0
0
On 20 March 2026, the European Court of Human Rights convened its half-day dialogue with non-governmental organisations and litigators practising before it — a format that has become a modest but symbolically charged fixture in the Court’s public-engagement calendar. Court leaders, senior Registry officials, Section Presidents, and a Grand Chamber Registrar addressed a mixed audience of strategic litigators, NGO representatives, and practitioners from across Council of Europe member states. The agenda was nominally open and dialogic; the reality was more structured and, in places, deliberately circumscribed.
KEY QUESTIONS DISCUSSED
1. Civil Society and Legitimacy
The Court’s framing — positioning NGOs, journalists, and bloggers as constitutional ‘public watchdogs’ essential to the Court’s legitimacy and to democracy itself — was rhetorically generous. Court leadership acknowledged civil society’s role in countering disinformation and resisting attacks on judicial independence. Over 1,800 third-party interventions were recorded between 2021 and 2025, a figure cited to demonstrate the depth of this collaboration. Yet this framing simultaneously served as a justificatory frame for procedural controls: discussions at the event were explicitly prohibited from touching on pending cases, past deliberations, or specific processing decisions.
2. Admissibility: Article 35 in Practice
The Vice-President’s presentation on Article 35 admissibility criteria was comprehensive but largely expository. The rules are well known: exhaustion of domestic remedies, the four-month time limit, continuous violations, the ‘no significant disadvantage’ filter, victim status, and the abuse-of-application bar. What practitioners in the room sought — and largely did not receive — was candour about the inconsistency with which these criteria are applied across sections and committees. The practitioner from Greece raised the pointed concern that deprioritisation letters in serious Article 2 and 3 cases arrive without adequate reasoning, while committees simultaneously invoke ‘well-established case law’ yet find no violation, creating a doctrinal opacity that frustrates strategic litigation and national implementation alike.
3. Prioritisation, Impact Designation, and the Ukrainian Dossier
The Court’s priority and impact designation strategy — identifying roughly 200 ‘impact cases’ for concentrated attention — was presented as a rational resource-allocation mechanism. Categories of systemic significance include trafficking, domestic violence, environmental degradation, democratic functioning, arbitrary property expropriation, and unlawful searches. For practitioners working on Ukrainian applications, however, the urgency is existential, not administrative. Speaker 10, identified as a strategic litigator from Kyiv, sought concrete timelines for individual Ukrainian applications following the interstate judgment.
4. Summary Judgments, Grouping, and the National Reopening Problem
One of the substantively richest exchanges concerned summary judgments. The Registry’s position — that well-established case law justifies concise dispositions that omit engagement with auxiliary arguments — was defended on efficiency grounds.
5. Children’s Standing, Rule 39, and Structural Procedural Concerns
The discussion of children’s standing under Article 34 surfaced important unresolved tensions. The Court affirmed that minors may be applicants and that representation is assessed case-by-case — particularly where parental conflicts create structural conflicts of interest. The proposed amendments to Rules 36 and 44, potentially permitting government-appointed representatives for children and persons with impairments, were received with alarm by practitioners, who identified obvious risks of state capture in a regime designed to protect individuals against the state.
6. Digital Infrastructure: eComms, ECHR Transfer, and Artificial Intelligence
The Court’s technology update presented the eComms platform and the ECHR Transfer system for multimedia evidence as genuine modernisation gains. The decision to permit third-party interveners to initiate eComms access — with court-generated accounts following — was a meaningful procedural change. The AI governance framework merits closer attention: the Court’s stated position — AI is used internally for translation, cybersecurity, and workflow tasks, with mandatory human oversight and no automated decision-making — is defensible as a principle.
