I never claimed that signatories to the European Convention are not obliged to follow ECHR rulings. What I wanted to say was two things. First of, while ECHR rulings are legally binding, it is not always so easy to get states to follow them. I have a colleague who interned for the Council of Europe and who was present during ambassadorial discussions on how to get states to follow said rulings because there are NO FINES to force them to comply. So if a state REALLY does not wish to do something ordered by the ECHR, there is only political and public pressure to force it to do so. This is why the pilot judgement procedure was introduced and the quote you provided fits my argument perfectly, ie. that states need a helpful nudge. To once again use the example of Slovenia, we get hit by an Article 6 violation (Right to a free trial) just about every year.

My second point was that I do not know of cases where ripples were felt from a specific national case in other national legal systems. Now, that does not mean it did not happen, but it is rare. It is far more likely that the ECHR would use an older case and pass a similar or identical ruling for the same violation of the Convention in another state.

But yeah, I understand the point you are trying to make. It is just that things do not always work out that way.

Yes, I am familiar with such cases (people committing suicide because of online bullying) and with cults of one sort or another. I am also aware that free speech relates to government rather than private action and that on-line and off-line fora have the right to say "we do not intend to listen to your crap here". But that is exactly the point. The communities should police themselves or declare certain things to be unacceptable. Extremists and loonies of all sorts will always find a private place where they can mutually support whatever they believe in. Consequently, I see no reason why there should be a governmental order saying "such and such speech is forbidden in this or that fora or you will face criminal charges". Again, this is my private view and I know that the majority of Europeans would not agree with me for historical reasons. This is perhaps the only major issue where I would agree with the judgement of the US Supreme Court over the ECHR.

OK, dual representation, but that does not change the fact that the EU is represented in its own right in several international organisation. As a legal entity, it has also claimed observer status in the UN, but it was not the EU Member States that blocked that, but non-European countries. So even though it is not a state under international law, it is such a powerful grouping with also strong legal rights, that it has become/is considered an international actor.

Having said that, you are also right in pointing out that Member States remain fully sovereign in many aspects of their policies and that they are individually bound by international treaties that they have signed. I do not agree, however, that older treaties always have precedence over younger ones. Depends on the treaty in question, what it deals with, on what level it was signed, what was the intention of the states signing it, etc, etc, etc. Regardless of the age of international agreements, we both know that the EU as a group or its Member States individually would not adopt policies that would go against international standards that they themselves have helped built (unless it was really, really necessary, but that would represent a divide in the wider international community).

As for European treaties, newer ones override older ones. New rules replace old ones. This is why we no longer have the Treaty of Rome and Treaty of Maastricht, but the Treaty on European Union and Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Among other things.