Judge Mattias Guyomar Elected President of the European Court of Human Rights

On 28 April 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR or the Court) elected Mattias Guyomar, Judge in respect of France, as its new President. He succeeds President Marko Bošnjak and will take up office on 30 May 2025. Judge Guyomar has served as a judge of the ECHR since 2022 and is currently a Section President. 

According to the Rules of Court, the President of the ECHR is elected by the plenary Court for a term of three years provided that such periods shall not exceed the duration of their terms of office as judges. His appointment as a President of the Court is expected to result in a full three-year term, marking the first time since 2019 that a President may complete the full mandate.

 

The President's duties include directing the work and administration of the Court, presiding over hearings and deliberations, and representing the Court in its external relations.

New Session of the MOOC on ECHR Starts Again on 6 May 2025

On 6 May 2025 Utrecht University's free Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) on the ECHR will start again! Registration is open now. 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:

Hybrid Event on Women Judges in the ECHR

On 13 May 2025 at 18:30, the Academy for European Human Rights Proteciton of the University of Cologne is organizing a lecture entitled 'Gender and Justice: The Past and Future of Women Judges in the ECHR'. During this event, Professor Stéphanie Hennette-Vauchez (Université Paris Nanterre) will be discussing gender dynamics in the European Court of Human Rights. The event will be organized in an hybrid format. This is the description of the event:

'We are honoured to announce an upcoming lecture by Professor Stéphanie Hennette Vauchez, titled "Gender and Justice: The Past and Future of Women Judges in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)." This event will delve into the historical and prospective roles of women judges within the ECHR, offering a comprehensive analysis of gender dynamics in this pivotal judicial institution.

In her lecture, Professor Hennette Vauchez will discuss the evolution of gender balance within the ECHR, and the impact of increased female representation on the Court's jurisprudence and legitimacy. She will also address ongoing challenges and propose strategies to enhance gender equality in international judicial appointments.

This event promises to provide valuable insights for scholars, practitioners, and students interested in gender studies, human rights, and international law.'

Registration can be submitted here. 

Book on Gender and the Court

Sanna Elfving of the University of Lincoln (UK) has published the book Gender and the European Court of Human Rights with Routledge. Following her earlier work on the European Court of Justice, this book approaches the Strasbourg Court from a similar perspective. This is the abstract:

'In applying an intersectional feminist legal analysis of the European Court of Human Rights’ case law in a variety of human rights issues, this book reveals a different and nuanced understanding of the gender issues.

Case law within the ECtHR, which does not explicitly raise gender issues, may have gendered consequences. Profound developments have occurred in Europe in several related areas, including gender equality case law in the context of the prohibition of discrimination under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights; non-conventional parenting rights; discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity; rights of asylum seekers; and family reunification rights in the past few decades. The analysis reveals the extent to which the Court considers an applicant’s gender, intersectional inequalities, and the concept of ‘vulnerability’ in its case law. This book contributes to existing literature on gender equality, gender and judging in supranational courts. Furthermore, it highlights the intersectional discrimination experienced by women and diasporic or minoritised groups by uncovering new dimensions of vulnerabilities.

This book will be of interest to researchers in the field of European human rights law, gender, and intersectional issues.'

New ECHR Readings

Please find below a new selection of academic readings related to the European Convention on Human Rights and its Court:

* Mohammad Mohammadi, Martijn Wieling and Michel Vols, ‘An interpretable approach to detect case law on housing and eviction issues within the HUDOC database’, Artificial Intelligence Law (2025):

 

‘Case law plays a critical role in shaping our understanding of human rights, including the right to adequate housing. However, analyzing large legal databases like HUDOC, which contains over 40,000 cases, is a challenging task that requires automated solutions. This study focuses on detecting cases related to housing—a topic encompassing issues such as eviction, access to adequate housing and etc.—from the HUDOC database. For this, we developed classifiers to identify cases related to both housing and eviction issues. We first constructed a dataset using an unsupervised process refined through manual corrections. Then, we trained the Adaptive Chordal Distance-based Subspace Learning Vector Quantization models. These models achieved classification accuracies of 93% for housing-related cases and 91.5% for eviction-specific cases, matching the performance of transformer-based models while requiring fewer computational resources. Furthermore, they provide interpretability by assigning word-level importance scores, helping legal scholars understand and verify the reasoning behind the model’s predictions. The models identified 2,305 potentially housing-related cases. Manual reviews confirmed that 278 of 340 reviewed cases were indeed relevant. By detecting overlooked cases and enriching legal datasets, this study highlights the utility of NLP methods in facilitating the analysis of human rights case law. This approach supports a deeper exploration of housing rights and eviction-related decisions under the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), offering transparency, efficiency, and scalability for legal research.’

 

* Vladislava Stoyanova, ‘Review of Covid-19 measures by the European Court of Human Rights: How to avoid the ‘fair’, the ‘balance’ and ‘the fair balance’’ in In S. Bogojevic, and X. Groussot (eds), Constitutional Dimensions of Emergency Law (Hart/Bloomsbury 2025):

 

‘This chapter takes account of the judgments, the decisions and the communicated cases since March 2020 up to March 2024, that directly relate to the measures taken during the Covid-19 crisis. To assess them, the analysis is informed by the established standards in the ECtHR case law.’

 

* Edward Jones, ‘Revisiting Redfearn: The European Convention on Human Rights and the protection of political opinion in the workplace in Great Britain’, European Labour Law Journal (2025):

 

‘In Redfearn v the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights held that it was incumbent on the United Kingdom to introduce measures to provide for protection from dismissal for employees on the grounds of political opinion or affiliation, regardless of their length of service. This resulted in a small but significant reform in employment law in Great Britain, namely the disapplication of the continuous service requirement for bringing an unfair dismissal claim where an employee is dismissed because of their political opinion or affiliation. In this article I argue that there is a positive obligation upon the UK to go further than what was required under Redfearn, namely, to provide judicial safeguards where non-employee workers are dismissed or applicants refused employment on (in either case) political grounds. The article provides an overview of the scope of workplace protection against detrimental treatment on political grounds in the UK. It considers this framework against the UK's obligations as a Member State of the International Labour Organization and the Council of Europe and notes that the issue is becoming more pressing with the development of social media. The article concludes by arguing that the UK should legislate to create gateway claims (or extend existing jurisdictions) for dismissed workers and disappointed applicants who consider that they have been subjected to such detrimental treatment on political grounds. Whilst the article focuses on the UK, its arguments can be extended to other Council of Europe member states which do not already provide such protection.’ 

 

* Christina Eckes, ‘“It’s the democracy, stupid!” in defence of KlimaSeniorinnen’, ERA Forum (2024):

 

‘Small numbers of litigants asking a small number of unelected judges to impose limits on majoritarian decision-making stands at least prima facie in tension with majoritarianism as a central legitimizing principle of democracy in Europe. In KlimaSeniorinnen, the European Court of Human Rights required the Contracting Parties to quantify a fair share national carbon budget. Several aspects of the ruling demonstrate great deference to the national democratic process: how the Court emphasized climate exceptionalism, extended NGO standing, reduced the States’ margin of discretion in relation to their (international) climate commitments, and approached extraterritoriality.’

 

* Arnfinn Bårdsen, ‘Chapter 18: A view from the European Court of Human Rights’ in Graham Butler (ed), Research Handbook on EEA Internal Market Law (Edgar Elgar 2025):

 

‘To what extent can an EFTA-EEA state be held responsible under Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) for the EFTA Court’s rulings, either because of structural weaknesses relating to the EFTA Court itself, or because of the state’s active participation in proceedings before the EFTA Court? To what extent can an EFTA-EEA state be held responsible under the ECHR for its own implementation of EEA law at domestic level, notably whether the protection of fundamental rights in EEA law implies the applicability of the Bosphorus presumption in the context of an EFTA-EEA state’s implementation of EEA law? It is these considerations in mind that are the essence of this chapter, offering a view from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).’

  

* Katalin Sulyok, ‘Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switz. (Eur. Ct. H.R.)’, International Legal Materials (2025):

 

‘On April 9, 2024, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR or the Court) seated in Strasbourg released its judgment in the Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz v. Switzerland case, which marks the first occasion where the Court found a violation of several rights of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Convention) in a climate change litigation case.’ 

 

* Evelien Timbermont and Louize Hannah Knops, ‘Judges’ free speech on social media: Theory versus practice? A theoretical and empirical study of judges’ freedom of expression on social media platforms’, European Labour Law Journal (2025):

 

‘This article analyses the multifaceted issue of judges’ freedom of expression on social media within the framework of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The engagement by judges in public discourse has resulted in the potential for conflicts to arise between their right to freedom of expression and their duty of discretion. This article examines the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case law concerning Article 10 of the ECHR, which protects freedom of expression, and the distinctive constraints applicable to judges in light of their role. By means of a comprehensive analysis of recent ECtHR cases, including Danilet v Romania, the article demonstrates how the exercise of judicial freedom of expression is moderated by the context and subject matter of the expression, particularly when conveyed via social media. Furthermore, the article assesses the impact of these constraints on the judicial conduct of Belgian judges, with a particular focus on their use of social media and adherence to professional standards, particularly within labour courts and labour tribunals. The research findings indicate that, while existing guidelines provide a foundation, the application of these standards by judges is influenced more by personal and professional ethical considerations than by ECtHR jurisprudence. Furthermore, many judges are reluctant to accept a hierarchy-based approach to the protection enshrined in the right to freedom of expression. This article advocates for further research across a range of legal jurisdictions to refine guidelines on judges’ freedom of expression on social media. Ultimately, this should ensure a balance between democratic freedoms and judicial responsibilities in an evolving digital landscape.’

Protecting the Voice of Lawyers in Courtrooms: Pisanski v. Croatia and its Aftermath

By Naz Yılancıoğlu (Maastricht University)

On 4 June 2024, the Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rendered an important judgment in Pisanski v Croatia, which sheds light on the protection of lawyers’ freedom of expression when representing their clients in court.

Lawyers play a significant role in facilitating access to justice, protection of rights, and ensuring state accountability. However, across Europe, and beyond, lawyers are increasingly targeted for doing their jobs—defending clients, criticising judicial decisions, and speaking out. This worrying trend not only threatens the independence of the legal profession but also undermines the broader justice system.

Against this backdrop, there has been growing debate about the role of lawyers within the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) system, as well as the protection of the rights of lawyers to effectively fulfil their advocacy functions. On 12 March 2025, the Council of Europe (CoE) adopted the first-ever international treaty aiming at protecting the profession of lawyers: the Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer. The Convention will be opened for signature on 13 May 2025 during the annual session of the Committee of Ministers of the CoE.

According to the Explanatory Report of the Convention, it was prompted by a growing number of attacks on the legal profession, including harassment, threats, physical assaults, and interference with the exercise of professional duties. The protection of lawyers' freedom of expression is specifically addressed under Article 7 of this Convention.

In parallel with this significant development, the ECtHR has already received many applications from different member states about the protection of lawyers’ freedom of expression in their professional capacity. The ECtHR delivered many important judgments by emphasising the central position of lawyers in the administration of justice, including Čeferin v. Slovenia, Radobuljac v. Croatia, Rodriguez Ravelo v. Spain, and Morice v. France.

A notable example from last year of interference with lawyers’ freedom of expression can be found in the ECtHR’s judgment in Pisanski v Croatia. While the case may appear modest in comparison to more prominent rulings, it addresses a profoundly important issue: the right of lawyers to speak freely in the courtroom without fear of sanction.

Pisanski v Croatia: A Case Overview

In Pisanski v Croatia, the Chamber found a violation of the freedom of expression of lawyers under Article 10 of the ECHR. Viktor Pisanski is a lawyer in Croatia who was fined HRK 2,000 (approximately €265) for contempt of court after making critical remarks in an appeal he filed during enforcement proceedings on behalf of a client. His statements were not directed at any specific judge but concerned the interpretation of the relevant domestic law by the Zagreb County Court. In his appeal, Pisanski stated:

“It is incredibly difficult to draw up a meaningful and concise appeal when you are faced with someone in a position of power who, solely because of that position, persuades ‘the subordinates’ that the sea is red, the sky is yellow, and the sun is green...”

The ECtHR stated that the fine constituted an interference with Pisanski’s freedom of expression. Having found that the interference was prescribed by law and pursued a legitimate aim, the Court proceeded to the third step of the Article 10 analysis—assessing whether the interference was ‘necessary in a democratic society’. To conduct this assessment, the Court relied on four guiding principles it had previously established in Radobuljac v. Croatia, a case that also involved the freedom of expression of a lawyer (para. 56-61). Pisanski was not the first adverse judgment against Croatia on this issue, and the Court drew on its existing jurisprudence. Therefore, in Pisanski, the ECtHR identified a repetition of the very same violation it had already addressed in Radobuljac v. Croatia.

The four principles reaffirmed by the ECtHR are as follows: firstly, due to the special role of lawyers, there should be enough space for lawyers to defend their clients' interests zealously. The ECtHR also stated in its Morice v. France judgment that lawyers are protagonists in the justice system, involved both in its functioning and in the defense of parties. Secondly, the courts are not entitled to be free from criticism and, like other public authorities, must tolerate a higher level of criticism than individuals. Thirdly, it is important to differentiate between criticism and insult. Lastly, remarks of lawyers must be assessed in context, for example, whether they are made in public or before national courts. For statements made in court and during trials, the scope of the freedom of expression is interpreted broadly by the ECtHR.

When the ECtHR applied these principles to the Pisanski v Croatia case, it found that Pisanksi’s remarks fell within the scope of protection under Article 10 of the ECHR. This was because the sanction imposed on him stemmed from statements made in his capacity as a lawyer, in a petition aimed at defending his client’s rights (para. 70). Although the language used by Pisanski may have been discourteous, the Court reiterated that Article 10 tolerates a certain degree of sharpness in tone, especially in the context of legal representation (para. 71). It also stressed that such expressions should be distinguished from insults or defamatory remarks.

Accordingly, the ECtHR decided that interference was not “necessary in a democratic society” as the domestic authorities failed to provide “relevant and sufficient” justifications for the fine (para. 73). According to paragraph 73 of the judgment, a fair balance was not struck between the need to protect the authority of the judiciary, specifically that of the courts, and the protection of lawyers’ freedom of expression. Therefore, the sanction imposed on Pisanski was not necessary in a democratic society.

In the judgment, the Court did not indicate any specific remedies for the Croatian national authorities to remedy the violation. Like the majority judgments of the ECtHR, it only described the scope of the violation and its causes. This leaves Croatia with broad discretion to determine the appropriate measures necessary to remedy the breach under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers.

Execution of the Judgment: Structural Problem or Isolated Case?

The judgment became final on 4 September 2024, and was subsequently transferred to the Committee of Ministers. The CoE’s Execution Department classified it as a leading judgment, which means it identifies a new or structural problem.

The recognition of lawyers’ freedom of expression individually as a leading case in the supervision process by the Execution Department is very valuable because lawyers represent their clients’ rights and interests, and this may extend their own freedom of expression. The Execution Department often categorises leading cases based on the applicants’ professional roles, such as journalists and judges. Recognising lawyers in this framework acknowledges their critical function and the need for targeted protective measures. In this context, it would be appropriate to consider what specific reforms are needed to enhance protections for lawyers’ freedom of expression.

As part of the routine procedure for executing the judgment, Croatia submitted an action plan, which explains its intended response to the violation, including both individual and general measures. Regarding individual measures, Croatia explained that the applicant has the option to seek the reopening of the impugned proceedings. Since the ECtHR did not award any just satisfaction, the Croatian national authorities indicated that no financial compensation would be provided.

Regarding general measures, Croatia has provided case law of Croatian courts, including decisions from the Constitutional Court and Supreme Court, in alignment with Pisanski v. Croatia. However, all six judgments submitted as examples predate Pisanski v. Croatia. This indicates that, until now, no specific changes have been implemented in response to the Pisanski judgment itself.

Notably, the same underlying problem—interference with lawyers’ freedom of expression in courtrooms—had already been highlighted in Radobuljac v. Croatia, which was decided eight years prior to Pisanski. In its action report for Radobuljac, Croatia characterised the violation as an “isolated case” and provided sample judgments to support that position. Based on these representations, the Committee of Ministers closed its supervision of Radobuljac in 2018.  

However, Pisanski’s complaint arose after the closure of supervision of Radobuljac v. Croatia, raising the question of whether the measures taken following Radobuljac were adequate to prevent similar violations. The recurrence of the same type of violation shows that changes in case-law alone are insufficient and that stronger, more systematic protections for lawyers are needed. This kind of interference with the rights of lawyers is not an isolated issue but a widespread problem affecting legal professionals in many Member States, even in consolidated democracies.

This raises an important question: What general measures are necessary to safeguard lawyers' freedom of expression? This is not only a matter of concern for lawyers in Croatia but also for those practising in the forty-five other Member States of the CoE. Can simply providing examples of national case-law and disseminating the Pisanski judgment be sufficient?

Civil Society’s Missing Voice: Where Are the Bar Associations?

So far, the judgment has not received significant attention from national actors. Under Rule 9(2) of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of the execution of judgments and of the terms of friendly settlement, NGOs and national human rights institutions (NHRI) can submit relevant communication to the Execution Department.

Likewise, Rule 9 allows bar associations to submit communications regarding the execution of specific cases. However, in the Pisanski case, no submissions have been made by any NGOs, NHRIs, or bar associations.

Given the relevance of this case, it may be time for the Croatian Bar Association and perhaps for other bar associations to engage actively in the supervision process by sending Rule 9 communications to the Committee of Ministers. For example, submitting data on how many lawyers have faced similar penalties could shed light on the systemic nature of the problem and influence the Committee of Ministers' evaluation of the adequacy of the proposed measures.

Conclusion: Turning Principles into Practice

Pisanski v. Croatia is just one example among others, and it concerns the freedom of expression of a lawyer to represent his client. Lawyers must be able to critique judicial decisions and advocate assertively without fear of punishment. Otherwise, the entire justice system risks being undermined.

The adoption of the Convention on the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer represents a welcome step towards addressing these issues at a structural level. Article 7(2) of the Convention explicitly recognises that lawyers, individually or collectively, have the right to take part in public discussion on judicial decisions.

But the real test lies in practice: will states take meaningful steps to implement ECtHR judgments like Pisanski? Will professional organisations engage proactively in the execution process to hold governments accountable?

Restrictions on the freedom of expression of lawyers, even when affecting lawyers individually, are not isolated incidents. Rather, they reflect a broader, systemic issue—one that requires structural solutions and sustained institutional attention.

Online Event: ''CoE and Russia: Lessons Learned?''

On Friday 25 April 10:00-11:30 CEST, the Campaign to Uphold Rights in Europe (CURE) is hosting an event on the recently published book entitled 'Russia, the Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights: A Troubled Membership and Its Legacy'. This book, published in February this year, was authored by Ed Bates (University of Leicester), Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou (University of Liverpool) and Andrew Forde (Dublin City University). During the event, the authors will be discussing the relationship between the CoE and Russia, Russia's ultimate expulsion from the CoE and the legacy thereof.  The event will take place online. 

Here is a description of the event:

Registrations for the event can be submitted here until 21 April 2025. 

Book on Sentencing Mentally Disordered Offenders and the ECHR

Candan Yilmaz of the University of Groningen has published the book Sentencing Mentally Disordered Offenders: comparing provisions in Türkiye, England and Wales, and the Netherlands to the ECHR framework with Groningen University Press. The book, based on her PhD dissertation, is available to everyone open access. This is the summary:

'This publication offers a unique comparative analysis of the sentencing of mentally disordered offenders in Türkiye, England and Wales, and the Netherlands, exploring the alignment of these systems with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). While the presence of mental disorders impacts criminal responsibility, the legal responses and practices differ significantly across jurisdictions.

The complex sanctioning system in Türkiye faced substantial challenges due to the absence of secure forensic psychiatric facilities until 2018. Despite legal mandates, mentally disordered offenders were often either released or unlawfully detained in prisons, creating a prolonged gap between law and practice. The research highlights how the situation evolved and assesses the lingering issues, which were exacerbated by delays during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In order to contextualize the criminal justice system of Türkiye, comparisons are drawn with the criminal justice systems of the Netherlands and England and Wales, two jurisdictions which have distinct and unique frameworks for mentally disordered offenders. The eminent TBS (terbeschikkingstelling) system of the Netherlands and the bifurcated sentencing approach in England and Wales provide valuable points of reference.

This publication is of significance in the field of legal academic literature given the paucity of research on the Turkish criminal justice system, carried out in languages other than Turkish. It evaluates the degree to which these systems adhere to or deviate from ECHR standards, thereby providing insights that facilitate improved compliance with human rights requirements. By bridging comparative legal traditions and identifying best practices, this research holds significant societal and academic relevance.'

Conference on EU Accession to the ECHR

On 15 and 16 May 2025, the Faculty of Law of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and the School of Law and Social Justice of the University of Liverpool, and the journals Lex & Forum and the ECHR Law Review are co-organizing a workshop entitled 'EU Accession to the ECHR: Procedural Hurdles and Prospects Before the ECtHR'. The workshop will take place in Thessaloniki in Greece, with the first day being organized in a hybrid format. The workshop will focus on the implications of the EU's accession to the ECHR. This is the description of the workshop:

'In 2023, a new Draft Accession Agreement (DAA) was finalised, raising hopes that the EU will finally accede to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This development promises significant benefits, including enhanced access to justice for victims of human rights violations and greater accountability, as the EU will come under the scrutiny of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). However, the accession remains a highly complex endeavour. While much scholarship has examined the structural features of the DAA, particularly the new framework designed to accommodate the EU as a unique international legal entity, little attention has been given to the procedural implications. This workshop seeks to address this gap, focusing on select procedural hurdles and prospects pertaining to litigation before the ECtHR and the enforcement of judgments after accession. Over two days, scholars and practitioners will explore these crucial yet overlooked dimensions of the EU accession to the ECHR.'

The full programme and more detailed information can be found here.

A link to the registration form can be found here.

Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights

On Thursday 24 April from 09:00 to 13:00, the European Society of International Law (ESIL) and the European Court of Human Rights are co-organizing a workshop entitled 'Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights: New Horizons in European Legal Protection'. The conference will focus on human rights protection in Europe in the age of artificial intelligence. This is the description of the event:

'In an era of unprecedented technological transformation, artificial intelligence stands at the critical intersection of innovation and human dignity. As AI systems increasingly penetrate the most intimate spheres of human experience—adjudicating rights, mediating social interactions, and reshaping individual autonomy—international legal institutions face an existential challenge: How do we preserve the fundamental principles of human rights in a landscape increasingly governed by algorithmic logic?

This conference represents a pivotal moment of collective reflection by key legal academics and international judges. We stand at a watershed where technological capability must be harmonized with ethical imperatives, where the abstract principles of human rights must be translated into concrete protections against the potential depersonalization of technological systems. Our goal transcends mere academic discourse; we seek to construct a normative framework that anticipates and mitigates the profound human rights challenges emerging from AI's rapid evolution. 

By bringing together the judicial wisdom of the European Court of Human Rights and the scholarly depth of international legal experts, we aspire to develop a sophisticated, forward-looking approach that: 

- Recognizes AI as a dynamic field requiring adaptive legal interpretation 

- Preserves human agency and individual dignity in technological ecosystems 

- Considers anticipatory legal mechanisms that protect fundamental rights 

- Establishes international collaborative standards for responsible AI C governance'

The progamme can be found here. Registration is mandatory and can be submitted here.