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.

New Book: Companion to the ECHR

My fellow blog editor Kushtrim Istrefi, together with Zane Ratniece, and Krešimir Kamber, have just yesterday, on the 75th anniversary of the ECHR, published The Companion to the European Convention on Human Rights with Brill Publishers. The editors, in many years of meticulous work, have guided dozens of expert authors to create almost 300 entries on the various concepts in the Convention and the Court's case-law. This in itself is a tour de force. The book is available as an E-book and later on will also be available in hardcopy.

This is the abstract:

'Over time the corpus of rights and obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights has developed into and is perhaps best understood as a system of autonomous concepts, with the European Court of Human Rights acting as its master of conceptualisation. The Companion to the European Convention on Human Rights seeks to identify and explain what these concepts are, how they have evolved, and how they have been applied by the Court. The Companion presents the first compilation and analysis of nearly 300 ECHR notions on Convention rights, principles, procedures and institutions.

The purpose of this book is to assist academics, judges and practitioners who specialise in the Convention and may require a trusted guide to specific notions which they encounter in their work. It is also designed to serve newcomers to the ECHR, such as students or public authorities, as a companion in their journey toward acquiring general or specialised knowledge in this area.'

Book presentations will follow at the European Court of Human Rights itself and at our own Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM) at Utrecht University later on. Warm congratulations to Kushtrim, his fellow editors and all the authors - this will be a point of reference for work on the Convention for many years to come!

75 Years ECHR - Musings on a Birthday

Sometimes a photo can tell more than a thousand words: this black-and-white picture was taken exactly 75 years ago on 4 November 1950 in the Palazzo Barberini in Rome. Thirteen states (of which one even no longer exists, the Saar, now part of Germany) signed the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, later much more known under the acronym ECHR. Around the table one can see delegates of these states, only men at the time. At that moment, not many among them could fathom the momentum of the adoption of a new treaty. In fact, it seems almost a coincidental spate of luck of history in hindsight that it came about in the first place. Hopes, or more realistically expectations, among several people in the room were not very high for this short text on human rights. The Belgian former Prime Ministers and then President of the Council of Europe's Consultative Assembly, Paul-Henri Spaak, even formally introduced the signing ceremony by saying: 'It is not a very good Convention, but it is a lovely palace', as Ed Bates recounts in his monumental history on the Evolution of the European Convention on Human Rights.

It was a moment in European history that we celebrate today, exactly 75 years later. This ECHR blog has traveled for just over one fifth of that road along the ECHR's history and will continue to do so in the future. This week, there will be official celebrations in that same palace in Rome and countless seminars and lectures in academia and civil society across Europe. Zooming out from this moment, at the very least two stories could be told:

One is that of immense success: the number of state parties has grown to 46, hundreds of millions of people now fall under the protective scope of the Convention. The protective umbrella of human rights has also expanded in terms of rights, both through Protocols to the Convention, adding key rights such as the right to education, votings rights, and the abolition of the death penalty. Victims of abuses have gained direct access to an independent international court that assesses their claims and plays an important role in acknowledging wrongs and offering remedies and reparations. Social struggles in virtually all ECHR state parties have been aided by also using the tool of litigation before the Court to effect or increase social change. Discriminatory laws have been abolished, freedoms expanded, people in vulnerable situations recognised, states responsible for horrendous acts of torture or enforced disappearances have been held to account. Human rights have become a key language to address societal wrongs. Judges in all the 46 states have been applying ECHR norms and the case-law of the Court and in doing so deeply changed domestic legal orders, making them more open to human rights considerations. and in most cases still, states implement - sometimes very slowly - the judgments coming from Strasbourg. 

Another is that of increasing attacks and critique on the Convention and the Court. Earlier this year, the much-debated letter of nine European states calling for an open-minded conversation, specifically in the light of migration debates, put the spotlight on a recurring critique: that the Convention and especially the Court through its case-law, are going too far, are making too much of a dent in national sovereignty. While this may be the loudest, most visible critique, it is certainly not the only one. And it is important to emphasise that just as much critique has come from the other side of the argument, often heard from civil society: that the Court through its case-law is not doing enough, has blind spots, is not progressive enough. Probably every single practising lawyer or researcher can think of a judgment in which they think the Court really got it wrong. Indeed, academic critiques on the case-law and the ECHR system have been there since the adoption of the Convention, going both ways. One should thus be careful not to see the debate simplistically as states versus Court. Yet, it is undeniable that the critique coming from states has been more widespread and public than it used to be. It is especially concerning that this is often based on examples and arguments that do not accurately reflect facts. It is with that concern in mind that recent initiatives such as AGORA have come about to infuse the debate with factually correct information, about the Convention, the Court and its case-law. In the very democratic society that the ECHR was set up to protect, this is crucial. And I also see it as a role for those among us who are academics.

Whichever perspective one takes - and the historian in me would caution against taking one only - it is clear that the Convention has made its mark. Criticism means the Convention matters. Verbal and political attacks on the Court and its case-law means they matter. Calls for reform, whether by adding more rights or by weakening the system in the name of national sovereignty, means the ECHR matters. The thousands of publications about the Convention and the Court mean they matter. And last but not least, the tens of thousands of people turning to the Court to seek justice, means the Convention matters in the lives of people. 

Thus, even if the winds of change may be coming (or should one say storms), the building of what the European Convention on Human Rights stands for still holds and is of great value to millions of people, through its Court, through the victims which have bravely litigated thousands of cases, through civil society that has stood firm, through the case-law, the judges - European and domestic - applying its human rights, through the teachers that have raised generations of students about the basics of the Convention, and even through the state parties - the principal bearers of duty, with all their at times blaring failings in that regard. This whole sturdy, ever moving network of sometimes clashing, sometimes cooperating actors is still on the move, 75 years later, forming a membrane around that concise simple text that we now simply call the European Convention. So yes, in spite of all the challenges ahead, blind spots, failings of the past, and processes of trial and error, the ECHR is not only a living instrument, but also one that is alive and kicking. Happy birthday indeed!

Recording of Online Event on the ECHR in the Age of Backlash

A recording of the online inaugural event of the AGORA Group entitled 'The Age of Backlash: The European Convention on Human Rights and the New Political Reality' is now available for those who missed it or want to watch it again. This event took place yesterday 30 October and it explored the political pressure and challenges the system of the European Convention on Human Rights is facing. The event also marked the official launch of the AGORA Group, a new pan-European platform dedicated to an open, evidence-based dialogue on issues concerning the ECHR. You can read more about the platform in this earlier guest post written by the Group's initiator, Andrew Forde. 

The recording can be found here.