Strasbourg Observers
  • Vladislava Stoyanova

After the Final Whistle: Racist Violence, the Osman-test at Football Matches, and the Investigative Failures in Koffi v Bulgaria

June 16, 2026

By Dr. Vladislava Stoyanova Introduction Bulgaria won the Eurovision Song Contest in 2026 with the song Bangaranga. Soon after the initial euphoria (the song was indeed the best!, but nobody believed that we could actually win), Bulgaria started to discuss its preparedness to organise large-scale events involving many people and ensuring safety. Such discussions are […]

  • Dr. Marilena I. Katsogiannou

Alternatives to Prosecution without Due Process in B.G. v. France: Stereotyped Reasoning on Sexual Consent and the Procedural Protection of Sexual Violence Complainants under Article 6 § 1 ECHR

June 12, 2026

by Marilena I. Katsogiannou The intersection of alternatives to prosecution and fair trial guarantees has long occupied a contested space in European criminal procedure. In B.G. v. France (application no. 70945/17, 19 March 2026), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) confronted this tension in its most acute form: a minor who had reported a […]

  • Daniel Thym

The Chișinău Declaration: Competing Trajectories

June 09, 2026

By dr. Daniel Thym Debates about migration often follow binary descriptions, such as the juxtaposition of state interests and migrant rights. Real life is often more ambiguous, as the Chișinău Declaration, adopted on 15 May 2026, illustrates well. Its focus on migration confronts one of the hottest topics in contemporary politics which holds the potential […]

  • Jessica Schultz and Jens Vedsted-Hansen

V.N. and Others v. Sweden: Article 8 in the shadow of Chişinău

June 05, 2026

By Jessica Schultz and Jens Vedsted-Hansen Last week, the Committee of Ministers adopted the anticipated Chişinău Declaration, outlining political guidance to the ECtHR in cases related to migration control. A target of discontent is the application of Article 8, which may block states from deporting or denying residence to migrants with strong personal ties to […]

  • Grażyna Baranowska, Jill Alpes and Isabel Kienzle

The evidentiary toolbox of the ECtHR: Seven ways to improve establishing facts in pushback cases

June 02, 2026

By Grażyna Baranowska, Jill Alpes and Isabel Kienzle Pushbacks are practices which result in migrants being forced across borders without an individual assessment of their protection needs. While they are a persistent feature at many European borders, the facts surrounding pushbacks often remain invisible in the ECtHR judgments. Our recent article in the International Journal […]

  • Strasbourg Observers

Restriction of access to magistracy due to juvenile conviction: Individual assessment in Manjani v. Albania

May 29, 2026

By Felix Demeester In Manjani v. Albania, the European Court of Human Rights (the ‘Court’) applied Article 8 ECHR in the context of access to public functions, specifically within the judiciary. The Court examines the requirement of an individualised and detailed assessment of integrity criteria for admission to the School of Magistrates, as well as […]

  • Dr Lena Riemer

Distant Territory, Binding Obligations in Migration Control: The ECtHR’s Judgment in Y.F.C. v. the Netherlands

May 26, 2026

By Lena Riemer The distance between Willemstad and Strasbourg is roughly 7,500 kilometers. Yet, as a self-governing constituent country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Curaçao is bound by the treaty obligations entered into by the Netherlands, including the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). For that reason, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) […]

  • Gehan Gunatilleke

Distinguishing Permissibility from Proportionality: A Critical Assessment of Tsaava & Others v Georgia

May 19, 2026

by Gehan Gunatilleke In December 2025, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered an important judgment in the case of Tsaava & Others v Georgia, Application Nos. 13186/20 and Four Others (2025). In this article, I examine the Court’s assessment of the interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression. I argue […]

  • Charlotte Teuwens

Kaya v. Belgium: a reminder of the importance of a well-functioning judiciary  

May 15, 2026

by Charlotte Teuwens When it comes to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) already has an extensive list of case law. Yet, at the beginning of 2026, the Court was once again asked to rule on a case in which there had been […]

  • Marion Sandner

FEANTSA and FIDH v France:  The European Committee of Social Rights’ signal of hope against the criminalisation of poverty

May 12, 2026

By Marion Sandner In its decision on 5 March 2026, in European Federation of National Organisations working with the Homeless (FEANTSA) and International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) v France, the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) effectively put its foot down for the rights of beggars, homeless people and others living in poverty in […]

  • Sotiris Pafitis

Beyond Formal Compliance: Ineffective Investigations, Procedural Exclusion and Secondary Victimisation in X v. Georgia

May 08, 2026

By Sotiris Paphitis In its recent judgment in X v. Georgia, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR or the Court) was once again confronted with a question that has become increasingly prominent in its recent case-law on sexual violence: can a State be said to have complied with its positive obligations under Articles 3 and […]

  • Katarzyna Sękowska-Kozłowska

To claim or not to claim? (gender discrimination in domestic violence cases): J.S. v. Slovakia

May 05, 2026

By Katarzyna Sękowska-Kozłowska Starting with its seminal judgment in Opuz v. Turkey of 2009, the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’ or ‘the Court’) acknowledged that passivity on the part of state authorities in addressing domestic violence may amount to a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights […]

  • Lewis Graham and Marion Sandner

DA and RA v the United Kingdom: (a return to?) maximum deference in socio-economic matters

May 01, 2026

By Lewis Graham and Marion Sandner Introduction When determining whether an interference with a Convention right relating to socio-economic matters has been justified by a state, the European Court of Human Rights usually  asks whether the measure in question is said to be ‘manifestly without reasonable foundation’. This test has a long lineage – it […]

  • Ananya Kumar-Banerjee

OH and Others v Serbia: Strasbourg’s Reliance on Domestic Judicial Organs in Pushbacks Cases

April 28, 2026

by Ananya Kumar-Banerjee Introduction On 3 February 2026, the European Court of Human Rights (“Strasbourg”) handed down OH and Others v Serbia (No. 57185/17) (“OH and Others”). Strasbourg considered whether the Serbian Government’s pushback of seventeen migrants into Bulgaria was in breach of the European Convention. Ultimately, the Court held that Serbia had breached Articles […]