Does anyone have a good sense of how ECHR rulings affect legislative practice? I know the rulings are considered binding to signatories but the article is fairly vague/wishcasty on the practical implications:

Although digital rights advocates said they don’t expect Russia, one of the signatories to the human rights convention, to change its laws, they said the United Kingdom, also a signatory, is likely to modify pending legislation that had sought to bring similar pressure on companies there.

“This will have to be taken into account,” said Ioannis Kouvakas, an assistant general counsel at the U.K.-based rights group Privacy International, which intervened in the Telegram case. “It would be the U.K. setting itself up for failure if they think this doesn’t apply.”

That's a 'likely' followed by a quote by an advocate who also sounds a bit circumspect - not, say, 'this would be a violation of UK's obligations and subject to legal challenge' but just 'setting itself up for failure', whatever that means.