Please find below our new selection of academic publications about the European Convention on Human Rights and its Court. Enjoy reading!
- Nora Noralla, ‘Europe at a crossroads: transgender rights, judicial reticence, and the specter of democratic backsliding’, The International Journal of Human Rights (2026):
‘The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has played a crucial role in advancing transgender rights in Europe over the past four decades. However, this progress is facing new critical challenges due to a transnational anti-transgender backlash amid broader democratic backsliding. This paper argues that the Court’s cautious approach—marked by doctrinal siloing, a rigid binary framing of gender, and procedural formalism—is ill-suited to this new reality. By analyzing the Court’s jurisprudence from Rees to the present in the context of this political crisis, this article shows how its reluctance to effectively apply Articles 3 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, its reinforcement of a rigid gender binary that disregards non-binary and intersex identities, and its prioritization of procedure over substance risk making its protections illusory. In a time when fundamental rights are contested and implementation is resisted even in “progressive” states, this paper advocates for a more principled form of judicial activism from the Court and stronger implementation mechanisms from the Council of Europe. It argues that, in the face of organized regression, the Court’s traditional caution has become a form of abdication, threatening both its legitimacy and the lives of one of Europe’s most vulnerable minorities.’
- Hinako Takata, ‘National human rights institutions’ role in the realisation of the European Convention on Human Rights: towards continuous and seamless engagement in all phases of realisation’, The International Journal of Human Rights (2026):
‘How can national human rights institutions (NHRIs) contribute to the realisation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in a manner that harmoniously achieves its effectiveness and democratic legitimacy? While previous studies treated NHRIs’ contributions to different phases of this realisation separately, this study examines the combined effect of their continuous and seamless engagement in all the four realisation phases under the framework of ‘two-tiered bounded deliberative democracy’. The realisation phases unfold as follows: (1) interpreting and applying the ECHR through ‘bounded’ deliberations at the national level; (2) supplementing national deliberations and identifying ‘bounds’ by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR); (3) implementing ECtHR judgments through ‘bounded’ deliberations at the national level; and (4) supervising the execution of ECtHR judgments by the Committee of Ministers to promote implementation through ‘bounded’ deliberations. Moreover, while previous studies have not clearly distinguished between NHRIs and non-governmental organisations, and between A-status NHRIs and other NHRIs in terms of their roles in the ECHR system, the present study highlights the unique contributions of A-status NHRIs. Through these analyses, this study proposes how the procedures and practices of the ECtHR and the Committee of Ministers could be reformed to take advantage of NHRIs’ contributions.’
- Eva Sabine G Sevrin, ‘Illegalization of migrants as inhuman and degrading treatment: envisioning non-returnability under Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights’, Human Rights Law Review (2026):
‘This paper asks whether the illegalization of individuals can amount to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). While the power to regulate residence is a core prerogative of European states, human rights scrutiny of the effects of indefinite irregularity remains limited. The paper focuses on migrants in ‘non-returnability’: those who cannot be deported for human rights reasons yet are denied lawful residence. Such individuals endure prolonged exclusion, destitution, and profound powerlessness. The paper proceeds in two parts. First, it situates non-returnability within existing human rights law and scholarship, exposing the legal and protection gaps. Second, it explores its fit within Strasbourg’s interpretation of inhuman and degrading treatment, drawing on the Court’s benchmarks, overlooked jurisprudence, and analogies to rehabilitation and irreducible sentences. The argument concludes that the European Court of Human Rights presently has doctrinal tools to scrutinize illegalization as a form of state-sanctioned inhuman and degrading treatment.’
- Eleni Frantziou, ‘Internet rights and the European Court of Human Rights: a systematic analysis of the role of the internet in the case law of the Strasbourg Court’, Human Rights Law Review (2026):
‘This article provides the first systematic analysis of the ECtHR’s case law on access to and use of the Internet based on Articles 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 2 of Protocol 1 ECHR. It highlights that the case law embeds requirements to accommodate competing rights; shows a heightened concern for the victim’s vulnerability; and extends to the conduct of certain non-state actors, such as telecommunications providers. There are also instances of broader recognition within the case law of some of the Internet’s specific challenges, such as its amplifying effects on violations of privacy and the necessity of tackling cyberviolence and addressing the digital divide. Overall, however, the case law lacks a coherent, overarching approach towards the Internet as a novel site for the exercise of human rights and presents significant gaps in the fields of personal data protection and freedom of thought, especially in the context of private conduct.’
- Jolien Schukking, ‘SIM Peter Baehr Lecture 2025: A house of Stories: 75 years of protecting human rights through the European convention on human rights’, Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, (2026):
‘The annual SIM Peter Baehr lecture celebrates the founding of the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM) in 1981 and commemorates the late Peter Baehr, one of SIM’s former directors and an eminent human rights scholar. The 2025 lecture was delivered by Jolien Schukking, Judge at the European Court of Human Rights held on 14 November 2025. The lecture was preceded by a symposium to mark the 75th anniversary of the ECHR, hosted by SIM, and organised in collaboration with the College voor de Rechten van de Mens, the Montaigne Centre for Rule of Law and Administration of Justice, and the Netherlands Network for Human Rights Research.’
