Not so. The UK, for instance, appears to treat these rulings as binding. This is why the UK conservatives want to scrap the Human Rights Act and replace it with a supposedly identical Bill of Rights, the key difference being a presumption that the UK's supreme court would cease to defer to the convention court.
A couple of examples relating to this that come to mind:
* Deporting refugees to Rwanda was stopped by an injunction from the ECHR
* Depriving prisoners of votes was ruled illegal in 2005 or so
There are a few others but these two come to mind.
My understanding is that although the treaties (plural?) of the CoE and ECHR don't assume judgements are binding, a number of countries made them binding in their legal systems via domestic legal instruments.
A couple of examples relating to this that come to mind:
* Deporting refugees to Rwanda was stopped by an injunction from the ECHR * Depriving prisoners of votes was ruled illegal in 2005 or so
There are a few others but these two come to mind.
My understanding is that although the treaties (plural?) of the CoE and ECHR don't assume judgements are binding, a number of countries made them binding in their legal systems via domestic legal instruments.