.jpg)
* Tobias Mortier, ‘The four horsemen of illegitimacy? Unveiling the ECtHR’s interpretation of its legitimate aim requirement through a comparative categorization of illegitimate aims’, Human Rights Law Review , vol. 26, issue 1 (2026):
‘Most rights in the European Convention on Human Rights are qualified, meaning that restrictions imposed upon them can be justified. To that end, the aim in pursuit of which the State adopted the restriction is critical, with the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) requiring that this aim be legitimate. In practice, however, the ECtHR does not regard this ‘legitimate aim’ requirement with much interest, resulting in the appearance that nearly all aims will pass this test. Yet, there are a few aims that the ECtHR has rejected in its case law. Drawing inspiration from the case law of the US Supreme Court, an institution that does scrutinize governmental purpose more consistently, this article asks what the ECtHR can learn from the aims that have been denounced as illegitimate by the US Supreme Court. The article provides a two-fold argument. First, assessing aims through the lens of illegitimacy rather than legitimacy provides important lessons for the ECtHR. Second, the ECtHR would benefit from linking its legitimate aim analysis more closely and consistently with the principles and values of a democratic society, which constitute the basis for findings of illegitimacy in the ECtHR’s case law.’
* Katerina Aikaterini Tsampi, ‘Rethinking the predominant purpose test under Article 18 ECHR—lessons from the détournement de pouvoir à la française', Human Rights Law Review , vol. 26, issue 1 (2026):
‘The doctrine of détournement de pouvoir illustrates how legal transplants from domestic legal orders can shape the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) system. Originating in French administrative law, its influence on Article 18 ECHR highlights both the promise and pitfalls of legal transplants. Although Article 18 lay dormant for decades, its recent activation has strengthened the Convention’s capacity to address rule of law violations. Yet the ECtHR’s adoption of détournement de pouvoir—particularly through the ‘predominant purpose’ test in Merabishvili—reflects a broad and somewhat mechanical borrowing. The Court did not fully consider the doctrine’s French nuances, instead holding that Article 18 is violated only where the illegitimate aim outweighs the legitimate one. This approach generates ambiguity. In this sense, the test functions as a ‘legal irritant’. A more tailored adaptation, through transposition and tuning, is necessary to ensure that domestic legal concepts enhance rather than disrupt the ECHR system’s legal coherence and effectiveness.’
* Antonio Di Marco, ‘The ambiguous complementarity of twins: co-operation between the European Union and the Council of Europe’, Human Rights Law Review, vol. 26, issue 1 (2026):
‘The co-operation between the European Union and the Council of Europe is traditionally regarded as complementary in the integrative process of the European continent. This study argues that such characterization constitutes a conceptual illusion, hiding an asymmetrical relationship with the potential to undermine the credibility of the Council of Europe. Through an analysis of the legal basis for co-operation, an examination of their institutional co-ordination, and an assessment of the operational integration achieved to date, the study illustrates how these two organizations interact in practice. It advances the argument that their relationship is shaped by a functional hierarchy, grounded in the diversity of their functions. By evaluating the degree of institutional and operational asymmetry in the protection and promotion of human rights, the study also assesses the implications that the Union’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, or its prolonged postponement, may have on the current cooperative framework.’
* Nikos Koumoutzis, ‘Presuming parentage in lesbian – as in heterosexual – couples? Equal treatment claims before the European Court of Human Rights: Boeckel and Gessner-Boeckel v Germany, and R.F. and Others v Germany’, The International Journal of Human Rights (2026):
‘It is increasingly common in married or registered lesbian couples to conceive children through assisted reproduction with donor sperm. In these families, parentage is automatically attributed to the woman giving birth, while the birth mother’s spouse or partner – sometimes even the egg provider – must typically undergo adoption to be recognised as the other parent. This starkly contrasts with heterosexual couples in which the birth mother’s spouse is the other parent by virtue of the presumption of legitimacy, without further steps, sparing stakeholders from legal uncertainty, costs, and emotional strain. This article examines how the European Court of Human Rights responds to claims of alleged discrimination caused by this disparity, with particular attention to Boeckel and Gessner-Boeckel v Germany and R.F. and Others v Germany. It argues that ‘biological differences’ between the couples are insufficient to explain the unequal treatment. At the same time, it considers whether such unequal treatment can be justified on grounds of collective interests, drawing on broader case law under the European Convention on Human Rights, where it provides necessary contextual background for specific points of the analysis. It concludes that, in certain circumstances, States retain discretion to refuse a gender-neutral extension of the presumption of legitimacy and thereby perpetuate the systemic imbalance in their family laws.’
* Aleksandra Mezykowska, ‘Reparations for victims of the war against Ukraine: reconciling the available legal avenue before the ECtHR with the emerging compensation mechanism’, The International Journal of Human Rights (2026):
‘This article examines how consistency and effectiveness can be ensured within the fragmented international reparations framework through which victims of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine may seek redress. In particular, it focuses on the parallel operation of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Register of Damage for Ukraine (the Register), which constitutes the first component of an international compensation mechanism. Despite their different legal nature, both bodies are currently dealing with large numbers of closely related claims that may be submitted by the same individuals, although the Register currently accepts only claims concerning harm inflicted on or after 24 February 2022. The article argues that, as a matter of principle, individual claims arising from the full-scale invasion should be channelled to the compensation mechanism. Following the ECtHR’s judgment in Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia of July 2025, the Court could adopt an approach analogous to the pilot-judgment procedure with respect to remaining individual applications, striking them out and directing applicants to the Register. This would require the Court to consider the Register an effective remedy within the meaning of the Convention. Such an approach would reduce jurisdictional duplication, prevent double recovery, enhance legal certainty and procedural economy, and facilitate broader access to reparations for affected individuals.’
