Abstract
This article examines the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights as a site of legal and political contestation, in the context of migration and border control. It introduces the concept of reverse strategic (post)litigation to capture how respondent States may use doctrinal, procedural, and discursive mechanisms during the execution phase to reinterpret, narrow, or delay the implications of adverse rulings. Drawing on a qualitative case study of recent Greek maritime border enforcement judgments, the article identifies three forms of post-judgment contestation: procedural tactics that fragment findings; interpretive approaches that narrow the scope of violations; and institutional strategies shaping execution before the Committee of Ministers. The findings demonstrate how these practices can result in formal execution without structural reform, thereby undermining accountability for human rights deficiencies. In response, the article proposes a model structured around three dimensions: the characterisation of violations; the articulation of obligations; and the supervisory structuring of execution. While not a comprehensive solution to non-execution, the model shows how clearer judicial reasoning and remedial guidance can reduce interpretive flexibility and strengthen supervision. The article concludes that effective human rights protection is determined not only by adjudication, but by how judgments are interpreted and executed in practice.