The important point is the judgment that the UK's domestic law is in violation of the UK's treaty obligations, but as is common with most treaties there's little in way of active enforcement (notably the ECtHR doesn't have power to directly overrule or strike down domestic law).
(this is about Belgium)
This means 2 things:
1) decisions taken by the executive power are not influenced by the court decision (famously one to keep a minor in solitary confinement for ~2 months and at one point forgetting to feed him for nearly 2 weeks, he had to drink from the toilet). The state got convicted ... and he got sent back to the same institution, never to be heard from again ("that would violate his privacy", sadly not joking). Legally, they could have prevented him from attending the trial in the first place. For "some reason" he never filed the open-and-shut case for monetary compensation that he was sure to win ... Never heard from again.
But don't worry, that decision was made "in the interest of the child" (says the organization that kept him in isolation for 2 months and didn't feed him for 2 weeks. Needless to say, the actual spokesperson at this point asked his name be kept out of the paper for that statement. The paper obliged)
2) if a defendant goes to a higher court, this does not halt execution of the decision. For example, a child services employee* takes the decision to take kids away from their environment and "place" them in an institution (meaning a child prison, but don't call it that) (note: this is mostly done WITHOUT those children having committed a crime, 75% of decisions are made because a state official has decided the parents aren't fit to be parents, though it's true that it's also done when they do)
* I wish I could say they used psychologists to make these decisions. That WAS true, not anymore. It is not anymore. At this point it's partly high schoolers (high school in Belgium has a social sciences/psychology year, an education with an incredibly bad reputation), and you're lucky to find one psychologist in the entire organization (technically there's 1 per province, but they "never look at individual cases").
Now at this point the parents aren't informed, nor is the child. Then the police turns up and takes the kid away, often in violent encounters. At some point this comes to a real judge, and let's say the youth judge decides the government was wrong to do this. What happens now ?
Nothing. The child is not returned. The current in-progress process is executed (and if that process is placement in foster care, that means the child is never returned, or at least not before adulthood). It is a crime to attempt to make that happen anyway.
3) Let's say child was not taken in the first place, but the youth judge decides to place the child. The parents or the child decide to appeal the decision.
What happens next ? The child is taken away by the police and placed. It is a crime to attempt to stop this.
Similar things can happen to mental patients, even if the court decides they were wrongfully diagnosed as mental patients in the first place.
And of course, yes, politicians have been convicted of using this to imprison political opponents.
Judging by the wikipedia page, this is in fact pretty common across the world:
And then I'm not even mentioning the real scandals. For example, youth services couldn't "place" some children. They weren't with their parents. After a while they find them: the parents had sent them, with the grandparents, to Croatia.
Youth services runs into action. Kidnapping (not really, of course) ! They send agents there, and arrest the grandparents.
It took 2 weeks before someone asked "and the children ?". Well, they left the children behind in Croatia, and they are still in a mental institution there, in Zagreb ... 2 years old and 7 years old.
Needless to say, the person to ask this question was the mother of the children, who had to do this from behind bars (despite that she would not be convicted). It only worked because her lawyer went to the papers.
The grandparents were convicted of kidnapping. The parents were not convicted before a court for any wrongdoing (how disgusting is it that they even tried to convict them after doing that to their children ?). The state, needless to say, objected to the decision to not convict the parents, and appealed the decision, without getting a conviction, but they did imprison the parents for that period. Over 2 years behind bars for those parents, without conviction, with their children in a mental institution in Zagreb.
Needless to say, nobody in the police or youth services was even internally disciplined.
Equally needless to say, the power of these services has since been expanded and oversight reduced, as well as their budgets to hire capable people.
Incredibly offensive fact: due to the fact that youth services take so many children away from their parents, but don't actually have places to put them, they've started putting them in boarding schools. There's a tiny problem with that: those close in the weekends and during school holidays, and mostly demand those children leave. No alternatives are given to those children, so they're homeless at that point, have to sleep in the street. This has grown to be the number one complaint from these children.
If they get help at their parents or family they are punished by youth services ...
One former "M", Richard Dearlove, is an overt Brexit campaigner.
(Edit: yes I know leaving the EU does not automatically exit ECHR, but it's a prerequisite, and the same people are generally campaigning against ECJ and ECHR as well)
However, I believe that the EU requires members be signatories of the ECHR, so Brexit would make leaving it much easier.
It's well documented that Theresa May wants to leave the ECHR; somewhat alarming since both Russia and Azerbaijan, countries with comparatively poor records on human rights, are signatories.
No European state that'd be eligible has chosen to voluntarily stay outside. Azerbaijan and Russia are the closest to being in trouble of the current members (Russias voting rights were suspended over the annexation of Crimea; Azerbaijan is implicated in corruption to step criticism over Aliyev's rule).
The "European states outside the CoE club" is not exactly one to strive for membership of, to the extent even a lot of Tory MPs in favour of Brexit are opposed to leave the ECHR; David Davis in fact threatened to rebel over it at one point.
Historically the ECHR has been a hugely respected Court, the shame alone of an adverse decision against a State has often been more than enough to prompt action. Most EU states have domestic legislation forcing their courts to interpret domestic statute in a manner compatible with the ECHR. Some go even further. Scotland's parliament, for example, is entirely unable to legislate in a manner incompatible with the ECHR.
In today's world, with its crumbling institutions, who knows if the 'shame' effect still means what it once did.
>> Article 14 – Prohibition of discrimination:
>> The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status. 
Granted, its not about marriage, but according to the ECHR, its a human right to live free of discrimination based on sexual orientation.
[Edit] There is this, which seems to leave it to the nations:
>>Article 12 – Right to marry
>> Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.
ECHR has ruled that relationship of two same-sex partners falls under the notion of "family life". It means equality of treatment and non-discrimination in regard to the protection of family life.
But no same-sex marriage right. I's my understanding that this is difference between individual rights and state obligations.
I'm sure this is one of the many true reasons for Brexit, all of them hidden from the mass of people voting for it.
It is only the current crop of hard-Brexit Tories that have suddenly taken so against it. The previous 70 years, long before we even joined the EU or abolished hanging, managed to deal with criminals just fine without proposing leaving CoE
I doubt anyone who was aware of both expected leaving the EU would have any connection with the CoE and ECHR membership
I'm sure you would quickly have a change of heart if you were subjected to the same violations.
So you admit it's ineffective then?
I know it seems weird and cynical to say a government might not understand what it is and isn’t leaving, but my total lack of faith in the UK government at this point means I’ve chosen to leave the country rather than risk it.
ECHR found in favour of the UK recently: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/11/echr-judges-...
That's a poor strategy then, since it's likely Scotland will have a second independence referendum and there is much strong support for independence now that it's seen as a way to stay in the European union.
I mean, it’s the second largest entity in terms of nominal GDP after the US, and second largest in terms of PPP GDP after China. As a share of global GDP, sure, it’s diminishing; after all, essentially all developed countries are. It is still very significant, however. Even if you assume that world GDP per capita is ever spread evenly, it’d be nearly 10% (currently, it’s 16% PPP).
(Not trolling, that's literally what happened)
Constructive comments about the EU’s failings seem to often hover near the top. It’s all in how you present your negative opinion.
Sadiq Khan has said he believes the threat of terror attacks are “part and parcel of living in a big city” and encouraged Londoners to be vigilant to combat dangers.