Please find below our new selection of academic publications about the European Convention on Human Rights and its Court. Happy summer reading!
Hannah Katz, ‘The Limited Impact of Rights-Affirming ECtHR Judgments: Contesting Non-Execution in Migration and Border Control Case Law’, Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights (2026):
“This article examines the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights as a site of legal and political contestation, in the context of migration and border control. It introduces the concept of reverse strategic (post)litigation to capture how respondent States may use doctrinal, procedural, and discursive mechanisms during the execution phase to reinterpret, narrow, or delay the implications of adverse rulings. Drawing on a qualitative case study of recent Greek maritime border enforcement judgments, the article identifies three forms of post-judgment contestation: procedural tactics that fragment findings; interpretive approaches that narrow the scope of violations; and institutional strategies shaping execution before the Committee of Ministers. The findings demonstrate how these practices can result in formal execution without structural reform, thereby undermining accountability for human rights deficiencies. In response, the article proposes a model structured around three dimensions: the characterisation of violations; the articulation of obligations; and the supervisory structuring of execution. While not a comprehensive solution to non-execution, the model shows how clearer judicial reasoning and remedial guidance can reduce interpretive flexibility and strengthen supervision. The article concludes that effective human rights protection is determined not only by adjudication, but by how judgments are interpreted and executed in practice.”
Elmira Uysal Ljapina, ‘Deterring Dissent? Climate Activism and the Recalibration of Articles 10 and 11 in Recent ECtHR Jurisprudence’, Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights (2026):
“This article examines whether recent jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights reflects a recalibration from protection toward deterrence in cases involving climate activism. While the Court has historically afforded comparatively strong protection to symbolic, provocative, and disruptive forms of political expression under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, recent judgments suggest a more cautious and deferential approach toward domestic public order assessments. Through a doctrinal and comparative analysis of the Court’s environmental and protest-related jurisprudence, including Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, Bryan and Others v. Russia, Friedrich v. Poland, and Ludes and Others v. France, the article identifies an emerging pattern characterised by procedural deference, uneven proportionality review, and increased emphasis on public order considerations, criminal legality, and public property protection. It argues that this development risks narrowing the practical scope of expressive and assembly rights in the context of climate activism, particularly for individual activists engaging in peaceful but disruptive protest. The article concludes by proposing doctrinal clarifications intended to strengthen the coherence of the Court’s proportionality analysis and to ensure that Articles 10 and 11 continue to function as effective guarantees of democratic participation and public interest expression in the context of climate change.”
András Jakab, ‘Unavoidable Trade-Offs Between Transparency and Rhetoric in the Application of Article 3: The Blurred and Gradual Difference Between Absolute and Qualified Rights’, ECHR Law Review (2026):
“The prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR or the Convention) is commonly described as an absolute right. In theory, this means that any interference (ie action falling within the scope of protection of this provision) automatically amounts to a violation, leaving no room for any balancing exercise. In practice, however, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR or the Court) reveals a more complex picture. This editorial argues that the application of the terms ‘inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’ under Article 3 in reality involves implied proportionality arguments (as opposed to ‘torture’ under the same provision, which does not). The resulting methodology reflects an unavoidable trade-off between the rhetorical force of absoluteness, on the one hand, and the need for transparency in judicial reasoning, on the other. Considering the paper’s limited space, the following arguments mainly focus on negative obligations under Article 3.”
Mykola Gnatovskyy, ‘The European Court of Human Rights and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment: Praestat Cautela Quam Medela‘, ECHR Law Review (2026):
“There is a venerable maxim to the effect that precaution is preferable to cure: praestat cautela quam medela. 1 Few arrangements within the European system for the protection of human rights illustrate that wisdom as faithfully as the relationship between the two Strasbourg institutions charged, in their different ways, with the eradication of torture and other forms of ill-treatment: the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT or the Committee), known to all who work in this field simply as the CPT. The one furnishes the cure: the authoritative judicial finding that a state has breached its obligations, with all the remedial consequences that follow. The other furnishes the precaution: the confidential and recurrent scrutiny of the places where human beings are held against their will, undertaken precisely so that the Court should, ideally, never be called upon to pronounce at all.”
Aoife Nolan, ‘Shoring Up Democracy in Europe: The Vital Role of Social Rights’, ECHR Law Review (2026):
“This piece addresses the vital question of the relationship between social rights and democratic sustainability in Europe at a time of anti-democratic movements. 17 It opens with an exploration of the inter-relationships between social rights and democracy, before turning to significant law, policy, and institutional shortcomings in social rights terms that directly contribute to and exacerbate the democracy-eroding socio-economic and other inequalities experienced across Europe. It concludes by making clear how the CoE can and must put commitment to social rights front and centre in its efforts to ensure democratic stability and security. In doing so, the piece draws on the work of the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR), Europe’s leading social rights treaty monitoring body. The Committee’s state reporting and quasi-judicial collective complaints systems and other activities in relation to the European Social Charter (Charter) 18 have reflected the challenges posed by the convergences and divergences between social rights achievement and democratic governance in Europe over the course of the last two decades. Its jurisprudence engages directly and in-depth with the wide-ranging, systemic obstacles faced in terms of social rights enjoyment across Europe. The ECSR’s work thus provides an essential frame both for considering crucial social rights-related threats to democratic security posed by the current state of affairs and for developing a solution thereto.”
Nataša Nedeski and Katalin Sulyok, ‘Climate Change, Causation, and the Use of Climate Science Evidence by the European Court of Human Rights’, ECHR Law Review (2026):
“In this contribution, we map and assess the role that various types of climate science evidence have played in the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR or Court) assessment of causality in its recent climate rulings, and enquire what room has been left by the Court for engaging with scientific evidence in relation to questions of causation. We focus particularly, though not exclusively, on the Court’s ruling in KlimaSeniorinnen. In order to disentangle the variety of causal questions that have arisen in the climate cases before the ECtHR and assess the role of scientific evidence in answering these questions we distinguish between different stages in the Court’s legal assessment in which causal questions (may) arise: the determination of jurisdiction, notably in the extraterritorial context; victim status; positive obligations; and just satisfaction.”
Michaela Hailbronner, ‘Politically Responsive Review: Beyond the Democracy–Minority Rights Dichotomy in the European Convention’, Global Constitutionalism (2026):
“This article challenges the widespread framing of minority rights and democracy as opposing principles within the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). It argues that both share a common foundation in political equality and autonomy, and that their protection is historically, theoretically and practically intertwined. It argues that the ECtHR”s practice should recognize this connection more clearly and more openly, rather than treating democracy as a rationale for deference that undermines minority rights. Drawing on comparative constitutional law, particularly representation-reinforcement theory, it argues that the ECtHR might adjust and rethink some of its concepts to that purpose, in particular its procedural approach and the concept of vulnerability, and it might experiment with communication to better safeguard structurally disadvantaged groups while at the same time strengthening and respecting democratic processes. By situating minority protection within a broader democratic project, the paper proposes ways for the ECtHR to strengthen legitimacy, counter democratic backsliding and resist far-right efforts to weaponize ‘democracy’ against politically vulnerable groups.”
Mikael Rask Madsen, ‘Organisational Tool, Legal Concept or Democratic Principle? The Three Forms of Subsidiarity and their Implications for the European Court of Human Rights’, Global Constitutionalism (2026):
“One of the most striking developments in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights Court over the past decade is the development a new doctrine of subsidiarity that has been presented as democracy-enhancing. This article explores this turn to subsidiarity in European human rights to assess the extent to which it is positively contributing to democracy. The article does so by first unpacking the notion of subsidiarity, arguing that it is a composite notion that has organisational, legal and democratic elements. Against this background, the article examines the place and space of subsidiarity in the European human rights system, finding that subsidiarity is overwhelmingly concerned with organisational matters. It does speak to democracy but only in a small subset of cases, which typically involve well-functioning democracies. This also means that the new democracy-enhancing doctrine does very little work in the context of democratically backsliding member states.”
Francesca Maoli, ‘Procedural Safeguards in International Child Abduction Cases: Cutting-edge Case Law with a Focus on M.P. and Others v Greece‘, ERA Forum (2026):
“The right of the child to be heard and to participate in civil proceedings concerning them is a consolidated acquisition of children’s rights law, which also applies to international child abduction proceedings subject to the 1980 Hague Convention and, eventually, EU law. At the same time, granting participation rights in the context of return proceedings may present more difficulties which are connected with their nature, purpose and rapidity needs. The ECtHR had never expressly stated a general obligation for national authorities to consider the opportunity to hear children in return proceedings, stemming from Article 8 ECHR, until the case M.P. and others v Greece. This article analyses the implications of this judgment for international child abduction proceedings.”
Matej Sedlár, ‘Vulnerability and the Right to Housing: Reconceptualizing the Vulnerability Reasoning of the ECtHR under Article 8 ECHR’, in Michel Vols, Emma N. Nic Shuibhne and Andrei Quintiá Pastrana (eds.), The Impact of the Right to Housing in Times of Crises (Edward Elgar 2026):
“Chapter 6 presents a systematic qualitative analysis of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on housing issues under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It examines the ECtHR’s use of the term ‘vulnerability’ and its impacts on its decision-making. The analysis reveals that ‘vulnerability’ primarily involves a group-based assessment, meaning that in order to be considered ‘vulnerable’, an individual must be identified with a vulnerable group. Five groups were identified that can be regarded as vulnerable in housing cases: (1) ethnic minorities, (2) particular age groups, (3) persons lacking legal capacity, (4) refugees and (5) women. The chapter explains that the vulnerability of minority groups stems from the protection of their cultural identity and the discrimination they face. The vulnerability of individuals lacking legal capacity and particular age groups follows from their inability to defend themselves from state power. The vulnerability of women is only covered on a case-by-case basis through an individualized assessment. In cases of ‘specific vulnerability’, though, the ECtHR’s assessment is both group based and individualized. The chapter coins three types of assessment: (1) compounded, where one vulnerability ground exacerbates another and captures unique circumstances; (2) multiple, where two grounds are added together; and (3) juxtaposed, where one ground has priority over another. Finally, the chapter posits that vulnerability has tangible effects on case outcomes, since it affects the margin of appreciation given to states, expands the scope of positive obligations under Article 8 and incites positive action.”
Jessica Klüger, ‘Smoothing Out the Edges: How Governments’ Arguments Before the European Commission of Human Rights Co-shaped the Jurisprudence on Collective Expulsions’, Nordic Journal of Human Rights (2026):
“The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has faced increasing criticism for its often-restrictive approach to migrants’ rights, mainly attributed to political pressure and concerns about institutional legitimacy. While these external factors are important, this paper highlights a less-examined internal factor: the role of litigation itself. It argues that the ECtHR operates as a forum for a ‘second phase’ of rights negotiation, in which legal meanings are continuously shaped by arguments from all actors involved. The trend towards more restrictive jurisprudence emphasizes the need to examine the argumentative strategies employed by respondent governments and their impact on decision-making. Aiming to trace this development, the article questions to what extent and how governments have contributed to shaping migration-related jurisprudence. The research adopts Article 4 of Protocol 4 (prohibition of collective expulsion) as a case study, one of the only two provisions designed exclusively to protect migrants and the subject of recent controversial judgments. Given that many of the concepts and interpretations currently employed by the ECtHR were shaped during the early times of litigation, this research conducted a systematic content analysis of the case law of the European Commission of Human Rights, which previously adjudicated these cases. The findings reveal that governments have significantly co-developed these interpretations since their inception, shaping a more restricted jurisprudence that continues to influence case law today.”
Veronika Fikfak, Izabela Skoczeń and Benedikt Pirker, ‘An Effective Settlement Architecture? How Friendly Settlement Affects the Perception of Fairness and Trust’, Human Rights Law Review (2026):
“This article aims to contribute to the examination of the friendly settlement procedure before the European Court of Human Rights by raising concerns about the current operation and impact of settlements on the potential participants. The wholly written nature of the process allows us to test the operation of the process in an experiment on 2064 participants, unaffected by human rights violations and unaware of the European human rights system. We recreate the current structure of the settlement process and provide participants with documents that victims receive, and, finally, give them the same choices that victims face. Our aim in setting up the experiment is to understand the likelihood of settlement at each stage of the process. In addition, we want to examine how fair the participants find the process and how much they trust the Court at the end of the experiment. The results of the experiment confirm that each additional step of the settlement process elicits a stronger response from the participants and leads to higher likelihood of a settlement taking place. More importantly, our results show that almost uniformly, the way the process works is perceived by the participants as unfair or untrustworthy. Our findings warn that the current settlement architecture could lead to the erosion of the trust people have in the European Court of Human Rights, which could have important implications not only for the legitimacy of the settlement process but also for the authority of the Court.”
Corina Heri, ‘Against Transactional Interpretation: Narratives of Scarcity and Efficiency under the ECHR’, Human Rights Law Review (2026):
“The present article identifies a narrative of scarcity that shapes the interpretation of human rights law. Using the example of the European Court of Human Rights, and particularly its climate case-law, the article discusses the problems of a scarcity narrative and the related quest for efficiency in rights-based adjudication. It argues that a scarcity narrative centers States and institutions as its protagonists and limits human rights in service to economic (and, more specifically, neoliberal) thinking, creating a risk of what is here termed ‘transactional interpretation’. Without denying the existence of limited judicial resources, the article foregrounds counter-narratives internal to human rights law. It does so by contrasting neoliberal scarcity with other scarcities: in recognition, access to justice, regulatory ambition and remaining carbon budgets. The resulting argument highlights the problems of treating transactional thinking and economic calculus as the ultimate aims of legal interpretation, in ways relevant both for and beyond the example of climate litigation.”
Faraz Shahlaei, ‘The ‘Living Instrument’ and the Changing Landscape of Arbitration’, Human Rights Law Review (2026):
“In Semenya v Switzerland, for the first time in its history, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) engaged in a detailed examination of the procedures and conduct of a private arbitral process. This article tracks the evolution of the ECtHR’s jurisprudence regarding arbitration in light of its engagement with sport arbitration to conclude that Semenya has developed a novel test that sets new boundaries for the whole arbitration practice, beyond sports. It discusses the potential ripple effects of the judgment across the arbitration landscape, arguing that it reflects a jurisprudential recalibration of the ECtHR case law under the modern realities of the arbitration world, consistent with the ECtHR’s ‘living instrument’ doctrine, and considers the extent to which arbitration law may need to evolve in response to this shift.”
Emil Śliwiński, ‘Proportionality of Terrorism-based Deprivation of Citizenship under the ECHR’, International Journal of Human Rights (2026).
“The article tackles the problem of the proportionality of terrorism-based deprivation of citizenship under the ECHR. The author analyses ECtHR cases concerning deprivation of citizenship on such grounds, as well as other cases involving citizenship in various contexts. The approach of the Court to such cases embraces the analysis of arbitrariness and the consequences of denationalisation. Nevertheless, the article outlines that the exact content of these two fragments of the standard is rather obscure. Apart from Article 8 ECHR – being the most frequently used in citizenship litigation – Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 3 of Protocol No. 4 are also included in the analysis. This allows elaboration of the criteria that should be used for assessment of the proportionality of denationalisation. Finally, some remarks are made as to the legitimacy of denationalisation from the standpoint of the principle of proportionality intertwined with the irreversibility of such a sanction.”