The ECtHR has been much criticised for the lack of completeness and coherence of its judgments. Many of these critiques seem to presuppose an unarticulated theory about how complete and how coherent ECtHR judgments ought to be. My aim here is to articulate such a theory, in order to provide the foundations for a more principled critique of the jurisprudence of the ECtHR. I examine the nature of completeness and coherence in adjudication, and the reasons why the ECtHR should be particularly concerned with the completeness and coherence of its judgments. I identify instances in which ECtHR judgments have not been sufficiently complete and coherent, and I conclude by considering the implications this might have for making evaluations of the Court’s judgments in terms of legitimacy, justice, and desirability.