Learning from Inadmissibility: The Latest on Climate Change in Fliegenschnee

On 11 December 2025, the Court published its most recent climate ruling: the Fourth Section’s unanimous decision in Fliegenschnee and Others v. Austria. This is the latest in the Court’s mounting number of inadmissible climate cases – after Plan B. Earth, Metabody, Humane Being, Duarte Agostinho, Carême, Engels, Uricchio and De Conto. The outcome of Fliegenschnee was to some degree expected – given, not least, that the case was never communicated to the respondent government. At the same time, it sheds light on where the climate case-law is headed: in particular, it excludes rights-based fossil fuel bans, and voices doubt about the applicability of the human right to property (Article 1, Protocol 1 to the ECHR) to the climate impacts faced by farmers like the third applicant in this case. Overall, it clarifies that climate applicants must, from the moment of their first application to the Court, submit evidence of their affectedness, representativeness, and inability to achieve redress domestically.

Evidence as key

Fliegenschnee was brought by three individuals, as well as an environmental organisation (Global 2000). After unsuccessfully requesting the Austrian authorities to issue a phased ban on the sale of fossil fuels, the applicants turned to the ECtHR. Austria’s failure to mitigate emissions from fossil fuels, they argued, threatens their rights under Articles 2 and 8 ECHR by exposing them to climate impacts including heatwaves, drought, and environmental degradation.

The Fourth Section found that the three individual applicants in this case did not have victim status. Applying the strict victim status criteria created for climate mitigation cases in the 2024 KlimaSeniorinnen Grand Chamber judgment, the judges found that the individual applicants had failed to provide evidence showing that they had been personally affected by climate change.

The issue of evidence – which here concerned proof of impacts on the applicants given their young age, health conditions or work as farmers – had previously also proved detrimental to the individual applicants in the Greenpeace Nordic climate case. There, the Court likewise rejected the individual applicants’ claim to victim status, noting that it had not received individualized medical certificates confirming a diagnosis of climate anxiety or its severity for the youth applicants involved in that case (Greenpeace Nordic, para. 304). 

Fliegenschnee thus indicates that evidence linking a State’s emissions to climate change, and climate change to generalized risks of climate impacts, does not suffice for individual mitigation-related human rights claims. Applicants are also expected to supply medical evidence documenting the severity of their individual affectedness. The next Austrian climate case, Müllner v. Austria, which documents the individualized impacts on an applicant living with a heat-sensitive disability, thus arguably stands to fare better.

Associations’ representative standing is not a given

A second issue clarified by Fliegenschnee concerns associations’ representative standing. Representative standing for climate associations has been much discussed since the Grand Chamber recognized its possibility and granted standing to the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen in 2024. Building on this, Fliegenschnee shows that representative standing is not automatic or a sure thing: environmental associations must substantiate their claim to representative climate standing by submitting information about their status and those represented by them.

In Fliegenschnee, the Court applied the KlimaSeniorinnen judgment’s test of representative standing for climate associations, which contains a set of criteria concerning the establishment, national link, dedicated purpose, and representativeness of associations. The applicant legal person, Global 2000, had asserted that it represented the interests of the general public (para. 4). However, the Court found that it was unclear whether the applicant association pursued "a dedicated purpose in the defence of human rights in the context of the protection of the environment" and represented affected individuals in Austria, given that it had submitted "no detailed information on its membership nor its statutes."

This stands in contrast with the approach taken in Greenpeace Nordic, where the Court accepted the representative standing of Greenpeace Nordic despite noting that it “is not a membership organisation” (para. 309). In addition, the Fliegenschnee applicants could hardly have been expected, when filing their application in 2023, to submit information documenting their adherence to the KlimaSeniorinnen judgment’s twin victim status and standing tests – which, notably, were not created until the following year. Since there were no written submissions in the case, there was no opportunity to expand on this post-KlimaSeniorinnen. Ultimately, however, Fliegenschnee left the issue of representative standing open, given that the case would have been inadmissible regardless (for the reasons set out below).

No right to a fossil fuel ban, but substantiation remains key

After declaring the applicability of the right to life (Article 2 ECHR) “questionable” and declining to examine the corresponding claims, the Fliegenschnee Chamber did engage with the scope of Article 8 ECHR. It found that this provision does not grant a right to the measure sought by the applicants, namely a ban on the sale of fossil fuels. The Court made reference to the principle of subsidiarity and States’ wide margin of appreciation in choosing the means for achieving their climate change goals, as previously acknowledged in its climate rulings. Building on this, it found that “Article 8 cannot be read to guarantee a right to a particular mitigation measure by a specific State body under a certain sectoral law of an applicant’s choice” (para. 33).

This does not mean that States have no obligations around fossil fuels. In Greenpeace Nordic, the Court clarified the procedural obligations that States have when it comes to licensing fossil fuel extraction projects. It held that “the burning of fossil fuels, including oil and gas, is among the main causes of climate change” (para. 297).

However, it seems that the Court’s focus remains on procedural and regulatory obligations, and that here, too, substantiation and evidence remain key. This is reflected in the Court’s rejection of arguments about the State’s obligation to devise an adequate regulatory framework. It considered this point insufficiently substantiated, despite statements by the government that current measures put Austria on track to miss its own GHG emissions reduction targets.

Substantiation also remains key for the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies. The Fourth Section noted that, aside from the proceedings concerning the fossil fuel ban, which was litigated to the Austrian Constitutional Court, no domestic remedial avenues had been used – although without clarifying what kinds of claims or remedies it had in mind. It emphasized that the applicants had not alleged a lack of appropriate remedies or made any complaints concerning access to court (Article 6 ECHR) or the availability of an effective remedy (Article 13 ECHR).

Uncertain future for right to property claims

One of the central innovations of this case was that it called on the Court to engage with the right to property enshrined in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The third applicant, a farmer, argued that her property had been endangered because of droughts caused by climate change, which could lead to crop shortfalls and impact her agricultural productivity. This reflects related claims made domestically in other Council of Europe Member States.

In this regard, the Fourth Section was unwilling to contemplate impacts on rights beyond those already applied to climate change by the KlimaSeniorinnen Grand Chamber. It noted that the Court “has so far not applied Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the context of climate change and that its applicability does not follow from the current case-law” (para. 37). And even if the provision had been applicable, it held, the third applicant lacked victim status, because she would have needed to be able to show that she was “directly or indirectly affected by the alleged violation”. Interestingly, the Court seems to have left open the issue of whether a right to property claim would require application of the strict KlimaSeniorinnen approach to victim status, or whether it would instead benefit from the usual standards in this regard. The Court cited both the KlimaSeniorinnen victim status test applicable to claims under Articles 2 and 8 ECHR, and pre-KlimaSeniorinnen case-law applying the standard victim status test.

Conclusion

Given that Fliegenschnee was never communicated (meaning that no additional written submissions were made by the applicants, and no government submissions were received), the Court’s decision hinged on the claims made in the original application form. This underscores the importance of bringing fully fleshed-out cases to the Court from the very beginning of an application’s life, without anticipating an opportunity to clarify or further document claims in a written submissions phase.

Still, the case hints at the direction in which the Court’s climate case-law is traveling: away from evaluating States’ concrete measures and policies, and away from recognizing a wider palette of rights at stake in the face of climate change (e.g. the right to property). Nevertheless, and despite the mounting number of inadmissibility decisions in climate cases, Fliegenschnee does not exclude success in follow-up cases that bring evidence of affectedness, representativeness, and inability to achieve redress domestically from the very beginning.

An Exceptional Ministerial Conference on the ECHR and ‘Migration Challenges’

An informal ministerial conference took place in Strasbourg on human rights day, 10 December 2025. As is explained in more detail below, this exceptional gathering was prompted by a letter of nine ECHR states of about seven months earlier. The ministerial conference resulted in the adoption of conclusions, which invited the Committee of Ministers, among other things, to prepare a ‘draft political declaration’ on the Convention and migration. Before discussing the statements delivered at the conference and the conclusions in more detail, this blog summarises the aforementioned letter and the reactions to it, as well as previous ministerial conferences and their results.

The letter of nine

On 22 May 2025, nine ECHR (and EU) states published a letter, addressed to no one in particular, aiming to ‘launch a new and open minded conversation about the interpretation’ of the ECHR in order to ‘restore the right balance’. More specifically, they believe, among other things, that there should be ‘more room nationally to decide on when to expel criminal foreign nationals’. They also believe that they ‘need to be able to take effective steps to counter hostile states that are trying to use our values and rights against us’, including by ‘instrumentalizing migrants at our borders’.

The letter has probably set in motion more than the signatories expected. Unsurprisingly, many reactions have appeared in the blogosphere. Setting aside the letter’s content for the moment, Steininger observed that it ‘is apparent that the letter is not sufficient to account for an actual attempt at institutional reform (so far)’. Like Steininger, Ní Chinnéide and Sevrin emphasised that that this type of backlash or tension is nothing new. Meanwhile, Buyse wrote that, by choosing to publish an open letter, ‘the governments behind the open letter [are] putting a new round of pressure on the Court’. Donald and Forde added that, even though the letter does not explain ‘what they seek to reform, how and why’, it is clear that that the states ‘intend to change something’. So, although the letter is not addressed to the Court, it is clear that the Court is the primary target audience and that the nine states intend to initiate a change that is not yet clearly defined.

The AGORA group – a new ‘pan-European platform committed to open dialogue, rigorous inquiry, and balanced, evidence-based debate’ on ECHR issues – published an open letter on behalf of around 150 legal academics and advocates. The letter emphasised the need to discuss the ECHR system ‘in a manner that is consistent with the’ CoE values and standards, ‘in particular the rule of law and democratic governance’. The letter echoes the statement of ENNHRI, the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions. The AGORA group also recalled that, in the Reykjavík Declaration of May 2023, the CoE member states had reaffirmed their ‘unwavering commitment to the Convention system as a mechanism to promote peace and stability in Europe and the [CoE’s] core values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law’.

The letter did not go unnoticed among ECHR states parties either. To take one example, the office of the Belgian Prime Minister De Wever, who was one of the signatories of the letter, asked Bossuyt to write a paper addressing the concerns expressed in the letter. Bossuyt is a former president of the Belgian Constitutional Court. The idea was to ‘quietly circulate the confidential paper among European leaders’. In line with the paper’s recommendations, De Wever proposed not amending the Convention, as this would take too long. Instead, he would like to add a further undefined ‘interpretation protocol’ to the ECHR. As Donald explained, ‘it is not clear whether De Wever does in fact mean a protocol to the ECHR or, more likely, an interpretive declaration’.

To take another example, the Dutch parliament responded to the country’s decision not to sign the letter by passing a motion calling on the Dutch government to explore the possibility of modernising or revising treaties such as the ECHR. The Dutch parliament also adopted a motion in support of De Wever’s idea after he delivered a speech at the HJ Schoo Lecture, which marks the unofficial start of the Dutch political year. In this speech, he also addressed the issue of migration and the ECHR. In line with the second motion, the Dutch government’s position during the informal ministerial conference was that the participants should instruct the Committee of Ministers to adopt a political declaration at the ordinary ministerial conference in May 2026. This declaration should have the status of an ‘interpretative declaration’ (rather than a ‘protocol’, as De Wever suggested), thus providing further guidance on the interpretation of the ECHR in the context of asylum and immigration policy. Interpretative declarations are a known phenomenon in international law. The Court has firmly stated that it has the authority to determine the validity under Article 57 ECHR (Article 64 at the time) of ‘a reservation or, where appropriate, of an interpretative declaration’.

Council of Europe reactions

Within the CoE, the Court responded to the letter by introducing some evidence to the debate in the form of a factsheet about immigration. The factsheet shows that only 1.5% of the cases pending before the Court relate to immigration. Furthermore, the Court identified violations in approximately 6% of the immigration-related applications over the past ten years. The CoE Commissioner for Human Rights wrote that the letter contains ‘so much to repudiate and challenge’ and that it ‘posits evidence free claims’, which underlines the importance of the Court’s factsheet. 

The CoE Secretary General Berset explained that ‘[d]ebate is healthy, but politicizing the Court is not’. He also emphasised that ‘[u]pholding the independence and impartiality of the Court is our bedrock’. In addition to outlining four ‘basic factual premises’ for measures to address the concerns ‘of some European political leaders regarding the issue of migration’ and the Convention, Berset proposed four avenues to address these concerns. I will return to one of them when discussing the conclusions. It is Berset who initiated the informal ministerial conference with the aim of re-establishing discussions within the CoE framework. As Donald and Forde explained, ‘the advantages of utilising established fora as opposed to informal back-channels to discuss fundamental structural or normative issues is that discussions are more structured, comprehensive and transparent, and the involvement of expertise ensures that any course of action taken is based on facts and consideration of potential consequences’. The conference also ensures that all 46 Convention states participate in the discussion, rather than just 9 EU states.

The statements delivered at the informal ministerial conference

At the conference on 10 December 2025, 27 states delivered a joint statement. 19 of these states are EU states.[i] The following EU states were missing: Cyprus, France, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain. After confirming their ‘commitment’ to the Convention (rather than their ‘unwavering commitment’ as in the Reykjavík Declaration), the states echoed the letter of the nine states in many ways, referring to ‘people who take advantage of our hospitality by committing serious crime’ and the need to protect their own populations. More specifically, they considered it ‘vital that the balance between individual rights and legitimate aims as per Article 8 […] is adjusted so that more weight is put on the nature and seriousness of the offence committed and less weight is put on the foreign criminal’s’ interests. Comparably, they stated that the ‘scope of “inhuman and degrading treatment” under Article 3 […] should be constrained’ in the manner they see fit. Neither a group of states, nor the Committee of Ministers under the Convention or the CoE Statue has the competence to interpret the Convention; this competence lies solely with the Court (Articles 19 and 32(1) ECHR). For this reason alone, the proposed ‘rebalancing’ under Article 8 and limiting the scope of Article 3 are highly problematic. Therefore, these states ‘support’ for the Court’s independence is merely paying lip service to this key concept.

The CoE Commissioner for Human Rights’ statement is of a wholly different nature and highlights further reasons why the joint statement is problematic. In his brief statement, O’Flaherty raised some very pertinent issues. First, he emphasised the importance of ‘impeccable facts’ and, in this context, described the claim that the so-called instrumentalisation of migration undermines national security’ as ‘unconvincing’, while also challenging the assumption that adjusting the Court’s practice will ‘impact irregular migration flows’. He also urged the states not to ‘throw the law in question’ – specifically, the universality of human rights, the absolute prohibition of refoulement, and the Court’s independence. O’Flaherty was ‘convinced that our peoples are not against strong human rights protections for everyone’.

Although Secretary General Berset’s statement is less critical, he mentioned that the letter does not reflect his views. He underscored the importance of political dialogue and the evolving nature and significance of the Convention. While describing migration as having a ‘human face’, he also outlined the ‘challenges of irregular migration’, including its instrumentalisation.

Conference conclusions

The first few preambular paragraphs of the conclusions are rather general, referring to the ‘need to preserve the integrity of the Convention system’, the ‘the unconditional obligation on States to abide by the final judgments of the Court’ and the ‘subsidiary nature’ of the Convention system, for example. The final preambular paragraphs address the ‘migration challenges’ that supposedly prompted the debate initiated by the letter of nine. According to the conclusions, these challenges include the ‘instrumentalisation of migration, smuggling of migrants, trafficking in human beings and other criminal activities in this context’. A category of ‘challenges’ that is highlighted separately is ‘related to the expulsion and return of foreigners convicted of serious offences, while respecting human rights’. Additionally, the participants at the conference acknowledge a wide range of issues that appear to be the result of a complex compromise: ‘the fundamental responsibility of governments to ensure national security, public safety and the economic well-being of the country, as well as their sovereign right to protect their borders, whilst respecting without discrimination the core values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, and conscious of the financial challenges encountered by multilateral co-operation on migration issues’. 

The operative paragraphs of the conclusions invite the Committee of Ministers to: 

‘a) prepare a draft political declaration reaffirming the obligation to ensure the effective enjoyment of the [Convention] rights […] to everyone within the jurisdiction of member States in the context of the contemporary challenges posed both by irregular migration and by the situation of foreigners convicted of serious offences, taking duly into account in particular governments’ fundamental responsibility to ensure national security and public safety;

b) reiterate its support for the elaboration of a new recommendation on deterring and fighting the smuggling of migrants, with full respect for their human rights;

c) consider how the [CoE], including through the possible creation of an inter-governmental committee, can best address pressing migration issues and related policies;

d) encourage the Secretary General to engage in discussions at an international level relating to migration.’ 

The first proposal is clearly the most conspicuous. It is difficult to predict the content of this political declaration based on the proposal, since the proposal is hard to decipher and ambiguous. The political declaration should reaffirm the obligation to protect everyone’s Convention rights in the context of migration challenges on the one hand. This almost seems to contradict the joint statement, which proposes reducing the protection afforded by the Convention to ‘address’ migration challenges, and is also not in line with the spirit of the letter. On the other hand, the addition that the political declaration should duly take into account governments’ responsibility to ‘ensure national security and public safety’, is more in line with the joint statement and the letter: the ‘migration challenges’ and the protection of human rights undermine the governments’ ability to fulfil this responsibility. 

The proposal is less clear and less controversial than Berset’s ‘avenues’, since he proposed not only the adoption of a ‘declaration on migration and the Convention’, but also that the text of the declaration ‘clearly indicate how the High Contracting Parties understand the Convention in migration cases, including in relation to criminal activities’. This proposal signals more clearly than the conclusions that the states intend to influence the Court’s interpretation of the Convention. 

Apart from its content, the form of the proposal is notable: a political declaration, rather than the interpretation protocol that De Wever proposed, although he may actually have meant a political declaration. Political declarations were adopted at the five high-level conferences dedicated to the future of the ECtHR, which took place between 2010 and 2018. In these declarations, the states took stock of the reform process, identified problems concerning the Convention system and proposed reform measures. I previously found that more than half of these proposals had not been implemented, primarily due to opposition from the Court. However, the Court did take a considerable number of measures to enhance its ability to process cases, it has reduced the number of interim measures granted, and it has placed greater emphasis on the subsidiarity principle in its case law. Secretary General Berset also noted that ‘[r]esearch and empirical evidence show that the Court is not indifferent to such political declarations and considers them in its judicial work’. Donald and Forde confirmed that ‘judges live in the real world, and they pay attention to the perspectives of states’. Therefore, such a declaration may be a way for the states ‘to inform and perhaps even “nudge” the Court in a certain direction’. Additionally, Buyse noted that the debate about the Convention could lead to ‘subtle shifts in case-law’. Unlike the proposal made by the Dutch delegation at the informal ministerial conference, the declaration is not specified as having the status of an interpretative declaration. 

The timing of the conference at which the political declaration will be proposed is unclear. It could be adopted at the ordinary ministerial conference, which is due to take place in Moldova in May 2026 (the Dutch proposal). However, Berset proposed organising a ‘dedicated’ high-level conference, probably similar to those held from 2010 to 2018. 

My conclusion 

Discussions about the Court in 2026 will continue to focus on migration and the ECHR, and a political declaration on this topic is expected. If the declaration reflects the joint statement, it will call on the Court to significantly reduce human rights protection for (certain categories of migrants). According to some (see also here), this process has already begun and it may be reinforced by a political declaration, since the Court has not been not insensitive to such declarations. Despite the both legally and empirically questionable basis of their proposals, a significant proportion of ECHR states parties are determined to follow this course. However, since a political declaration requires the approval of all 46 states parties, its content will likely be more nuanced than the joint proposal, as the conclusions adopted at the information ministerial conference also suggest. Still, dynamics in the states may lead to states changing their attitude, as demonstrated by the case of the Netherlands, where the Convention became the subject of parliamentary debates. Although the Netherlands did not sign the letter from the nine states, it did participate in the joint declaration, which is likely to have been a consequence of the debates.

---

[i]  Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden. The non-EU states are: Albania, Iceland, Montenegro, Norway, San Marino, Serbia, Ukraine, United Kingdom

Webinar on the Rule of Law Crisis in Poland and the ECHR

On Monday 15 December from 17:30-19:00 (CET), the Democracy Institute Rule of Law Clinic of the Central European University (CEU) and the Review of Democracy (RevDem) are organizing a webinar entitled 'Two Years after Walesa v Poland – Restoring the Rule of Law in a Post-Illiberal Context'. The webinar will discuss the European Court of Human Rights' judgments in the case of Walesa v. Poland and the developments and challenges in restoring the rule of law in Poland. 

Here is a description of the event:

'On December 15, the CEU Democracy Institute Rule of Law Clinic and the Review of Democracy (RevDem) will host a webinar on challenges in the process of rebuilding judicial independence in Poland. The European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) landmark Walesa v. Poland judgment will serve as a starting point. In this ruling, the ECtHR, using its pilot judgment procedure, set a one-year deadline for the Polish government to improve judicial appointment procedures. In November 2025, this deadline has been postponed for the second time. Currently, there are more than 1100 pending cases against Poland concerning the judicial reforms initiated by the PiS government in 2017.

The event will discuss the main developments in this field: the new draft law aimed at restoring the rule of law and recent Court of Justice of the European Union case-law regarding judicial independence in Poland, with a particular focus on the AW ‘T’ case.

Join us as leading experts and practitioners examine the main legal challenges in rebuilding the rule of law and implementing ECtHR case-law.'

You can register here for the webinar. 

Workshop on ECHR and Sport

On 16 and 17 April 2026, the International Law and Human Rights Unit of the University of Liverpool is organizing a workshop entitled 'Impact of Strasbourg and Luxembourg Courts on Lex Sportiva'. The workshop will focus on the impact of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights as well as the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the regime regulating sport. The workshop will take place in person in Liverpool. Here is more information on the workshop and the call for abstracts:

'Sport has traditionally been viewed as an autonomous system, capable of regulating itself without external legal intervention. This autonomy is widely acknowledged by states and international bodies, including the EU and the Council of Europe. Its legislative dimension is reflected in the extensive self-regulatory powers of international sports federations, culminating in the development of a lex sportiva—a transnational body of rules governing sporting competition. Judicial autonomy is exercised through internal disciplinary mechanisms and a distinct system of sports justice, headed by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). CAS functions as the supreme judicial authority of the sporting world, wielding considerable influence owing to the broad acceptance of its jurisdiction. However, such autonomous regimes raise significant legal concerns. In modern sport, decisions with far-reaching consequences for athletes’ livelihoods, private lives, health and reputations are made within this system, meaning that sports organisations’ extensive powers can directly affect athletes’ fundamental human rights. Recent developments increasingly challenge the autonomy and monopolistic power of sports governing bodies, calling into question the sustainability of the current model. International courts now play a greater role, as illustrated by the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Semenya v Switzerland and the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Seraing v Belgium. This workshop will examine how these courts may influence the sports regulatory regime—both positively and negatively—and how they might strengthen the protection of athletes’ human rights.

Recent developments increasingly challenge the autonomy and monopolistic power of sports governing bodies, calling into question the sustainability of the current model. International courts now play a greater role, as illustrated by the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Semenya v Switzerland and the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Seraing v Belgium. This workshop will examine how these courts may influence the sports regulatory regime—both positively and negatively—and how they might strengthen the protection of athletes’ human rights.

Confirmed key-note speakers:

Marko Bošnjak (Court of Justice of the European Union, Former President of the European Court of Human Rights)

Johan Callewaert (University of Louvain, Former Deputy Grand Chamber Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights (2006-2025))

Schona Jolly KC (Cloisters Chambers)

Seema Patel (Nottingham Trent University)

Daniel Rietiker (Registry of the European Court of Human Rights, University of Lausanne)

Timeline:

The cover letters and abstracts of no more than 300 words should be submitted to Rima.Yustikaningrum@liverpool.ac.uk before 6 pm UK time on 16 January 2026. The cover letter should include the name or names of the author(s), their positions and affiliated institutions, and preferred email addresses.

By 1 February 2026, the authors of the selected abstracts will be invited to submit short papers of no more than 8,000 words. These papers must be submitted by 31 March 2026. Only authors who submit a paper by the deadline will be invited to participate in the workshop.

Logistics:

The workshop will take place in Liverpool, UK. This is an in-person event, online participation will not be possible. Participants who require a UK visa may request an official invitation letter; however, we are unable to provide any additional assistance, and we regret that we cannot cover the costs of visa applications.

Participation in the workshop is free of charge for speakers, but we are unable to cover travel or accommodation expenses. Please note that an additional fee may be required for those wishing to attend the conference dinner.

All papers of publishable quality are planned to be published in an edited collection. 

For any questions and clarifications, please get in touch with Ms Rima Yustikaningrum Rima.Yustikaningrum@liverpool.ac.uk'

New Session of the MOOC on the ECHR Starts Again on 15 December

In two weeks, on 15 December 2025, Utrecht University's free Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) on the ECHR will start again! To enroll, please go to the Coursera platform. 

The MOOC entitled 'Human Rights for Open Societies - An introduction into the ECHR' is taught by my Utrecht University colleagues professor Antoine Buyse and professor Janneke Gerards. This is the description of our six-week course:

'Human rights are under pressure in many places across the globe. Peaceful protests are violently quashed. Voting is tampered with. And minorities are often excluded from decision-making. All of this threatens the ideal of an open society in which each of us can be free and participate equally. A solid protection of human rights is needed for an open society to exist and to flourish. But it is often an uphill battle to work towards that ideal. Equip yourself and learn more about what human rights are and how they work. 

In this course, we will introduce you to one of the world’s most intricate human rights systems: the European Convention on Human Rights. You will see when and how people can turn to the European Court of Human Rights to complain about human rights violations. You will learn how the Court tries to solve many of the difficult human rights dilemmas of today. We will look, amongst other things, at the freedom of expression and demonstration, the right to vote, and the prohibition of discrimination. And we will address the rights of migrants, refugees, and other vulnerable groups. And, of course, we will see whether it is possible to restrict rights and if so under what conditions. You will even encounter watchdogs and ice cream in this course. We invite you to follow us on a journey of discovery into the European Convention!'

Please watch this short introduction video to get an impression:

Lize Glas and Corina Heri Join as ECHR Blog Editors

It is our great pleasure to expand the team of the ECHR Blog with two new editors: Lize Glas and Corina Heri. With the ever-evolving developments, both in practice, in case-law and academia, around the European Convention of Human Rights, it is wonderful that two great ECHR experts will join us with their energy, drive and expertise to further build the ECHR Blog. Welcome on board, Lize and Corina! 

Lize Glas is associate professor of international and European law at the Radboud University in the Netherlands. Her research focuses on the functioning of the European Court of Human Rights alone and in combination with other actors. She researches how the Court should function, how it functions in practice and how its functioning can be enhanced. More specifically, she has written about the pilot-judgment procedure, unilateral declarations and third-party interventions. Her research interests also concern the execution of the Court's judgments, the EU’s accession to the ECHR and other Council of Europe treaties and actors. She is also a member of the editorial board of the Dutch-language journal about human rights (NTM/NJCM-Bulletin) and of a case note platform (EHRC Updates), as well as a member of the Advisory Council of CURE.

Corina Heri is assistant professor of administrative and constitutional law at Tilburg University in the Netherlands, and from March 2026 she will be the principal investigator of the TEMPORALAW project at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) in Belgium. Her work engages with the ECHR in several ways. Alongside her current interest in the European Court of Human Rights’ climate and environmental cases, she has engaged with the prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment (Article 3 ECHR) and the Court’s concept of vulnerability (including through a monograph, entitled Responsive Human Rights and published by Hart in 2021). She has also written about the Court’s case-law on abusive limitations of rights (Article 18 ECHR), its approach to evidence and to remedies, its relationship with public interest litigation and the conceptual foundations of ECHR rights, among other topics.

As we welcome our two new fellow editors on board, it is also time to say goodbye to our associate editor Jasmine Sommardal, who has served on the blog for almost two years and has now moved her professional trajectory outside academia. We warmly thank her for her excellent contributions to the blog and wish her all the very best!

EIN-DRI 2025 Rule of Law Report Launch

Tomorrow, 25 November from 16:30-18:00 CET, the European Implementation Network (EIN) and Democracy Reporting International (DRI) will launch the new 2025 edition of the report 'Justice Delayed, Justice Denied - The non-implementation of European Courts’ Judgments and the Rule of Law in the EU'. The report addresses the issue of non-implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union in EU Member States, and contains recommendations for actions by the EU.

This is the description of the event:

'With 650 ECtHR judgments and 133 CJEU rulings still pending implementation at the start of 2025, the report shows that this growing trend of non-compliance and lengthy delays if often coupled with open contestation of decisions by political authorities and, and, at times, by the highest national courts, undermining the authority and potential effectiveness of these supra-national institutions.

More critically, each case of non-implementation results in prolonged rule of law and human rights violations, with far-reaching consequences for individuals and communities who are denied timely justice. Certain countries consistently struggle with compliance across both courts, and there are several indications of worsening implementation trends overall. 

The event, which will take place alongside the European Parliament plenary, will feature presentations by Ioulietta Bisiouli, Director of EIN, and Dr. Nino Tsereteli, Programme Coordinator at DRI, followed by an institutional feedback from MEP Daniel Freund and an open exchange with the audience.'

You can register here for the event.

New Book on Intersectionality and the ECHR

Today, Nani Jansen Reventlow (human rights lawyer and founder of Systemic Justice), Eddie Bruce-Jones (Professor at the University of London), Lyn K.L. Tjon Soei Len (Associate Professor at the Ohio State University) and Adam Weiss (Chief Programmes and Impact Officer, ClientEarth) published a new edited book entitled 'Intersectionality and Human Rights: Reimagining European Court of Human Rights Judgments'. The book contains contributions from activists, practitioners and academics in which recent judgments from the ECtHR are rewritten from an intersectionality perspective. This is the abstract:

'In this book activists, practitioners, and academics rewrite recent European Court of Human Rights judgments to respond to intersecting forms of oppression, discrimination, and other human rights harms. They illustrate how people with intersecting identities experience discrimination in complex ways that the Court often overlooks.

Using a collaborative and multidisciplinary approach, each chapter provides a vision for a jurisprudence that accounts for intersecting forms of oppression. This innovative legal paradigm of legal analysis contributes to the broader global field of critical rewrites that incorporates feminist, queer, and indigenous perspectives into existing judgments.

The book reimagines the Court’s case law through an intersectional lens, exploring issues spanning gender, race, religion, sexuality, and status. Ultimately, it demonstrates how judgments that fail to consider the impacts of intersecting axes of marginalisation and oppression can be reimagined – pointing to a future where European human rights jurisprudence is more responsive.

This book is an invaluable resource for scholars and students of European law, human rights, and public international law. It is also a vital read for legal practitioners and advocates working across European jurisdictions on human rights and equality for its innovative legal theory perspectives.'

Call to Sign an Open Letter Regarding the Future of the European Convention on Human Rights

In recent months, several Council of Europe member states have portrayed the ECHR and the ECtHR as obstacles to addressing migration issues in Europe. Some states have openly criticised the Court, while others have even suggested withdrawing from the Convention. It is in response to these worrying initiatives, that a number of academics working in the ECHR law have established the Agora Group, an independent, pan-European platform committed to open dialogue and balanced, evidence-based debate on key issues concerning the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Agora Group now counts nearly 800 colleagues from all parts of Europe.

It has come to our attention that the Council of Europe will soon establish an intergovernmental forum to discuss the concerns of member States as regards the ECtHR and the interpretation of Convention rights, particularly Articles 3 and 8 ECHR. Discussions held within the Council of Europe are welcome. However, the Agora Group has prepared an open letter to call on all those involved to ensure that such discussions are conducted in good faith and in a manner that respects the independence of the Court and the object and purpose of the Convention and the Statute of the Council of Europe. Failure to do so could significantly undermine the Convention system as a whole.

In the spirit of constructive engagement, and considering the importance of these initiatives from a large number of states, we invite all experts and academics working in the field of human rights to consider signing this open letter from the AGORA Group to the Council of Europe leadership. The letter will be formally issued to the Council of Europe next week.

Click here to read and sign the open letter.

Call for Abstracts: Revisiting the ECHR

The Human Rights Research Group of the Leuven University's Centre for Public Law has just launched a call for abstracts for a conference entitled 'Revisiting the ECHR: A Closer Look at Calls for Change'. The impetus for the conference was the by now (in)famous letter of last May by nine governments calling for changing the ECHR. As the governments phrased it in that letter: "We want to use our democratic mandate to launch a new and open-minded conversation about the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. We have to restore the right balance.”

The conference will take place exactly one year after the letter;s publication, on 22 May 2026. Professor Başak Çalı (Oxford University) will be the keynote speaker. 

This is the call for abstracts:

'What started as an open letter in May 2025 has culminated in an increasingly articulate call by a large group of European leaders to revisit and reform the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). These leaders have pointed to the interpretation of the Convention as an impediment to policymaking and states’ interests, particularly in (but not limited to) migration matters. But what does it mean to point at Strasbourg and its judges as a roadblock to democratic governance? And how can and may governments address this issue?

While the political plans are still taking shape, the changing playing field calls for in-depth academic engagement. With this conference, the Human Rights Research Group at KU Leuven will create a space for open and balanced debate on the possibilities for reform and their implications. 

Authors of selected abstracts will be invited to develop these into full papers for publication in either an edited volume or a special issue.

We particularly invite abstracts that touch upon the following topics:

• Dialogue between the ECtHR and national authorities

• The asserted need to reform the ECHR and its judicial machinery 

• The different possibilities and mechanisms to revisit the interpretation of the ECHR

• The role of different actors in driving change at the Court 

• (Supranational) separation of powers

• The promise and limits of evolutive interpretation

• ECHR and migration

• The role of the ECHR within international migration law

• Tensions between the ECHR and particular states

Submission guidelines: Abstracts (max. 500 words) should be submitted to both koen.lemmens at kuleuven.be and eva.sevrin at kuleuven.be by 17 January 2026. Selected participants will be notified by 29 January 2026. For any inquiries, please contact the two organisers.'

Online Event on the ECHR and Immigration Detention

On Wednesday 12 November 2025 from 16:00-17:00 (CET), the Hertie School Centre for Fundamental Rights is organizing an online event entitled 'Immigration detention: Establishing clear boundaries in international human rights law'. The event will focus on a discussion of the European Court of Human Rights' case law on immigration detention. 

Here is a short description of the event:

'Many scholars have critiqued the ECtHR caselaw on immigration detention for failing to vindicate the right to liberty adequately and placing refugees and other vulnerable migrants at risk of arbitrary detention. The speakers will present their academic arguments, drawing on their academic writings, and suggest litigation strategies for those contesting immigration detention, and provide guidance for judges seeking to vindicate the rule of law and fundamental rights.

The speakers will discuss the paper titled “The Pre-Removal Detention of Immigrants: A Return to Ordinary Meaning” by Bas Schotel and Ingo Venzke.

About the paper: 

The EU Return Directive demands that immigrant detention be as short as possible, but, by logical implication, this also means that detention can be as long as necessary. What concerns the maximum length of detention, the Return Directive is remarkably generous: Immigrants can be detained for a period of up to eighteen months—a deprivation of liberty that is otherwise justified only as punishment for serious crimes. The practice of such long-term detention, now burgeoning, is highly questionable for moral, practical, and—our focus—legal reasons.

The European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) provides the relevant yardstick. While discussions on the legality of immigrant detention have focused on requirements of necessity, we shift attention towards the surprisingly absent question of maximum duration. Our analysis delves into the drafting context of the ECHR to reveal that it only authorises the pre-removal detention of immigrants for markedly short periods. Picking up the interpretative canon of the regime, we note that meanings can of course change, but we argue that it is a legal mistake to consider that long-term detention is now sanctioned by the Convention.'

You can register here for the event.