system depends on the Court’s willingness to examine serious and well-founded challenges to established policies. When this does not occur, individuals are left without effective remedies, and the gap between legal principles and practical reality continues to grow.
AROD maintains that the question of whether cannabis prohibition fulfils a legitimate purpose under the Convention must be addressed. Without such an examination, the rule of law is undermined, and those affected by these policies remain without meaningful protection.
Letters are found below, and those who want to learn more or have concerns about the treatment of a legitimate purpose, can contact PACE or the European Court of Human Rights:
-
Final Escalation to Secretary General Alain Berset, November 26, 2025: Demanding immediate CoE action, including a diagnostic checklist for review, and warning of inclusion in an impending ICC complaint for complicity in crimes against humanity under the Rome Statute (Article 7), due to 15 years of institutional inertia enabling widespread arbitrary persecution. This letter highlights recent Norwegian police complaints and global impacts, positioning the CoE at a defining juncture for rights-based reform.
