Strasbourg Observers
  • Louize Hannah Knops

Individual or always a judge? The Grand Chamber’s divided search for balance in Danileţ v. Romania

March 06, 2026

By Louize Hannah Knops Social media has profoundly changed the exercise of free speech by enabling broader participation in public discourse while introducing risks regarding the rapid and widespread dissemination of information. This shift is equally evident within the judiciary; as judges increasingly utilise social media to voice their opinions, national authorities must balance the […]

  • Anna Pivaty

Remote Criminal Hearings and Article 6: Rethinking Procedural Guarantees After Stephan Kucera v. Austria

March 03, 2026

On 9 December 2025, the European Court of Human Rights delivered its first merits judgment concerning remote hearings conducted during the Covid-19 pandemic in Stephan Kucera v. Austria. The case related to an appeal hearing against a penalty notice which, under domestic law, was classified as an administrative fine. Owing to the severity of the […]

  • Strasbourg Observers

Poll: Best and Worst Judgment and Best Separate Opinion of 2025

February 27, 2026

Dear readers, As we enter 2026, we at Strasbourg Observers want to take the opportunity to reflect upon last year. When it comes to the state of human rights across the globe, 2025 has proved to be yet another challenging year. The Russian invasion of Ukraine continues to cause bloodshed and suffering. In the Middle […]

  • Ergün Cakal

Assessing the adequacy of healthcare in prison: The deference to medical evidence in Fernandez Iradi v. France

February 20, 2026

by Ergün Cakal What is the adequate level of healthcare in prison? How are judges to make such assessments (and how well placed are they to do so anyway)? How is a prisoner’s own refusal of treatment to be weighed in that assessment? When does a lack of healthcare require that a prisoner be released? […]

  • Ellen Desmet, Eva Sevrin and Thomas Spijkerboer

Expert report: How strict is the European Court of Human Rights in migration cases?

February 18, 2026

Expert report drafted by Ellen Desmet (Ghent University), Eva Sevrin (KU Leuven, Ghent University) and Thomas Spijkerboer (Ghent University)[i] Introduction On 10 December 2025, 27 Council of Europe states adopted a statement expressing their concerns about the migration case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). They believe that the ECtHR imposes too […]

  • Dr Rishika Sahgal

Illegality, Proportionality and the Right to Home: Ayala Flores v Italy

February 10, 2026

By Dr Rishika Sahgal On 23 October 2025, a Chamber of seven judges of the European Court of Human Rights handed down judgment in a case challenging the proportionality of a demolition order imposed on the home of the applicant, under Article 8 of the Convention. The case  raises important issues with regards to the […]

  • Victor Van Steendam

Rasmussen and Others v. Denmark: a clarification of the scope of positive obligations under the right to life in the case of a prison overdose

February 06, 2026

By Victor Van Steendam While it is difficult to collect accurate numbers on drug use in prisons, European studies do show that a significant number of prisoners continue using or even start using drugs in prison. The increased prevalence of drugs in society is furthermore a well-established phenomenon that has received increasing attention in the […]

  • Alexander Hughes

Procedural violations found in sexual violence claims: was A.J. and L.E. v. Spain a progressive judgment or a foregone conclusion?

February 03, 2026

By Alexander Hughes The scope of the positive obligation on State authorities to conduct an effective investigation into allegations of sexual violence has once again come before the European Court of Human Rights in A.J. and L.E. v. Spain. The case concerns a regrettably familiar fate for many young women. The applicants alleged that they […]

  • Thomas Joyce

Overrelying on the Principle of Criminalisation? Vainik and Others v Estonia and the Human Right to Smoke

January 20, 2026

By Dr. Thomas Joyce Introduction In November 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held that inmates should not be prohibited from smoking in prison, pursuant to Article 8 of the ECHR. A small number of inmates brought the case against Estonia, after the Estonian Supreme Court (Riigiohus) declared that the complete ban on […]

  • Babette De Naeyer

The Bradshaw Show: Disinformation and Election Influence under Strasbourg Scrutiny

January 16, 2026

By Babette De Naeyer Just before closing the books for the summer, the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) decided a novel and highly anticipated Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (Article 3 P-1) case in Bradshaw a.o. v. the United Kingdom (22 July 2025), concerning disinformation and Russian election interference. The case had […]

  • Maële Dumontet

E.A et Association européenne contre les violences faites aux femmes au travail v. France: Analysis of the cooperation between the ECtHR and GREVIO to effectively tackle violence against women in Europe

January 13, 2026

By Maële Dumontet On 4 September 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) adopted a decision in the case E.A et Association européenne contre les violences faites aux femmes au travail v. France concerning the authorities’ failure to criminalise non-consensual sexual intercourse and conduct an effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of rape. This […]

  • Tobias Mortier

Imanov v. Azerbaijan: when are ulterior motives ‘necessary’ to review?

January 09, 2026

by dr Tobias Mortier It is no secret that Azerbaijan’s human rights record is not particularly exemplary. Human rights defenders and civil society activists are increasingly oppressed and silenced. Amnesty International reports that critical voices in Azerbaijan are often imprisoned as punishment on account of their views. In its case law, the European Court of […]

  • Zelal Pelin Doğan

Redressing or Acknowledging Human Rights Violations? The Roles of the ECtHR in the Otegi Cases

January 06, 2026

by Zelal Pelin Doğan When the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) finds that a Convention right has been violated, what does that finding ultimately secure for the individual concerned? Does it restore the applicant, as far as possible, to the position they would have occupied absent the violation, or does it increasingly function as […]

  • Donatas Murauskas

Delayed effect, immediate consequences: reflections on A.R. v. Poland

December 23, 2025

by Donatas Murauskas On 13 November 2025, the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in A.R. v. Poland. The case concerned the Polish legal framework governing the prohibition of abortion on the ground of foetal abnormality, as well as the 2020 ruling of the Polish Constitutional Court, which effectively restricted access to abortion. […]