For the sixth consecutive year, the overall situation for the rule of law across the Council of Europe region remains concerning. National Human Rights Institutions’ (NHRIs) annual reporting shows a structural negative trend in the rule of law across Europe, which highlights the fundamental importance of more effectively addressing the challenges reported. Reflecting this, ENNHRI’s report includes recommendations for action addressed to national and regional authorities and presents NHRIs’ own actions taken to address the challenges identified.  

For 2025, ENNHRI’s report provides specific attention to the establishment, independence and enabling environment of NHRIs, which is essential for them to advance checks and balances and the rule of law. Further, the report focuses on the situation of civic space and human rights defenders, which are also crucial for a healthy rule of law. Finally, the report presents comparative information on justice systems and media freedom. In each national report, NHRIs have also highlighted specific rule of law or structural human rights issues they identify as important in their domestic context.  

In the report, ENNHRI’s members underline some progress, as well as new and persisting challenges affecting the rule of law.  

Across Europe there has been noteworthy progress concerning the establishment and international accreditation of NHRIs. Following the first-time accreditation of the Swedish NHRI with A-status, there are currently 29 European states with an A-status NHRI. The institutions in Switzerland and Liechtenstein have both applied for first-time accreditation. Also, the establishment of the NHRI in the Czech Republic, where a law was adopted expanding the Ombudsman mandate with an NHRI mandate, and the operationalisation of an Icelandic NHRI, is noteworthy progress. Limited progress was reported in Malta, where the Ombudsman presented to the government a proposal to expand its mandate to become the NHRI, and in Romania, where the government indicated that two institutions should be internationally accredited as NHRIs. Further, the High Commissioner for the Protection of Rights, Liberties and Mediation of Monaco joined ENNHRI in 2025, indicating its commitment to seeking NHRI accreditation in compliance with the Paris Principles. 

There are currently seven European states with a B-status NHRI. Limited or no progress is reported on the NHRIs with B-status in Azerbaijan, Belgium, Hungary, Slovakia, Montenegro, Türkiye and North Macedonia. There are eight states in which a non-accredited ENNHRI member exists and has committed to taking steps towards accreditation (Andorra, the Czech Republic, Kosovo*, Liechtenstein, Malta, Monaco, Romania, and Switzerland). Furthermore, in Iceland, an institution has been recently established which works toward compliance with the Paris Principles. There are currently two Council of Europe Member States without an institution seeking compliance with the Paris Principles. No progress can be reported on the establishment of an NHRI in Italy, despite the European Commission’s and ENNHRI’s repeated recommendations, nor in San Marino.  

Worryingly, NHRIs across Europe face increasing challenges that impact their effectiveness and operating space. Most reported is a lack of sufficient resources to carry out their broad and increasing mandates, as well as budget cuts. Further, an insufficient level of follow-up and response to NHRIs’ recommendations is reported, even when legal obligations exist for state authorities to do so, which undermines NHRIs’ effectiveness and reflects disregard for the rule of law. In line with the generally deteriorating situation for the rule of law and independent checks and balances, NHRIs across Europe also face a rising number of intimidation, threats and attacks with one in four European NHRIs reporting this in relation to the past year.

ENNHRI’s key recommendations 

ENNHRI calls on national authorities to respect and strengthen the enabling environment for NHRIs – to ensure adequate funding, to cooperate and follow up on NHRIs’ recommendations, and to protect NHRIs from any form of intimidation, threats or attacks. 

Further, ENNHRI calls on the last European states who have not yet established an NHRI, to advance on doing so, in line with international and regional requirements.  

ENNHRI also calls on regional actors to support NHRIs’ establishment and enabling space and to address specific threats to NHRIs with national authorities when they emerge, including at the highest political level.    

Shrinking space for civil society organisations (CSOs) and human rights defenders (HRDs) has again been confirmed and has further deteriorated. ENNHRI members raise serious concerns about laws and measures impacting on freedom of peaceful assembly and identified numerous cases of intimidation, harassment or violence before, during or after protests. NHRIs also disclosed a worrying trend of limitations put on freedom of expression and freedom of association. The report also identifies serious obstacles for CSOs and HRDs to access funding, as well as shortcomings in their access to information and law- and policymaking processes. Last but not least, ENNHRI members identified a growing trend of negative attitudes, campaigns and stigmatisation of CSOs and HRDs, criminalisation of some of the work of HRDs, as well as attacks, threats and legal intimidation through SLAPPs against these actors. Some groups are especially impacted, including environmental defenders, women HRDs, and HRDs from LGBTQ+ community and other defenders of LGBTQ+ rights.  

While the overall situation for civic space is reported to be negative, NHRIs carry out a variety of activities in support of CSOs and HRDs, in particular through monitoring and reporting, advising on (draft) laws impacting civic space, provision of legal assistance and individual complaints handling, and engagement with relevant international and regional protection mechanisms. At the same time, however, NHRIs report that dedicated HRD protection mechanisms, measures and laws with safeguards for HRDs are lacking in the large majority of European countries. 

ENNHRI’s key recommendations 

ENNHRI calls on national authorities to prevent and address any undue restrictions on freedom of assembly, expression and association. National authorities should also ensure access of CSOs and HRDs to funding – including foreign funding (when sanctions are not in place) – and to set up dedicated national protection mechanisms for HRDs. These should include specific attention for groups specifically affected, as already mentioned above, in consultation and cooperation with NHRIs, other HRDs, and CSOs. 

ENNHRI urges regional actors to strengthen their support for the protection and empowerment of CSOs and HRDs by consistently addressing the persistent challenges faced by them, including through dedicated follow-up with national authorities on the implementation of relevant regional judgments and recommendations. Regional actors, in particular the EU, should also offer a flexible and accessible financing framework for civil society organisations and human rights defenders at the European level, especially for those most at risk. Further, ENNHRI recommends the establishment and strengthening of regional HRD protection mechanisms to swiftly detect and respond to attacks and reprisals against HRDs.

Challenges affecting justice systems are widely reported, including delays in court proceedings, challenges to the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, and obstacles in accessing legal aid. As for the latter, vulnerable groups have been especially affected, including survivors of domestic violence, persons with disabilities, asylum seekers and migrants, as well as women and transgender persons.  

ENNHRI members also noted insufficient progress regarding the implementation of European Courts’ judgments by state authorities. In some countries, NHRIs report that state authorities lack the political will to execute judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) or challenge the legitimacy of the ECtHR more broadly.  

NHRIs provided examples of how they contribute to access to justice, including through legal assistance or individual complaints-handling, bringing third-party interventions, issuing  reports and recommendations to address challenges identified. NHRIs also undertake actions to advance the implementation of European Courts’ judgments. They raise awareness about the added value of execution of judgments for society and provide independent reports on the implementation of ECtHR judgments before the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.  

ENNHRI’s key recommendations 

ENNHRI underlines that national authorities should prioritise strategies, reforms and resources to ensure the efficiency of justice systems, to reduce the delay of proceedings, and to ensure access to legal aid, including for the most impacted groups. ENNHRI also calls on national authorities to strengthen and safeguard judicial independence, including by ensuring transparent and merit-based selection of judges, accountability and regulated dismissal processes.  

National authorities should also implement regional actors’ recommendations concerning justice systems and European Courts’ judgments. The implementation of European Courts’ judgments should be prioritised, particularly the execution of pilot and leading judgments of the ECtHR, because they reflect systemic challenges to the rule of law - especially when the importance of, or need for, implementation is challenged.  

Numerous NHRIs reported on key challenges to media freedom, including harassment, threats and attacks against journalists and media outlets, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) as well as insufficient access to public interest information and documents. NHRIs also raise concerns over the spread of misinformation and disinformation, including by government authorities, and obstacles to the independence and effectiveness of media regulatory bodies.  

NHRIs contribute to safeguarding media freedom in various ways. This includes their monitoring and recommendations, providing advice on draft policies and laws, including on freedom of expression or access to information, through additional mandates (for instance, focal points on SLAPPs) or through following up on the implementation of judgments affecting media freedom and the protection of journalists.  

ENNHRI’s key recommendations 

National authorities should introduce and enforce laws to protect journalists from threats and attacks. National authorities should introduce adequate measures to improve access to information as well as refrain from and effectively counter disinformation and hate speech, while ensuring respect for freedom of expression. National authorities should also ensure enabling space for independent and effective media regulatory bodies.  

ENNHRI also recommends regional actors support the implementation of relevant European legislation, judgments and recommendations at the national level. 

Based on the findings of ENNHRI members, ENNHRI sets out the following detailed recommendations: 

1. ENNHRI invites regional actors to consistently address the rule of law backsliding, including in their recommendations, and to strengthen their implementation to effectively address the challenges identified across Europe, in consultation with NHRIs and civil society. 

More specifically, ENNHRI invites the Council of Europe and the European Union to: 

• Ensure that rule of law recommendations fully address current rule of law challenges in a concrete, actionable and time-bound manner. Their implementation by national authorities should be monitored systematically to ensure effective follow-up with national authorities;
• Include the status of the implementation of rule of law recommendations as a regular topic of discussion and consideration in dedicated discussions and relevant forums, including at high political level, with the involvement of NHRIs and civil society in such dialogues;
• Undertake, when appropriate and available, enforcement actions in case of persistent non-implementation of regional actors’ rule of law recommendations. 
   

2. ENNHRI calls on national authorities to advance and regional actors to strengthen their support for the establishment of NHRIs and enabling space for NHRIs. 

Namely, ENNHRI calls on: 

• National authorities to ensure adequate resources for NHRIs to carry out their mandate independently and effectively, as well as to ensure timely and reasoned responses and follow-up to NHRI recommendations, including by ensuring timely consideration and dialogue on NHRI reports with recommendations, and by introducing structured follow-up mechanisms;
• States with non-accredited institutions (Andorra, Czechia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Malta,  Monaco, Romania and Switzerland) and with B-status NHRIs (Azerbaijan, Belgium, Hungary, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Slovakia and Türkiye) to advance legislative and other measures to ensure an NHRI in full compliance with the UN Paris Principles and support the relevant institutions to seek A-status accreditation, including through meaningful consultation with ENNHRI’s member in the relevant country and to make use of ENNHRI’s technical advice in doing so;
• Italy and San Marino to advance on the establishment of an NHRI in compliance with the UN Paris Principles, including through technical support from ENNHRI;
• Regional actors to address structural issues affecting NHRIs’ functioning;
• Regional actors to support NHRIs’ establishment and enabling space and to address specific threats to NHRIs with national authorities when they emerge, including at the highest political level.
   

3. ENNHRI urges regional actors and national authorities to take firm actions to protect civil society organisations (CSOs) and human rights defenders (HRDs) from attacks and threats and to facilitate their sustainable funding. 

In particular, ENNHRI urges: 

• National authorities to guarantee freedom of assembly, expression and freedom of association, by preventing and addressing undue restrictions on the work of civil society organisations and HRDs, including through legislation, policy and practice;
• National authorities to enhance protection of civil society and human rights defenders from attacks and threats, including by setting up dedicated national HRD protection mechanisms, in consultation with NHRIs and other HRDs nationally;
• National authorities to set up an accessible financing framework, including by eliminating any undue obstacles in access to funding, also from foreign sources (when sanctions are not in place);
• Regional actors to strengthen their support for the protection and empowerment of CSOs and HRDs by consistently addressing the persistent challenges faced by civil society and human rights defenders through dedicated recommendations and by strengthening and establishing regional HRD protection mechanisms to swiftly detect and respond to attacks and reprisals against HRDs. Such mechanisms should include specific attention for groups specifically affected (such as women HRDs, LGBTQ+ defenders, HRDs working on migration, and environmental defenders), as well as take into account NHRIs’ mandate and role in supporting civil society space and protecting other HRDs.
• Regional actors to offer a flexible and accessible regional financing framework to support civil society organisations and human rights defenders.
   

4. ENNHRI calls on national authorities to prioritise, and regional actors to closely monitor and support, the timely and effective implementation of European Courts’ judgments.  

Particularly, ENNHRI calls for: 

• National authorities to respect the binding nature of judgments of the European Courts and to ensure their timely and effective execution, including by engaging with NHRIs and civil society through dedicated and efficient institutional and procedural frameworks;
• The Council of Europe and the European Union to strengthen their follow-up with and support for national authorities to ensure the timely and effective implementation of European Courts’ judgments;
• The Council of Europe and the European Union to develop procedures of the ECtHR and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), respectively, to strengthen meaningful consultation with NHRIs, and provide sufficient resources and capacity-building opportunities for NHRIs on the implementation of European Courts’ judgments, including through ENNHRI.
   

5. ENNHRI urges further efforts by national authorities and regional actors to ensure the effective and independent functioning of justice systems. 

ENNHRI urges that national authorities: 

• Prioritise strategies, reforms and funds to ensure the efficiency of justice systems and to reduce the backlog and the length of proceedings;
• Prioritise safeguarding judicial independence, including by ensuring transparent and merit-based selection, accountability and removal processes;
• Ensure effective access to legal aid, including for specifically affected groups such as migrants, women or transgender persons, victims of domestic violence, persons with disabilities;
• Timely and effectively implement regional actors’ recommendations as well as European Courts’ judgments, including those concerning justice systems (particularly pilot and leading judgments of the European Court of Human Rights), by introducing or amending the relevant laws, policies and measures to ensure effective and independent functioning of justice systems.  

ENNHRI recommends that regional actors: 

• Duly monitor the implementation of relevant regional recommendations and judgments concerning the area of justice systems;
• Engage with state authorities to advance the implementation of relevant regional recommendations and judgments concerning the area of justice systems.
   

6. ENNHRI calls for firm actions by national authorities and regional actors to safeguard media freedom. 

More specifically, ENNHRI calls on: 

• National authorities to introduce and enforce laws to protect journalists from threats and attacks, improve access to information and ensure enabling space for independent and effective media regulatory bodies, as well as refrain from and effectively counter disinformation and hate speech, while ensuring respect for freedom of expression;
• National authorities to advance on the application and implementation of the regional legal framework, as well as recommendations, concerning media freedom;
• Regional actors to support the implementation of relevant European legislation, judgments and recommendations at the national level.
   

7. ENNHRI calls on regional actors and national authorities to consistently address the systemic human rights violations across Europe and implement a human rights-based approach to drafting laws and policies.  

ENNHRI encourages: 

• Regional actors to recognise and consistently address the systemic nature of human rights violations and their impact on the rule of law;
• Regional actors and national authorities to adopt a human rights-based approach when developing draft laws and policies, including those addressing migration, security, and situations of (post-) conflict. 

The European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI) brings together 50 member institutions across wider Europe. It provides support for the establishment and strengthening of National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs), a platform for collaboration, solidarity, and a common voice for NHRIs at the European level to enhance the promotion and protection of human rights, democracy and the rule of law in the region.   

NHRIs are state-mandated bodies, independent of government, with a broad constitutional or legal mandate to protect and promote human rights at the national level. NHRIs are established and function with reference to the UN Paris Principles and act as a bridge-builder between the state and civil society. NHRIs cooperate with a variety of civil society actors, and bring an accurate overview of the human rights situation, with recommendations to governments, parliaments and other state bodies.   

NHRIs are unique because their independence, pluralism, accountability and effectiveness are periodically assessed and subject to international accreditation, carried out by the UN-supported Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA) of the Global Alliance of NHRIs (GANHRI) with reference to the UN Paris Principles. This accreditation reinforces NHRIs as key interlocutors on the ground for rights holders, civil society organisations, state actors, and international bodies.   

NHRIs are a key pillar for the respect of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Moreover, strong and independent NHRIs in compliance with the UN Paris Principles have become an indicator of a healthy rule of law. The vital role of NHRIs in upholding human rights and the rule of law has been recognised by a wide range of actors, including the European Union, the Council of Europe, and the United Nations. Such recognition is reflected in policy documents such as the UN Human Rights Council’s Resolution on NHRIs, the Council of Europe’s Reykjavík Declaration of the 4th Summit of Heads of State, as well as the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation on the development and strengthening of effective, pluralist and independent national human rights institutions. At the EU level, the crucial role of NHRIs is reaffirmed in the European Commission’s annual rule of law reports, annual reports on the application of the Charter, EU Strategy to Strengthen the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the EU, and the Council Conclusions, as well as in the field of external relations - within the EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy, the EU Enlargement Package and the revised Eastern Partnership framework

Given their unique position as an indicator of the rule of law, independent and effective NHRIs also serve as reliable sources of information on the rule of law compliance on the ground. NHRIs are in a key position to contribute to the rule of law monitoring mechanisms given their broad human rights mandate, structural engagement with a variety of stakeholders, and the close interconnection between the rule of law, democracy and human rights. Such consistent engagement also enhances the effective follow-up to NHRIs’ rule of law recommendations by relevant national, European and international actors. 

Considering the above, ENNHRI has been coordinating NHRIs’ joint engagement with European rule of law mechanisms, based on a common methodology. On the basis of this methodology, since 2020, ENNHRI has published joint annual reports on the state of the rule of law in the European Union and wider Europe. ENNHRI reports compile NHRIs’ country-specific submissions focusing on national rule of law situations, as well as present an overview of common trends reflecting NHRIs’ findings on the state of the rule of law across Europe. Thus, NHRIs’ independent reporting based on a common approach provides comparative information and is of unique value to monitoring by regional actors of respect for human rights, democracy, and the rule of law across the region. Earlier this year, ENNHRI published its report focusing on the rule of law situation in the European Union (ENNHRI’s contribution to the European Commission’s rule of law report consultations). Later this year, ENNHRI will publish a dedicated report focusing on the rule of law situation in enlargement countries. 

ENNHRI’s reporting has successfully ensured its timely response to annual consultations by relevant counterparts (EU rule of law monitoring cycle, EU annual report on application of the EU Charter, Enlargement Package, UN Assistant Secretary-General report on NHRI reprisals). This has also been the basis for submissions to some specific thematic initiatives when they emerged (more recently – the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers review of the implementation of the Recommendation 2018/11 on the need to strengthen the promotion and protection of civil society space, European Internal Security Strategy, European Democracy Shield. In addition, ENNHRI’s reporting has been used by ENNHRI members for their engagement with national actors to inform responses to the identified rule of law challenges.    

ENNHRI’s 2025 report – both the regional overview as well as country-specific chapters authored by ENNHRI members – covers the following topics: 

• NHRIs’ establishment, independence and effectiveness;
• Human rights defenders and civil society space;
• Justice systems (and the implementation of European Courts’ judgments);
• Media freedom; and
• Other persisting challenges for the rule of law, including structural human rights issues. 

The regional trends on all the above topics are included in the chapter on the overview of trends and challenges. Further information on all identified trends and more detailed in-country observations is included in the country reports. This year’s report also provides a focus on gender aspects of rule of law challenges. In addition, in this report and its country chapters, NHRIs provided insights on the implementation of the ECtHR and CJEU judgments, focusing on the cases relevant to human rights and the rule of law. ENNHRI members in their country chapters reflected whether any progress in the effective follow-up by relevant authorities to such judgments had been made, building on the information already provided in last year’s report.  

Furthermore, in 2025, ENNHRI’s report ensures more in-depth analysis on civic space and human rights defenders, with a view to feeding into regional developments as means to advance progress on the ground, including by dedicated initiatives undertaken by the Council of Europe as well as the EU. The findings will also support continued engagement towards stronger protection of Human Rights Defenders in Europe. 

This report also provides a deepened analysis of NHRI establishment, independence and effectiveness to update ENNHRI’s baseline report on NHRIs in the context of the upcoming review at the Council of Europe of the implementation of the Committee of Ministers Recommendation 2021/1 on NHRIs.  

Through targeted annual rule of law reporting, ENNHRI enhances its engagement with regional stakeholders to encourage positive change for the rule of law, human rights, and democracy. Based on this reporting, ENNHRI contributes to regional policy and standard-setting, while strengthening NHRIs' capacity to uphold the rule of law and protect human rights. This year, ENNHRI’s joint reporting met almost a complete response rate from ENNHRI members. For those states without ENNHRI members, the ENNHRI Secretariat provided updates on NHRI establishment progress.

Since ENNHRI’s last regional rule of law report, nine NHRIs were reviewed by the GANHRI Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA). The NHRIs in Armenia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, and Greece were reaccredited with A-status, while the Swedish NHRI was accredited for the first time also with A-status, demonstrating full compliance with the Paris Principles. The reaccreditation of the Albanian and French NHRIs was deferred to the second SCA session in 2026. 

In October 2025, four further NHRIs will be considered by the SCA, including the reaccreditation of the NHRIs in Bulgaria, Croatia, and Latvia. In addition, the NHRI in Liechtenstein will undergo accreditation for the first time. 

Currently, across Europe, there are thirty-one A-status NHRIs, eight B-status NHRIs (Azerbaijan, Belgium (2), Hungary, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Slovakia, and Türkiye). There are eight states in which an ENNHRI member exists and has committed to taking steps towards accreditation (Andorra, the Czech Republic, Kosovo*, Liechtenstein, Malta, Monaco, Romania, and Switzerland). In Iceland, an institution has been established which works toward compliance with the Paris Principles. There are only two states without an institution working toward compliance with the Paris Principles (Italy and San Marino). 

There has been concrete progress in states without an accredited NHRI. In Czechia, the legislative basis of the Czech Public Defender has been strengthened and expanded to include a broad human rights promotion and protection mandate. The Parliament and the President approved the legislation in March 2025 and it came into force in July 2025. The legislation could pave the way for the future international accreditation of the Public Defender as an NHRI. 

In November 2024, the Maltese Ombudsman institution presented a new proposed bill amending the Ombudsman Act, following technical advice on relevant international standards from ENNHRI, with the goal of strengthening its compliance with the Paris Principles and ensuring the establishment of an NHRI in Malta. However, at the time of reporting, there has been no substantive engagement from national authorities on the proposed bill. 

In Romania, the Romanian Institute for Human Rights and the Romanian Ombudsman institution have both applied for accreditation. The applications are pending policy guidance from the GANHRI Bureau on clarifying the application of Rule 6.3 of the SCA Rules of Procedure, regarding applications by more than one NHRI in a UN Member State. 

In Switzerland, the Swiss Human Rights Institution was established with the intention of being the NHRI, in compliance with the Paris Principles. The institution began operations in early 2024 and has formally applied to the SCA for accreditation. The institution’s compliance with the Paris Principles will be considered in the first session of 2026. 

In 2025, the High Commissioner for the Protection of Rights, Liberties and for Mediation from the Principality of Monaco became an ENNHRI member, and in doing so committed to taking steps to full compliance with the Paris Principles and future accreditation.  

Given these developments, Italy and San Marino are now the only Council of Europe Member States in which there is no institution either accredited as an NHRI or working towards compliance with the Paris Principles with a view to NHRI accreditation. 

Regarding Italy, ENNHRI is aware that there are several legislative proposals for discussion at the level of the Chamber of Deputies and has engaged in public events organised by academia and civil society in Italy about these proposals. However, these proposals have been pending for several years, and there continues to be no clear indication of a legislative proposal establishing an NHRI being close to adoption. 

Concerning San Marino, in 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee recommended that San Marino establishes an NHRI in conformity with the UN Paris Principles. On that occasion, San Marino informed that it did not envisage the establishment of an Ombudsman or NHRI in the country, due to its small size. It informed the Committee that some functions performed by the Ombudsman institution have been traditionally conferred upon the Captains Regent of the Republic of San Marino. There have been no developments since then in relation to the establishment of an NHRI in San Marino.

In seven countries in the ENNHRI region, B-status NHRIs are in place. In Belgium, there are two B-status NHRIs: the Federal Institute for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights (FIRM-IFDH) and the Interfederal Centre for Equal Opportunity and Fight against Racism and Discrimination (UNIA). Unia has been accredited with B-status since May 2018. In March 2023, the newly established FIRM-IFDH was also accredited with B-status. Legislative changes have been introduced in April 2024 strengthening FIRM-IFDH’s mandate, including for greater compliance with the Paris Principles. Both the 2025-2029 Federal Government Agreement and the 2024-2029 Flemish Government Agreement mention that the governments will aim for A-status through a cooperation agreement.

In Montenegro, a working group consisting of experts from various fields, including representatives of the executive, legislative and judiciary branches as well as representatives of CSOs and the NHRI, has concluded work on a draft law on the NHRI, expected to be adopted in 2025. The draft law seeks to follow up on the SCA’s recommendations, and if adopted, could strengthen the institution’s compliance with the Paris Principles. 

In North Macedonia, the Ombuds institution has held B-status since 2011. The NHRI has proposed amendments to its enabling legislation several times in the last years, however, these amendments have not been taken forward by national authorities. ENNHRI has supported both institutions in proposing amendments to their enabling laws. 

In Slovakia, the Slovak National Centre for Human Rights has been accredited with B-status since March 2014. The Centre has strengthened its compliance with the Paris Principles through internal rules and practice and has been advocating with state authorities for its legislative framework to be strengthened. However, no changes to its enabling framework have been made so far, which would broaden its mandate to be an NHRI in full compliance with the Paris Principles. 

In Hungary, the NHRI was downgraded from A-status to B-status in March 2022. The mandate of the NHRI has been extended since, including in 2024 with the protection of the rights of persons with disabilities and whistleblowers.

NHRIs’ reports point to the need for input and action by other actors to achieve full implementation of SCA recommendations. While some recommendations call for practical adjustments to the work of an NHRI and can be implemented unilaterally by the institution itself, others require action by the national parliament or government. NHRIs are encouraged by the SCA to advocate for national authorities to take steps towards realising its recommendations. NHRIs reported doing so, for example, in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Belgium (FIRM-IFDH), Germany, Greece, Great Britain, Luxembourg, Montenegro, North Macedonia, the Netherlands, Sweden, Türkiye and Ukraine, among others.  

Some NHRIs have reported recent or upcoming legislative amendments specifically following up on SCA recommendations. For instance, the Albanian NHRI is currently drafting a new law to bring the institution’s enabling law more closely in line with the Paris Principles and initiated the public consultation procedure about the proposed legislation. Furthermore, the Slovenian NHRI reported that the SCA recommendation on financial independence had been implemented by amendment to the enabling law, in line with the Constitutional Court's decision.

ENNHRI plays a key role in supporting NHRIs to advocate towards national authorities to strengthen NHRIs’ enabling environment and for its legislation to comply with the Paris Principles. In addition, other regional actors, such as the Council of Europe, the European Commission and other EU institutions, could liaise with NHRIs to understand their needs in this regard and support effective change.

In cases where the implementation of SCA recommendations requires actions by national authorities, such as through legislative reform or allocation of additional resources, regional actors such as the Council of Europe and EU institutions, could further encourage national authorities to implement relevant SCA recommendations. It is important that regional actors engage and discuss with the relevant NHRIs the best avenues to support them in the implementation of SCA recommendations. 

Regarding the follow-up to the European Commission’s country-specific recommendations in its annual rule of law report, significant progress has taken place in the Czech Republic, where the draft law on the establishment of the NHRI was adopted and came into force in July 2025. Furthermore, some efforts were identified in relation to the establishment of NHRIs in Malta and Romania. Yet, these are mainly at the initiative of existing institutions rather than through action at the level of state authorities. 

Last year, the European Commission in its annual rule of law report reiterated its recommendation to Croatia to further improve the follow-up to recommendations and ensure a more systematic response to information requests of the Ombudswoman. The Ombudswoman of Croatia noted some progress in this regard, while highlighting that the institution’s 2022 and 2023 annual reports have still not been discussed by the Parliamentary plenary and that further actions by state authorities are needed to fully implement this recommendation. As the overview of trends shows, the lack of timely follow-up and systematic response to NHRI recommendations is a challenge common to many NHRIs in Europe. The regional actors could consider more consistent attention for this challenge in their actions – for instance the European Commission could further focus on this issue in its upcoming Rule of Law Report and the Enlargement Package. 

In follow up to the European Commission’s enlargement report, in Montenegro, a working group within the relevant ministries was established to amend the enabling law of the NHRI to strengthen its compliance with the Paris Principles, and a draft law has been proposed to the Parliament. In North Macedonia, the NHRI has several times proposed amendments to its law in follow-up to the Commission’s recommendation to strengthen the institution’s legislative framework, and to implement the SCA’s recommendations. However, these have not been followed up by the state. 

A number of ENNHRI members reported on the changes to their regulatory framework. Some ENNHRI members pointed to developments aiming to strengthen their mandate. This includes an amendment to the enabling law of the Estonian NHRI, which reported changes that will allow the institution to discuss its budget allocation directly with the Parliament, rather than through the government, strengthening its budgetary independence. Further, in Scotland, the NHRI was granted the power to intervene and take own-name cases in certain circumstances concerning the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Moldovan NHRI’s mandate has been extended to receive complaints from legal entities. The NHRI from Great Britain has been granted powers to take enforcement action in case of failure by organisations to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment. 

In 2024, NHRIs have also been given new mandates. The NHRIs from Belgium (FIRM-IFDH), Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the Netherlands were named National Preventive Mechanisms (NPM), while there are ongoing legislative amendments seeking to strengthen the role of the Latvian NHRI in its NPM functions. The NHRI from Liechtenstein has been appointed as the monitoring body under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The Lithuanian NHRI became a National Rapporteur on trafficking in human beings. 

Several new mandates stem specifically from EU legislation, which envisages a specific role for independent national bodies. For example, ENNHRI is aware that 18 ENNHRI members from EU Member States have been appointed as national authorities protecting fundamental rights in the use of high-risk Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems under Article 77 of the AI Act. In addition, the Moldovan and the Polish NHRIs were mandated as whistleblower protection bodies. Further, the Belgian NHRI’s (Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism - Unia) antidiscrimination mandate has been widened, while the Danish NHRI has been mandated to monitor gender balance in corporate bodies.    

At the same time, some ENNHRI members were not given additional roles despite their readiness to undertake a new mandate – this was the case for the Luxembourgish NHRI to be appointed fundamental rights body under EU AI Act, as well as the other Belgian NHRI (Unia) also to be allocated the mandate of the NPM. The NHRI from Armenia, since 2019, has been advocating for receiving an equality body mandate. While the NHRI has actively participated in working discussions of the legislative package put forward by the National Assembly in 2024, which includes a proposed amendment providing the NHRI with the equality body mandate, the proposed amendment has not been adopted yet. 

Moreover, in several cases, while additional competences have been conferred upon NHRIs, these have not been accompanied by additional financial and human resources, contrary to international and regional standards on NHRIs, and exacerbating the already challenging budgetary situation for many NHRIs. 

NHRIs across European countries highlighted the importance of ensuring that any additional mandate(s) for NHRIs are appropriately reflected in law and are met with adequate additional resources. This includes in relation to national mechanisms on trafficking (Germany, Slovenia) and gender-based violence (Germany), NPM (Belgium - FIRM-IFDH, Ireland, Ukraine), the independent monitoring mechanism under the CRPD and the Ombudsperson for Children (Slovenia), and generally for multiple mandates (Bosnia and Herzegovina). 

Numerous ENNHRI members stressed that further efforts by state authorities are needed to strengthen the NHRI regulatory framework. In many cases, NHRIs amplified the recommendations made by relevant international and European actors, such as the European Commission, the Council of Europe and GANHRI’s Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA). This is particularly relevant for NHRIs without accreditation or with B-status accreditation. 

In Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland and Türkiye, ENNHRI members highlighted the relevance of bringing their enabling law into full compliance with the UN Paris Principles, in line with SCA recommendations. The NHRI in Luxembourg, notably, is advocating for a change to its enabling law in follow-up to SCA recommendations, to ensure its accountability to parliament rather than government, and thereby strengthening its independence. The NHRI from North Macedonia raised concerns over the Parliament’s failure to adopt long-awaited amendments to the Law on the Ombudsman. In Albania, the NHRI took the initiative to draft a new Law on the People's Advocate, aiming to align it with SCA recommendations, international standards and best practices. 

Similarly, the Scottish NHRI called on the state authorities to make amendments to its enabling law, including provisions to strengthen its powers, to recruit more members of the Commission, and to promote greater pluralism in line with the Paris Principles. The ENNHRI member from Switzerland highlighted that it should have the mandate to carry out investigations in specific cases, which would allow the institution to work on individual cases. Legislative amendments to the NHRIs’ regulatory frameworks have been proposed in Montenegro (through a dedicated working group under government), and in Ukraine (at the initiative of the NHRI), and remain under consideration. In Moldova, the NHRI has recommended changes to its law, in follow-up to the SCA’s recommendations, particularly to strengthen the functional immunity and protection for the institution and its staff. 

In addition, ENNHRI members in Malta and Romania are advocating for significant legislative changes in relation to independence safeguards and a broad mandate to pave the way for international accreditation of their institution. 

A significant challenge in relation to NHRIs’ legislative frameworks relates to selection and appointment processes of NHRIs’ leadership. Particularly, the NHRIs from Lithuania, Slovenia, and Sweden highlighted the importance of legislative changes that would implement the SCA’s recommendations to ensure a participatory and transparent selection and appointment of their decision-making body. The Lithuanian, Swedish and Polish NHRIs highlighted the relevance of legislative changes to clarify the grounds and process for dismissal of the NHRI decision-making body. In Slovenia, amendments to the legislation regarding the selection and appointment process remain pending, while the selection of a new Ombudsperson has been ongoing for several months following the end of the previous office-holder’s mandate. The institution has advocated extensively to ensure that the amended proposals implement the SCA recommendation for a more merit-based, transparent, and participatory selection and appointment process. 

After years of delay in the appointment of a new head of institution, caused by the lack of political consensus on the head of institution election, the Albanian NHRI strongly advocated that this should be addressed. Similarly, in North Macedonia, the significant delays in filling in positions of several deputy Ombuds should also be addressed. These delays in appointments persisted throughout the year, namely due to a lack of coordination by the Parliament and delays caused by the national elections.

Various NHRIs reported sufficient legal provisions protecting heads of institution and staff from legal liability for official acts taken in good faith (functional immunity). However, some NHRIs, including in Luxembourg, pointed to the need to strengthen the overall national protection framework, for example, through additional policy or legislative measures that would protect NHRIs from other attacks and threats. The Moldovan NHRI has advocated for amendments to strengthen provisions protecting the NHRI and its staff from civil and criminal liability for their work. In addition, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the NHRI highlighted the gaps in the implementation of protection measures concerning threats against the NHRI. 

The majority of ENNHRI members confirmed that state authorities in their respective countries have a generally good awareness of the NHRI mandate, independence and role. However, shortcomings in this regard are reported in several states. NHRIs from Albania, Denmark, Greece, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Scotland, Serbia, Slovenia, Sweden and Switzerland underlined that recognition and understanding of the NHRI’s role among state authorities could be improved; while NHRIs from Finland, Ireland, Lithuania, North Macedonia and Switzerland noted low awareness. The Finnish NHRI explained that authorities have difficulties in understanding the NHRI's position and its broad mandate. 

NHRI’s access to information, and to law and policymaking processes, is overall good in numerous European countries. It seems that this overall positive reflection correlates with relatively good awareness by state authorities of the NHRI’s role. At the same time, around one in four ENNHRI members identified obstacles in access to information and decision-making processes, including in Albania, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Greece, Kosovo*, Lithuania, Luxembourg, North Macedonia, Scotland, Slovakia and Ukraine, where state authorities are not obliged to ask NHRIs to provide opinions on legislative drafts, and NHRIs often are not asked to submit information during legislative and policy processes. In this regard, the NHRI from Bosnia and Herzegovina underlined that further efforts by state authorities were necessary to ensure systematic consultation with the NHRI on draft laws and policies with human rights impact, while the Greek NHRI more specifically pointed out the need to introduce a standing invitation for the NHRI to join the Parliamentary debate on the draft laws with a human rights impact.

Several NHRIs reported obstacles to accessing information and legislative consultation processes, such as in North Macedonia, where the NHRI was not invited to provide its opinion on the draft laws with human rights implications, in Moldova, where sometimes the draft laws are not published on governmental websites, or when these relate to politicised topics, including, for example, the rights of migrants (Netherlands). The Northern Ireland NHRI recommended that access to law- and policymaking processes could be further improved by law and policy makers systematically carrying out and publishing human rights impact assessments. Moreover, the NHRIs from Belgium (Unia) and Latvia reported on the obstacles to access to the courts’ data.

In situations where NHRIs submit recommendations to legislative or decision-making processes, several NHRIs have reported insufficient engagement from national authorities with the NHRI’s substantive information and recommendations. This trend was identified by NHRIs from  Belgium, France, Georgia, Ireland, Luxembourg, North Macedonia and Sweden, while the NHRIs from Albania, Finland and Slovenia reported short and overlapping consultations hindering the possibility of meaningful engagement in the process.

The lack of adequate resources for NHRIs to carry out their mandate appears to be the most consistently recurring problem in the vast majority of European countries. Only around one in five ENNHRI members informed that they considered their budget adequate (in Austria, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Kosovo*, Latvia, Norway, Portugal and Spain). The significant majority of ENNHRI members reported that the resources provided to their institutions were not sufficient to fulfil the breadth of their mandates. In some cases, the situation of NHRIs even worsened due to budgetary cuts, such as in Belgium (Unia) and France. In North Macedonia, funding cuts have led to a seriously inadequate budget, resulting in significant staff shortages. The NHRI in Great Britain reported that its financial autonomy should be strengthened. The Swedish NHRI has requested that its funding increases to meet the levels foreseen by the preparatory works to the enabling law and for its operations to reach full capacity. 

Some NHRIs reported that their budgets were overall adequate to perform their core functions yet underlined that they should be increased to ensure that the NHRI can effectively fulfil its increasing responsibilities and additional mandates (including those stemming from international treaties and the EU acquis) as well as to continue to progressively improve their operations (Armenia, Denmark, Croatia, Finland, Montenegro, Sweden and Türkiye).

This year’s ENNHRI report also confirms widespread challenges in follow-up by state authorities to NHRI recommendations. In some European countries, state authorities failed to provide responses to ENNHRI members’ recommendations, including in Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Czech Republic, Ireland, Luxembourg, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Romania and Sweden. In North Macedonia, the Parliament failed to adopt a legal amendment that would ensure state authorities’ obligation to follow up on the NHRI’s recommendations and report back on the progress. The non-implementation of NHRIs’ recommendations also posed a significant issue across Europe. 

In numerous countries, there are no specific measures in place to ensure state authorities’ timely and reasoned responses to recommendations issued by NHRIs – this is the case in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia and Sweden. In North Macedonia, the Parliament failed to adopt a legal amendment that would ensure state authorities’ obligation to follow up on the NHRI’s recommendations and report back on the progress. In almost half of European countries, state authorities are legally obliged to respond to NHRI's recommendations or inquiries). In Belgium, the NHRI (FIRM-IFDH) may request a written explanation on the follow-up to its recommendations by relevant bodies. Yet, even when such a legal obligation is in place, challenges are reported, such as in Northern Ireland (concerning the Windsor Framework) and Slovenia. 

Some progress can be noted in relation to practices by states to follow up on NHRI recommendations. It is worth noting that in Croatia, the government established a new methodology to track the implementation of recommendations issued by the NHRI, following up on the European Commission’s recommendation. In Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, Greece, Moldova and Serbia, the NHRIs themselves established a dedicated mechanism (a database, within the annual reporting or through special reports) collating their recommendations and assessing progress in their implementation by state actors in a systematic manner. In Albania and Kosovo*, such mechanisms to track the implementation of the NHRI’s recommendations were established by state authorities. An improvement of state authorities’ follow-up or a high level of implementation of NHRI’s recommendations was reported only in a handful of European countries, namely Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Hungary, Latvia and Serbia. 

Numerous NHRIs’ reports confirm that NHRIs are facing increased intimidation, threats and attacks, with one in four European NHRIs reporting this. This aligns with the overall trend of challenges to the rule of law and shrinking space for human rights actors, which has been accompanied by rising rhetoric against NHRIs and their work. Online attacks and hate speech against the NHRI were recorded by the NHRIs in Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Luxembourg and Slovakia, while the Croatian, Montenegrin and Polish NHRIs reported on written threats addressed to them. The Dutch NHRI reported on hostile emails and comments on social media in response to the NHRI's position on specific issues. In several cases, these threats are related to work undertaken by the institution to address specific human rights issues in the country, including rights of LGBTQ persons or migrants. In some instances, the mandate of NHRIs was questioned by state authorities. This was the case in Moldova, where the NHRI faced threats of legal actions against it by authorities following the publication of the NHRI’s report identifying the violation of international standards by the police in a specific case. In Armenia, certain political actors obstructed the activities of the NHRI, including by encouraging people not to engage with the NHRI. 

In Croatia and Kosovo*, a persistent lack of consideration by the Parliament of the NHRI’s annual reports (or even voting against it as in the case of Kosovo*) can also be perceived as threats and undue pressure. In Belgium, state authorities have been attempting to undermine the independence or effective functioning of one of the NHRIs (Unia) through significant budget cuts. NHRIs from Germany and Luxembourg faced threats from far-right political parties. 

In the context of threats and attacks on NHRIs, it is important to note that the majority of ENNHRI members reported that while there were measures in place to safeguard functional immunity of NHRI leadership, there continued to be a lack of specific measures to more holistically protect NHRIs, and their staff from other forms of threats, attacks and harassment.  

Civil society organisations and human rights defenders play a vital role in a healthy system of checks and balances. NHRIs are human rights defenders, and they also have the mandate to promote and protect other human rights defenders. Each year, numerous reports by relevant stakeholders, including civil society organisations and NHRIs, point to the ongoing shrinking space for civil society actors. This year’s ENNHRI report prioritises this topic to provide relevant information on the current challenges affecting the enabling space for civil society.

Reports from ENNHRI members confirmed the worrying trend of further shrinking space in which civil society organisations (CSOs) and human rights defenders (HRDs) function. ENNHRI members identified many laws and measures negatively impacting CSOs and HRDs across Europe. 

Numerous NHRIs’ reports confirm that laws and measures affecting the full realisation of freedom of peaceful assembly are becoming pervasive across Europe. The NHRIs from Belgium, Finland, Georgia, Great Britain, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Switzerland reported on ongoing legislative proposals or adopted legislative amendments limiting freedom of assembly. In Georgia, the law included vague and disproportionate limitations to peaceful protests (such as administrative detention), while in Bosnia and Herzegovina, according to the NHRI, the laws failed to fully protect freedom of assembly. In Poland, freedom of assembly was affected by the temporary ban on staying in a specific area in the border zone with Belarus, and in the Netherlands, assemblies were banned by emergency ordinances issued by local authorities, each of which raise concerns over their proportionality. In Türkiye, the NHRI observed the interruptions of demonstrations. In Slovakia, limitations on freedom of assembly were introduced in the name of national security, while in Sweden, such measures were proposed in a draft law. 

NHRIs from Albania, Armenia, Belgium, France, Georgia, Germany and Poland identified disproportionate use of force and measures by law enforcement during assemblies. For instance, in Armenia, the NHRI raised serious concerns over the use of stun grenades, and violation of procedural rights of persons deprived of liberty. In Belgium and Germany, the assemblies in support of Palestine were particularly targeted by relevant authorities. In Scotland some student assemblies in support of Palestine were subject to restriction by university authorities. In Northern Ireland, the NHRI found that legislative gaps in addressing hate crimes also indirectly affected the safe exercise of freedom of assembly, in particular by vulnerable groups.

European NHRIs also identified many cases of intimidation, harassment or violence against protesters before, during or after protests. For example, this was a case in Montenegro and Northern Ireland. In Albania, Armenia, Croatia, Finland, France, Georgia, Poland and Slovenia, NHRIs reported that excessive use of force was used against protesters by law enforcement, while in Croatia – the excessive force was also used by private security companies. In Armenia and Georgia, the use of disproportionate measures by authorities led to mass and arbitrary arrests, and in Georgia there was evidence of targeted individual assaults against protestors. In the Netherlands, the NHRI reported on allegations of violence, which are under investigation. NHRIs reported that certain groups were specifically targeted: environmental defenders in Croatia, Finland, Germany, and France; and, in Lithuania and Slovakia, LGBTQ+ activists and individuals. In certain countries, NHRIs also raise concerns over the use of surveillance technologies by state authorities during protests, such as in France and the Netherlands. 

Reports from European NHRIs revealed that freedom of expression was also widely under pressure. This was a case in Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Denmark, Georgia, Germany, Luxembourg, Moldova, the Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Slovakia and Poland. In the Netherlands, the NHRI reported on the proposals for such measures impacting freedom of expression, especially in the context of the right to peaceful protests. In Denmark, Danish law does not provide for sufficient protection of public servants in relation to them exercising freedom of speech, while in Georgia, limitations to free speech  were identified. In Northern Ireland, outdated blasphemy laws had a chilling effect on freedom of expression. The reports also revealed challenges in ensuring the balance of rights: while in Belgium hate speech to some extent remains unpunished, in Germany, the measures introduced to address online disinformation and hate speech might lead to unlawful content removal and a precarious lack of transparency. Further, in Bosnia and Herzegovina shortcomings in relevant legislation were reported; in Türkiye, broadcast bans; and in Moldova; gaps in checks and balances resulted in undue restrictions on freedom of expression.

In a number of European countries, ENNHRI members recognised worrying limitations on freedom of association. In some countries, the obstacles concerned burdening bureaucracy (Romania), authorities specifically hindering trade unions’ activities (Albania, Kosovo*, North Macedonia) or difficulties in access to relevant documents (Luxembourg, Poland), which impact the activities of CSOs. One of the most far-reaching restrictions on freedom of association were introduced in Georgia following the adoption of so-called foreign agents law. In other countries, NHRIs identified attempts to hinder the functioning of CSOs. This was a particular case in France, where the grounds for dissolution of associations were broadened by a law; in Slovakia, where the attempts to introduce a ‘foreign agent’ law were undertaken; in Greece, where the excessive registration requirements for CSOs persist, and in the Netherlands, where new measures affecting the representation of associations have been proposed. In several countries, such as Albania, Belgium, Croatia and Slovakia, NHRIs observed harassment in the form of excessive administrative controls and audits. 

NHRIs also emphasised that there were attempts to criminalise the activities of organisations addressing climate change (in Germany) and categorise organisations as ‘terrorist’ organisations (in Belgium). In this vein, it is worth noting that the overall trend of criminalisation of work of human rights defenders was identified by NHRIs in Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Germany, Slovakia and Ukraine. 

ENNHRI members stressed that civil society organisations and human rights defenders faced serious obstacles in access to funding across Europe. These challenges concerned, for instance, a lack of sufficient funding (in the Czech Republic, Poland and Romania) or reductions in available public funding (in Croatia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Northern Ireland and Sweden). In Finland, the radical cuts in the funding of CSOs took place in the context of austerity measures introduced. In Slovakia, there were attempts to limit CSOs’ access to foreign funding, while in Georgia this worrying limitation was implemented through legislation. 

In the Netherlands, a proposed law has been under a drafting process and potentially would limit access to funding for civil society. In Belgium, Croatia and Estonia, the obstacles in the availability of funding reported were of an administrative nature; in Belgium (in the region of Flanders) due to a requirement for CSOs to apply for funding every 5 years; in Croatia due to late payments to CSOs; and in Estonia due to financial gaps caused by delays in public calls. The Scottish NHRI has heard reports from CSOs in receipt of Scottish Government funds that they feel social pressure to limit their criticisms or are perceived to have done so because they receive Government funding.

In many European countries, NHRIs also reported on shortcomings in access to information,  and to law- and policymaking processes for civil society. The shortcomings in ensuring meaningful public consultations were particularly identified in Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Kosovo*, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Sweden. For instance, in Estonia, Finland and Romania, ENNHRI members noted short deadlines for public consultations, while the NHRIs from Croatia and Lithuania emphasised the lack of due consideration of the proposals provided by CSOs. The ENNHRI members from Kosovo*, Luxembourg, Slovakia and Sweden revealed an overall reluctance of state authorities to engage with CSOs within consultation processes. 

Similarly, in numerous countries, European NHRIs identified obstacles in access to information by CSOs, as evidenced in Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Luxembourg, Moldova, Poland, Scotland, Slovakia and Ukraine. These could be caused by a new potentially arbitrary notion of ”extensively excessive” search for information carrying a fee (in Slovakia) or fees imposed on information on paper exceeding 20 pages (Moldova); refusal of access to certain premises (in Croatia and Poland); gaps in legislative basis to enable access to information (Bosnia and Herzegovina); long and complex procedures required to access official documents and difficulties in challenging refusals (in Belgium); and insufficient accessibility of information for linguistic minorities, as well as restrictions and obstacles in access to information due to war (Ukraine). 

The shrinking space for civil society organisations and human rights defenders has been made worse by the growing negative attitudes, orchestrated campaigns and stigmatisation of these actors by state authorities and the wider public. This was particularly the case in numerous European states – such as Albania, Belgium, Croatia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Lithuania, Moldova, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden. For instance, in Georgia, Moldova, Slovakia and Sweden, orchestrated smear campaigns and/or threats against civil society actors were detected. In Albania and Slovenia, the negative attitudes towards CSOs were also coming from public actors, while in Germany it was reported that the pressure on these actors was perpetuated by the rise of right-wing extremism and polarisation of society. Furthermore, NHRIs from Armenia, Croatia, France, Germany, Slovakia and Sweden raised concerns over a growing climate of repression against environmental defenders, while in Finland, they faced negative attitudes.

NHRIs from a number of European countries voiced their concerns over attacks on CSOs and HRDs and their work, namely in Armenia, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Germany, Georgia, Lithuania, Northern Ireland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and Ukraine. CSOs and HRDs also faced threats and harassment both online and offline. Such instances were identified in Albania, Belgium, Croatia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Kosovo*, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and Ukraine. Women HRDs were more likely to face threats, for instance, in Albania, Belgium, Croatia, France, Northern Ireland, Slovenia and Sweden. NHRIs from Armenia, Moldova, Montenegro and Switzerland specifically pointed to the spread of hate speech, particularly online (in Moldova this concerned discriminatory anti-LGBTIQ+ rhetoric during elections). In Belgium, Croatia, Kosovo*, Serbia and Slovakia, organisations and defenders protecting LGBTQ+ rights were a particular target of attacks, while in Armenia, CSOs and HRDs advocating for the rights of vulnerable groups more broadly were targeted. 

Several NHRIs evidenced transnational repression of human rights defenders. For example, the French and Luxembourgish NHRIs confirmed that foreign HRDs were affected by actions carried out by enterprises originating from their respective countries. In France, national HRDs were victims of foreign attacks, while in Belgium there have been cases of surveillance by foreign actors against HRDs and, in one instance, a SLAPP against an HRD in another State’s jurisdiction. In Lithuania, such an attack was carried out against an HRD with the citizenship of a third country. In Belgium, HRDs were targeted with strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) in foreign jurisdictions. Overall, a worrying number of SLAPP actions was identified by NHRIs from Albania, Armenia, Croatia, France, Germany, Slovakia and Slovenia.

Reporting by ENNHRI members revealed important gaps in the protection of HRDs in Europe. Specific national protection mechanisms for civil society and HRDs were identified in some countries. In Albania, the Parliamentary Resolution on the Protection of HRDs, along with the designation of the Albanian NHRI as the focal point for HRD protection, represent meaningful steps in strengthening the enabling environment for HRDs. On the other hand, in Finland, France and Germany, governmental support was offered only to HRDs from abroad, while in the Netherlands, Sweden and Ukraine, such a support mechanism is provided by CSOs. 

The information provided by ENNHRI members confirms the insufficiency in the national measures protecting HRDs across Europe. Furthermore, at present, there is no central mechanism that holistically addresses HRDs’ protection needs at the European level. For instance, existing mechanisms are focused largely on providing support to HRDs outside of the EU only. Further, existing mechanisms are often focused on specific (groups of) HRDs only, such as the Council of Europe Safety of Journalists Platform or the procedure at the Council of Europe Office of the Secretary-General which is limited to HRDs having faced reprisals for their work with the Council of Europe. 

ENNHRI has consistently advocated for the establishment of both national and regional mechanisms for the protection of HRDs in Europe, including through strengthening the role of NHRIs to protect HRDs at the national level. In this vein, ENNHRI encourages further efforts by European actors to develop and strengthen mechanisms to support, protect and empower civil society, including through the establishment of protection mechanisms for HRDs and the recognition of the specific role NHRIs play, as the next section will elaborate.

In line with the UN Paris Principles, NHRIs are pluralistic institutions, reflective of various strands of civil society in a country, and function as bridge-builders between state authorities and civil society. NHRIs do so through close engagement with civil society organisations (CSOs) and human rights defenders (HRDs) when carrying out their mandate. This has also been confirmed in their 2025 reporting. 

The significant majority of ENNHRI members carry out monitoring of the situation of CSOs and HRDs and issue recommendations and opinions to address the challenges impacting enabling space for civil society, prompting appropriate actions from relevant authorities. For example, NHRIs in Croatia, the Netherlands and Sweden included a dedicated focus on CSOs and HRDs in their annual reports. Similarly, the Georgian NHRI systematically included its findings on the situation of HRDs in its annual or thematic human rights reports. The NHRI from Moldova submitted a dedicated proposal on HRDs to the Ministry of Justice to officially recognise this group and ensure implementation of effective protection measures. 

Some NHRIs carried out targeted research on the situation of HRDs in their countries: one NHRI from Belgium (FIRM-IFDH) published a dedicated report on the challenges faced by national HRDs, while the Swedish NHRI was undertaking preparations for a dedicated survey on the situation of HRDs. In Albania, the NHRI regularly monitors the situation of HRDs, and issues recommendations to address challenges identified in collaboration with civil society. The NHRI from Portugal included civil society actors’ perspectives in its human rights studies, and the Croatian NHRI reported on the situation of civil society to the Parliament. 

Some NHRIs confirmed that they were providing specific support to or receiving advice from women human rights defenders and LGBTQ+ human rights defenders. For instance, in Estonia and Sweden, the NHRIs included them in their Advisory bodies; in Croatia, they were a part of the NHRI’s thematic network; and in Liechtenstein, they are a part of the NHRI’s annual roundtable on gender equality. The NHRIs from Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Lithuania, Ireland and Slovakia supported activities to advance LGBTQ+ rights, while the Belgian NHRIs closely collaborate with and support organisations protecting LGBTQ+ rights.  

The substantial majority of ENNHRI members also carry out capacity-building activities to strengthen civil society actors and their activities in the protection of human rights. These include dedicated trainings and workshops, as well as information campaigns. Around half of ENNHRI’s members have the competence to address complaints submitted by individuals, and they do so also in the matters signalled or faced by CSOs and HRDs. 

ENNHRI members from Georgia and Kosovo* support the protection of HRDs through amicus curiae briefs submitted to national courts, including in follow-up to complaints filed by CSOs and HRDs. Some NHRIs, including those from Belgium (Unia), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Denmark, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland, Spain and Türkiye provided legal assistance as well.

Some NHRIs provide dedicated support to civil society actors through their specific mandates – for instance, NHRIs in Armenia, Belgium (FIRM-IFDH), Croatia, Great Britain, Hungary, Moldova, Northern Ireland and Poland are responsible authorities for the protection of whistleblowers. NHRIs from Latvia, Portugal and Spain use their NPM mandate, and the Estonian and Montenegrin NHRIs use their mandate as a monitoring body under the CRPD. Notably, the NHRI from Albania was appointed as the focal point for HRD protection.

European NHRIs are also committed to promoting the activities of CSOs and HRDs and their enabling space, which is illustrated by joint meetings and roundtables organised by ENNHRI members in the majority of European countries. Some ENNHRI members carried out promotion campaigns and awareness-raising activities (in particular in Belgium (FIRM-IFDH), Ireland, Kosovo*, Moldova, the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Spain, Slovenia, Sweden and Norway). Lastly, some NHRIs are involved in awarding prizes to CSOs and HRDs in recognition of their efforts to promote and protect human rights – this is the case in Belgium (Unia), Denmark, France, Hungary, Poland, Serbia, Spain and Ukraine.

Furthermore, NHRIs also support the enabling space and address challenges faced by CSOs and HRDs through engagement with relevant international and regional mechanisms. This includes various contributions to UN processes in support of CSOs and HRDs, carried out by NHRIs from Albania, Croatia, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Greece, Hungary, Liechtenstein, Moldova, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Slovakia, and Spain. Some NHRIs reported engagement with OSCE ODIHR, such as in the case of NHRIs from Armenia, Estonia, Moldova, Slovakia and Spain. ENNHRI members from Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Great Britain, Liechtenstein, Scotland and Moldova highlighted their engagement with the Council of Europe on the topic. ENNHRI members from EU Member States closely engage with EU actors on the protection of civic space. 

In the same vein, ENNHRI also reports on this topic to the UN, the Council of Europe and EU. For instance, ENNHRI provided detailed input during the consultation process of the Council of Europe’s Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) report on the state of the implementation of the 2018 Recommendation on the need to strengthen the protection and promotion of civil society space in Europe. In its submission to the report, ENNHRI reiterated the need to further prioritise the strengthening of the protection of civic space and rights defenders. Specific recommendations advanced by ENNHRI include the need to establish and strengthen comprehensive national and regional protection systems for human rights defenders and to ensure that Member States actively support NHRIs in their critical role as protection mechanisms.

The effective functioning of justice systems and access to justice for individuals are a prerequisite for effective protection and remedies for victims of human rights violations. On the basis of their broad human rights mandate, NHRIs are well-positioned to monitor and address shortcomings in access to justice faced by individuals, as well as systemic challenges within a state. NHRIs do so through a wide variety of functions: by engaging and issuing recommendations to relevant authorities; by contributing to discussions on the improvement of justice systems; handling individual complaints; advising individuals on access to justice; and promoting access to justice for groups in a vulnerable situation. With this year’s ENNHRI report, NHRIs provided information on significant challenges currently affecting access to justice and effective judicial protection in Europe. 

ENNHRI members’ reporting confirmed that one of the most prevalent challenges in the area of justice are persisting delays in court proceedings. Some NHRIs, for example from Austria and Portugal, noted that this was a particular issue in relation to the cases in the area of asylum and migration. In Albania, the NHRI found that the new judicial map did not help in addressing such delays; while in Ukraine, the court process is exacerbated by long-standing vacant judicial positions. Likewise, the NHRIs from Albania, Moldova and North Macedonia noted the insufficient number of judges. 

In Moldova and Montenegro, backlogs in court cases pose systemic challenges to the effectiveness of national justice systems. In Slovenia, the NHRI reported on the long-standing issue of the backlog of cases in the Administrative Court, while in Northern Ireland, the NHRI observed slow progress in simplifying and speeding up committal processes. Ensuring the effective functioning of justice systems and timely court proceedings is not only of relevance for the principle of rule of law but is a crucial element of the right to effective remedy and the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time, as protected under both the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. 

Challenges in the area of independence and impartiality of the judiciary were identified in numerous European countries. These include verbal attacks by governmental officials against judges, such as in Slovakia. Other developments which may diminish the independence of judiciary include the legal proposals in Belgium, which would reinforce disciplinary control exercised on judges. NHRIs from Belgium (FIRM-IFDH), Germany and Sweden pointed out insufficient protection of the independence and impartiality of judges and/or lay judges in the existing legislation. The NHRIs from Albania, Moldova and North Macedonia raised concerns over the political influence on the judiciary as well as the lack of transparency in the processes of selection and appointments of judges. Other ENNHRI members – from Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Finland, Georgia, North Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Ukraine - underlined the need to introduce further reforms to improve and safeguard the independence and impartiality of judges. The NHRIs from Finland, Germany and Türkiye noted the ongoing initiatives to strengthen the independence of the judiciary. 

Shortcomings in access to legal aid have been significant in many European countries. ENNHRI members emphasised the insufficient access to legal aid, in Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Hungary, France, Greece, Latvia, the Netherlands, Norway, Serbia, Slovenia and Switzerland. In Lithuania and Northern Ireland, it particularly affects asylum seekers. Several NHRIs also specifically raised that the insufficient access to legal aid was exacerbated by budget cuts (in the Netherlands), underfunding (Great Britain, Scotland), high costs of legal aid (Armenia) and insufficient remuneration for state legal aid (in Croatia, Estonia and Türkiye). 

Many ENNHRI members – namely from Belgium, Great Britain, Ireland, Kosovo*, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Scotland and Türkiye – stressed the importance of considering the needs of groups in a vulnerable situation, such as victims of domestic abuse, persons with disabilities, persons living in poverty, asylum seekers, victims of discrimination, and persons living in rural areas. The NHRIs from Denmark and Great Britain noted the ongoing work on the reforms of access to legal aid.  In Great Britain, the  government efforts to strengthen access to justice include the expansion of legal aid in domestic abuse and family law cases, and the launch of a long-term review of civil legal aid, alongside increased funding for criminal legal aid. Meanwhile in Denmark, reforms aimed at strengthening the free legal aid framework have been delayed.

Across Europe, ENNHRI members also raised that there were shortcomings in ensuring the full respect for fair trial standards. In the Netherlands, this related to the protection of the right to asylum; in Greece, this concerned the presumption of innocence and the right to be present at criminal trials; in Sweden – the system with politically nominated lay judges, in Belgium – the increased use of municipal administrative sanctions, while in the Netherlands, the deficiencies stemmed from the insufficient accountability of law enforcement bodies. ENNHRI members from Albania and Kosovo* highlighted the impact of delays in proceedings on the right to a fair trial. In Türkiye, the violations of the right to a fair trial were found by the European Court of Human Rights every year. In Georgia, fair trial standards were impacted by the lack of effective legal assistance. The NHRI of Serbia identified a number of complaints indicating the violation of the right to a fair trial. 

The ENNHRI member from Romania noted the impact of emergency laws that contained automatic suspension of processing some cases, while the NHRI from Northern Ireland underlined that the prolonged use of non-jury trials under temporary legislation raised further concerns. The NHRI from Luxembourg raised concerns over the gaps in access to compensation for victims of crimes; while in Scotland, criminal justice reforms were proposed in response to the concerns of victims of sexual violence which were later reassessed due to concerns about the cumulative impact for an accused’s right to fair trial. Finally, the NHRI from Slovenia emphasised the importance of full and transparent implementation of the ECtHR judgment in the case related to the violation to the right to a fair trial, namely the case X and Others v. Slovenia, which found multiple violations of the right to a fair trial, in particular the right to a “tribunal established by law”, the principle of the “natural judge”, and the right to private life in family law matters due to irregularities in judicial case reallocation. 

In many European countries, the NHRIs identified significant challenges regarding the timely and effective execution of national courts’ judgments. This was the case in Albania, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus, France, Kosovo*, Malta, Moldova, Norway, Poland, Romania, Serbia and Türkiye. It is worth noting that the persistent lack of execution of national courts’ judgments issued in some areas posed a systemic problem, such as in asylum cases in Belgium or remedies for rights violations (including those of a financial nature) in Moldova. In Ukraine, the issue identified by the NHRIs concerned the lack of an effective mechanism to facilitate the implementation of the Constitutional Court’s judgments. 

ENNHRI members from various European countries (Albania, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Czech Republic, Kosovo*, Luxembourg, Poland, Romania, Scotland, Ukraine and Türkiye) also found the delays and a lack of publication of courts’ judgments as a significant issue affecting access to justice and the functioning of justice systems. The NHRI from Scotland underlined that the lack of systematic publication of court judgments led to transparency issues and the difficulty of retrieving human rights-related data.  

Some ENNHRI members noted shortcomings in relation to specialisation and training of judges, namely in Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia (in relation to training), Cyprus, France, Luxembourg, Northern Ireland, Romania and Scotland. In Poland, shortcomings in relation to the professionalism of judges were identified. The NHRIs from Northern Ireland and Scotland particularly noted the need to ensure trainings on gender-sensitive matters (such as sexual and domestic violence). 

Some challenges in access to justice and the functioning of justice systems disproportionately impacted women and transgender persons, as evidenced by numerous NHRIs. For instance, this has been identified in relation to women and victims of gender-based violence, namely by NHRIs in Albania, Cyprus, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Kosovo*, Moldova, Northern Ireland, Romania, Scotland, Slovakia, and Spain. ENNHRI members from Belgium and Poland noted challenges faced by transgender and non-binary individuals - in Belgium due to a legal lack of gender registration for non-binary individuals, and in Poland concerning access to legal gender recognition for transgender individuals.  

The implementation of European Courts’ judgments is an essential element of the rule of law and yet questioned by some actors across Europe. It is of particular importance for ENNHRI and NHRIs to continue shining a light on the challenges identified in the implementation of European Courts’ judgments. The timely and effective execution of the judgments of the ECtHR and CJEU is an important indicator of respect for the rule of law by state authorities and is crucial for ensuring effective protection of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) and EU acquis, including the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (the EU Charter). In this context, the information and recommendations by NHRIs on how to fully implement the judgments of European Courts provide valuable guidance for national authorities on how to advance the execution of judgments and ensure closer alignment with the rule of law. 

In some countries, NHRIs observed some progress in relation to the execution of certain judgments of European Courts – notably in Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Lithuania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and Sweden. The NHRI from Moldova noted the positive developments in strengthening the institutional mechanism to facilitate the implementation of judgments, in consultation with civil society representatives and the NHRI. At the same time, there is a need for national authorities to step up on their international obligation to implement European Courts’ judgments in a timely and effective manner and ensure full realisation of the rights enshrined in the Convention and the EU Charter. 

For instance, significant challenges with the execution of European Courts’ judgments were observed in Belgium, France, Georgia, Greece and Spain. In Belgium and France, ENNHRI members reported on the persistent and intentional non-implementation of ECtHR judgments, leading to the perpetuation of violations of rights enshrined in the Convention. The Danish NHRI particularly raised serious concerns over the fact that the legitimacy of the ECtHR and its judgments has been undermined by politicians. At the same time, this has not been the case only in Denmark. For instance, the ECtHR judgment in the case in the case Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland was strongly criticised by Swiss authorities. In fact, the ENNHRI member from Switzerland reported that Swiss authorities, as a result, proposed an initiative to sponsor an additional protocol to the Convention to limit the competences of the ECtHR.

In May 2025, nine governments of Council of Europe Member States issued an open letter calling for a ‘new and open-minded conversation about the interpretation of the Convention’, in particular in relation to migration cases. In its statement, ENNHRI called on the Council of Europe Member States to respect and protect the independence of the European Court of Human Rights). It set out how, in a context of increasing polarisation and conflict across Europe and the world, the Court is a pillar for peace, democracy, the rule of law, and for protecting human rights for all individuals in Europe - within the system of checks and balances that state parties chose to build together.

ENNHRI members carry out numerous activities to support the implementation of the European Courts’ judgments in their respective countries. A significant majority of ENNHRI members referred to the judgments of European Courts in their annual and thematic reports and recommendations to state authorities, in this way encouraging appropriate actions by relevant state actors to ensure implementation. Similarly, many NHRIs focused on awareness-raising activities to inform the general public of the importance of the judgments issued by European Courts and their relevance for the rights of individuals. ENNHRI members from 17 European countries confirmed their engagement with the national coordinator of the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights to advance implementation (in Albania, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Great Britain – including Northern Ireland, Ireland, Lithuania, Moldova, Montenegro, the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Poland, Switzerland, Ukraine and Türkiye). Further engagement and consultation with NHRIs on the effective follow-up to the ECtHR judgments, especially in countries where such cooperation has not yet been established, is encouraged.

Almost one third of ENNHRI members included focus on engagement with national courts to enhance the implementation of jurisprudence of the ECtHR and the CJEU, particularly in Albania, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Great Britain, Ireland, Moldova, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Northern Ireland and Ukraine. A similar number of NHRIs included the execution of European Courts’ judgments in the context of their educational activities. This is the case in Armenia, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cyprus, Estonia, Georgia, Greece, Lithuania, Moldova, Montenegro, Northern Ireland, Norway, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and Ukraine. Lastly, ENNHRI members from Armenia, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Great Britain, Moldova, Switzerland and Ukraine provided Rule 9 submissions to the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers to provide objective information on the status of the implementation of the judgments of the ECtHR and advance implementation. 

NHRIs also reflected how they can step up their actions to support the implementation process. For instance, the Dutch NHRI underlined the importance of the NHRI’s enquiries regarding the implementation status of the judgments, while the Spanish NHRI highlighted the added value of Rule 9 submissions provided to the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers.

Several ENNHRI members also recommended what could be further done by state authorities to advance the implementation of European Courts’ judgments. First of all, European NHRIs issued recommendations to state authorities to take concrete actions to duly execute European Courts’ judgments. This was particularly noted by ENNHRI members from Belgium, Estonia, France, Ireland, Lithuania, Norway, Romania and Türkiye. More specifically, the NHRI from France called on state authorities to ensure that national legislation aligns with EU law and the Convention, as well as the jurisprudence of the CJEU and the ECtHR. Also, the NHRI from Moldova stressed the need to align national legislation with European standards. 

The Irish NHRI urged the national authorities to commit to a clear time-bound implementation plan for the judgment issued by the ECtHR in the case O’Keeffe v. Ireland and also pointed out the need to ensure a fair and accessible scheme that provides redress for victims of human rights violations. The NHRI from Finland underlined the need to further strengthen national systems to follow up on the ECtHR judgments while raising awareness of all levels of public administration of these judgments. Likewise, the Scottish NHRI noted the need to facilitate training and guidance for public bodies, particularly in the area of criminal justice, to fully implement the relevant judgments by the ECtHR. Furthermore, the ENNHRI member from Romania recommended to state authorities to carry out much-needed structural reforms in line with the standards enshrined in ECtHR jurisprudence. 

NHRIs in their reports also called on state authorities to further engage with civil society and NHRIs to advance the implementation of ECtHR judgments. The Croatian NHRI recommended the inclusion of stakeholders, including civil society organisations and academia, in the process of enforcement of the ECtHR decisions, including by seeking their involvement in the process of drafting action plans and reports on the implementation of judgments. Similarly, the Georgian NHRI noted that adequate cooperation with the local civil society is also of paramount importance in monitoring the execution of the ECtHR’s judgments. Also, the NHRI from Norway emphasised the need to ensure the effective implementation of ECtHR judgments, in consultations with NHRIs and civil society. Furthermore, the NHRIs from Georgia and Scotland recommended that the role of national parliaments in the execution of ECtHR judgments should be strengthened.

Media freedom and pluralism are key elements of a healthy rule of law. Enabling space for the work of media outlets and journalists ensures greater accountability and transparency of state authorities and other actors. Safeguarding media freedom and pluralism also ensures the realisation of freedom of expression enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Therefore, safeguarding freedom and pluralism of media remains a topic of consideration for NHRIs. On the basis of their monitoring, they advise how to address identified shortcomings and what the appropriate solutions are to be undertaken by relevant authorities. They also follow up on the implementation of judgments affecting media freedom and the protection of journalists. 

The most reported challenge affecting media freedom across Europe was harassment, threats and/or attacks against journalists and media outlets, in some cases by public actors, such as in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Finland, Georgia, Greece, Kosovo*, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Northern Ireland, Slovakia and Slovenia. Journalists were subjected to attacks during protests in Armenia, Belgium, Georgia and France. Often the victims of such attacks and threats were women journalists, as pointed by ENNHRI members from Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Belgium, Latvia, the Netherlands, Scotland, Slovakia and Slovenia. 

Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) were specifically reported in Albania, Belgium, Croatia, Great Britain, Greece, Luxembourg, Slovakia and Slovenia. The Scottish NHRI reported on incidents that might amount to SLAPPs. In Great Britain, the NHRI noted the unwillingness of state authorities to introduce new legislation to counter SLAPPs. In Armenia, Georgia, Germany and France, the NHRIs notified about attacks against journalists during public assemblies, including from law enforcement officers. In Georgia, Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the NHRI raised concerns over the use of surveillance by state authorities against journalists and a lack of sufficient protection in this area. In Georgia and Poland, there were cases of purposeful obstruction of the work of journalists by public authorities. 

General shortcomings in relation to access to public interest information and documents were equally concerning for NHRIs across Europe. This was the case in Albania, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Great Britain, Greece, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Moldova, Poland, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland and Ukraine. More specifically, these shortcomings included wide exemptions from access to public information for journalists and the wider public, such as the case in Denmark and Ukraine, and the differing interpretation of the relevant law in Finland. In Finland there were reports of refusals of access to relevant information. 

The NHRI in Georgia stressed the need for a comprehensive legal reform to address challenges in this area, including to address disproportionate balance of interests in access to information. In Belgium, the ENNHRI members deemed a reform on access to public documents as unsuccessful in advancing the access, and in Albania, the NHRI noted the weak implementation of the law on access to information. In Germany, the NHRI raised concerns over the problem of criminalisation of the disclosure of court documents by journalists, which could affect freedom of expression. In Estonia and Liechtenstein, the NHRI noted that access to information remains a challenge for media outlets. In Liechtenstein there were obstacles in accessing information on vulnerable and marginalised groups. In Moldova, accessibility and language barriers affected access to public information. In Greece, increasing difficulties in accessing information in the area of asylum and migration were identified. 

Another widely reported challenge in the area of media freedom is the spread of misinformation and disinformation. This was identified especially by ENNHRI members from Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, France, Germany, Great Britain, Ireland, Kosovo*, Moldova, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Romania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Switzerland. For instance, in Slovakia, the NHRI noted the increased engagement of government representatives with media outlets known for spreading disinformation or misinformation, while ceasing communication with mainstream independent media. The Irish NHRI and the ENNHRI member from Romania noted that disinformation and misinformation campaigns were driven by far-right groups. In Romania, this was particularly the case during the electoral campaign for the presidential elections at the end of 2024. In France, the NHRI raised concerns over the spread of the narrative that represents migrants mostly as male, while women on the move remain invisible in the political debates. 

The Dutch NHRI reported on the growing, potential threat of misinformation and disinformation distributed through social media and international streaming services and media platforms. The NHRI from Northern Ireland also confirmed increasing concerns about disinformation, especially online. In Moldova, disinformation also continued to pose a threat in the current geopolitical context. Finally, the NHRIs from Ireland, Poland and Slovenia noted the insufficient legal framework in this area. The Slovenian NHRI reported on the shortcomings of the draft Media Act with regard to proportionality as well as adequate measures to address hate speech and illegal content. Similarly, a lack of such adequate measures was identified in Bosnia and Herzegovina. 

In several European countries, NHRIs raised concerns over the independence and effectiveness of media regulatory bodies. This is the case in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Finland, Greece, Kosovo*, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland and Slovakia. In particular, the functioning of the media regulatory bodies was affected by budget cuts (such as in Finland), a lack of sufficient transparency (in Croatia), a lack of independence (in Bosnia and Herzegovina), planned reforms undermining their independence (in Slovakia), concerns over the constitutionality of the appointment process (in Greece), and concerns over the dismissal processes and political influence (Kosovo*). 

An overall decline in media independence was identified in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Germany, Kosovo*, North Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia and Switzerland, with a problem of political influence appearing in some of these countries (Albania, Romania and Slovakia). In Poland, the NHRI reported on the same alarming situation regarding media independence as in recent years. In Germany, the NHRI mentioned several courts’ rulings regarding the independence of media. 

At the same time, a decline in media pluralism was reported in Albania, Finland, Moldova, the Netherlands, North Macedonia and Switzerland, due to concentration of media ownership. Media pluralism was further affected in the following ways: in Bosnia and Herzegovina, due to a lack of transparency of media ownership; and in Slovakia, due to the worrying transformation of the public media broadcaster. In Poland, problems with media outlets funded by local authorities have been affecting media pluralism for many years. In Liechtenstein, the NHRI reported on a very limited number of media outlets and challenges in access to public funding. 

While ENNHRI’s joint reporting on the rule of law focused on specific issues of concern addressed above (NHRI establishment, independence and effectiveness; civic space and HRDs; justice systems; and media freedom), ENNHRI members also reported on other key rule of law and human rights challenges of particular importance within their domestic context. In their country reports, ENNHRI members provided examples of specific threats to checks and balances and anti-corruption, as well as structural human rights issues impacting the rule of law. 

Several ENNHRI members pointed out the challenges affecting healthy checks and balances. These include: changes aiming at weakening state institutions in Slovakia; marginalising the role of independent institutions in North Macedonia; a lack of appointment of heads of independent authorities in Slovenia; delays in the appointment of the Chief State Prosecutor in Kosovo*; and attempts of the executive branch to influence judicial decisions in Romania. In Finland and Germany, there were concerns over the system of constitutional review. In the case of Germany, this led to the reform of the Constitutional Court. In Northern Ireland, where post-Brexit the government is required to ensure alignment with EU law standards, including with relevant current and future CJEU case-law, there were concerns about the slow progress in aligning national law with EU equality directives and CJEU judgments.  

ENNHRI members from Ireland, Romania, Slovakia, and Moldova underlined the need to improve the quality of the law-making process. In the case of Romania and Slovakia, this is due to the excessive use of expedited law-making procedures. The Estonian and Scottish NHRIs warned about the worrying usage of administrative orders and decisions instead of legislative frameworks to regulate human rights issues. In the case of Scotland, this relates to acts of Parliament which set broad policy intentions or outcomes, leaving the substantive content of such policy acts to be developed at a later stage through secondary legislation. Meanwhile, in Moldova, concerns about the lack of transparency and public participation in the decision-making process on legislative amendments were highlighted. 

Furthermore, NHRIs identified serious shortcomings in relation to checks and balances in the area of migration as well as security. For instance, some NHRIs, namely those from Belgium, Finland, Germany and Lithuania, raised concerns over the lack of compliance with human rights standards of migration laws, policies and practices in their countries, introduced often with a justification to address security risks. In Belgium, the structural human rights issues stemmed from the persistent lack of respect for the rights of asylum seekers.

Furthermore, some NHRI reported on serious gaps in the realisation of the right to asylum. In Greece, the need to conduct independent and efficient investigations on the informal forced returns (pushbacks) was identified, while in Bosnia and Herzegovina delays and, in some instances, a lack of decisions regarding asylum status of migrants were reported. In Northern Ireland, following a ruling from the High Court, the UK government is in the process of proposing new laws, in view of replacing some provisions of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which breached both the ECHR and EU standards (under the Windsor Framework). 

A few NHRIs reported on specific challenges in the area of anti-corruption. The ENNHRI members from North Macedonia, Romania and Slovakia noted the insufficient actions by state authorities to combat corruption and ensure accountability. More broadly, the Belgian members identified the impact of organised crime on the rule of law and growing intimidation against state authorities, including law enforcement actors and journalists. While some progress was noticed in Albania and Kosovo* through, respectively, the establishment of an anti-corruption commission and the adoption of new anti-corruption laws, ENNHRI members in both countries underlined that the issues persisted. 

In Albania, challenges to tackle corruption at the highest levels continued, while in Kosovo*, the newly adopted anti-corruption laws were referred to the Constitutional Court, delaying their impact. Similarly, while some GRECO recommendations concerning the fight against corruption were implemented in Liechtenstein, there are still two pending follow-up actions by relevant authorities. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, issues with corruption in public institutions remained, underpinning the need for transparent appointment procedures and de-politicisation of public administration.

In terms of other structural human rights issues, some ENNHRI members reported on the challenges in the full realisation of economic and social rights. For instance, NHRIs from Germany and Hungary underlined the challenges affecting the full realisation of the right to education, while the German NHRI reported on the persisting discrimination in the areas of employment and housing. The ENNHRI member from Kosovo* raised concerns over the impact of the economic crisis on vulnerable communities. Several NHRIs noted the shortcomings in access to healthcare and the respect for the rights of patients. The NHRIs from Denmark and Hungary indicated shortcomings in relation to the rights of patients – in Hungary, there was a need to ensure fair access to justice in this area, while in Denmark, the concerns were raised in relation to the excessive use of coercive measures in psychiatric care. The Albanian NHRI reported a lack of a dedicated medical institution for forensic psychiatric patients. The NHRI of North Macedonia reported on the significant challenges in the respect for the rights of persons with disabilities.

In the area of AI and digitalisation, the ENNHRI members from Belgium, Great Britain and Spain raised concerns over the impact of the use of AI by state authorities on human rights and the rule of law. Furthermore, the NHRI from Portugal noted the obstacles in equal access to services of public administration due to progressive digitalisation. The Irish NHRI raised concerns over the shortcomings in the collection and access to equality data. The Danish NHRI reiterated the challenges stemming from the ongoing mass collection and retention of information by intelligence services and a lack of adequate legal guarantees. Similarly, the Scottish NHRI raised concerns over the potential introduction of live facial recognition technology. 

Three NHRIs also reported on the issues arising in situations of (post-)conflict. In Northern Ireland, the NHRI highlighted the ongoing legal developments concerning reconciliation. The ongoing reforms in this aspect raised concerns over their human rights and rule of law compliance and, in particular, access to justice. In Ukraine, in the context of the ongoing war, key concerns included hindered access to justice, the lack of rehabilitation services for war veterans, and the absence of legal frameworks for recognising disabilities among released civilians. Children’s rights have been severely impacted by Russia’s war of aggression, with issues like mass deportations, militarised education, and inadequate protection for displaced children abroad, including guardian appointment challenges. In Moldova, the NHRI reported on worsening rights violations, deprivation of liberty, and restriction in access to remedies, in the Transnistrian region controlled by unconstitutional authorities.

The People’s Advocate of Albania was last re-accredited with A-status in December 2020. 

The SCA recognised that the People’s Advocate interprets its human rights mandate broadly. At the same time, it encouraged the NHRI to advocate for a broader mandate that includes the ability to address all human rights violations resulting from the acts and omissions of private entities. 

At that time, the People’s Advocate reported that its level of funding was insufficient to meet its human resources needs, including retaining staff in its regional office. The SCA encouraged the NHRI to continue to advocate for adequate funding, including to ensure full-time staff in its regional offices. 

Finally, the SCA noted that the enabling law of the People’s Advocate does not explicitly mandate the People’s Advocate to encourage ratification or accession to international human rights instruments. While it acknowledged the NHRI interprets its mandate broadly, the SCA encouraged the People’s Advocate to advocate for the appropriate amendments to its enabling law in this regard.

The People’s Advocate (PA) office has been re-accredited with A-status in December 2020. Since the last re-accreditation, there has also been a tendency to increase the funds allocated (From 2022 to 2023, the PA budget increased by 6, 81%, and from 2023 to 2024, by 6%). The salary reform adopted in May 2023 significantly increased civil servants’ salaries (see Albania 2024 Report, pg. 26). The PA budget includes funds for salaries, operational expenses, external transfers, social and health insurance, investments and household budget transfers, allocated to central office in Tirana and 7 regional offices. 

The same can be said for the number of employees at the People’s Advocate office: in 2022, the total number of staff was 57 people and 7 employees in the regional offices that are contracted every year. In 2023, the number of employees in the office of the PA increased to 59 while the number of employees with temporary contracts (6 hours per day) was 10 (7 at regional offices and 3 at central office), bringing the total number of employees to 69. In 2024, the number of full-time employees in the office of the PA is 70. This number doesn’t include 2 other employees with temporary contracts (6 hours per day), and 4 other experts (supported by UNHCR (3) and UNWOMEN (1) funds) that brings the total number to 76 people.

However, additional funding is still necessary for the institution to fully fulfil its mandate and further develop its broad responsibilities. The PA budget does not currently cover the promotion of human rights, which is essential for establishing a culture of good governance, nor does it provide resources for monitoring the activity of the Justice Appointments Council (JAC) under the Justice Reform process.

Also, following up on the SCA recommendations, the PA is in the final phase of the process of drafting a proposal for a new organic law for the institution. Such a new draft law will address in full the SCA recommendation as well as both the UN Paris Principles and the Venice Principles. 

The People’s Advocate of Albania is expected to undergo the next evaluation process for reaccreditation in early 2026. 

Measures taken as follow-up of the findings and recommendations by European Actors

It should be emphasized that no specific actions have been requested regarding the People’s Advocate in relation to the exercise of its mandate, as is evident from the findings and recommendations by European actors in their reports. Instead, they greatly value the work that the institution does (see Screening report Albania, 20.07.2023, pg. 31). Such findings and recommendations have been addressed to other state actors in relation to their activity and actions Vis a Vis People’s Advocate Institution in order to strengthen its mandate and impact in the country. 

• As mentioned above, it is worth highlighting the initiative undertaken by the People's Advocate institution to draft a new Law on the People's Advocate, aiming to align it with SCA recommendations, international standards and best practices (the Paris Principles, the Venice Principles, etc.), as well as incorporating recommendations provided in European Commission and UN reports regarding the improvement of specific provisions of legal basis. In accordance with the Rule of Law Roadmap, the modification of the organic legislation is anticipated as a step to strengthen the People's Advocate institution.
  
  The new draft law will provide no restrictions whatsoever on publications of annual or special reports of PA. The restriction provided for in the present Article 28 of the organic law has not been  applied in practice for at least the last 10 years after the Albanian parliament undertook a more transparent approach streaming online all committees and sessions as well as publishing all reports presented by different independent bodies. In fact, upon submission of PA annual report, or any special report to the Parliament, the latter that publishes such reports on its website. 
  
  The process of drafting the new law is expected to be completed during the first quarter of 2025, followed by the submission of the relevant recommendations to the Committee on Legal Affairs, Public Administration, and Human Rights in the Albanian Parliament for discussion and approval in accordance with the respective parliamentary procedures.
   
• Since 2022, there has been a slight rise in acceptance of the People’s Advocate’s recommendations (in 2022, the full implementation rate of recommendations was 17%, while in 2024, this value increased to 21%. Meanwhile, the percentage of recommendations rejected by public authorities decreased from 16% in 2022 to 6% in 2024. However, since the figures are still far from expectations, following the recommendations (see Albania 2024 Report, pg. 35; Recommendation CM/Rec(2021)1 of the Committee of Ministers to member States, pg. 24; Screening report Albania, 20.07.2023, pg. 31) the Parliament has adopted measures to strengthen its careful oversight function, to monitor progress in implementation, and to create a joint institutional mechanism to ensure the systematic monitoring of independent institutions. This network consists of the Parliament, the Minister of State for Relations with Parliament, and six independent institutions. 
  
  Additionally, the Council of Ministers apparatus has organized several meetings between relevant actors/institutions and the People’s Advocate, focusing on improving the implementation of the PA’s recommendations (as recommended by the United Nations, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding observations on the combined thirteenth and fourteenth periodic reports of Albania, 23 May 2024, para 11). Following this development, focus points have been appointed inside these institutions to support this objective.
   
• The Constitution of Albania stipulates that the People’s Advocate is elected by a three-fifths majority of all members of Parliament. This means that, given the current composition of political parties in Parliament, a broad political consensus is required for the election of a new People’s Advocate—a consensus that does not exist. The conflicting political climate has not favoured reaching the necessary consensus (see Albania 2024 Report, pg. 4). As a result, despite the recommendations given by international actors, this process has not been successfully concluded, leading to an extension of the current PA’s tenure beyond the term of its mandate (see Albania 2024 Report, pg. 35; Screening report Albania, 20.07.2023, pg. 52).The Council of Ministers approved the “Intersectional Justice Strategy 2024-2030” with Decision No. 787 dated December 18, 2024. The People's Advocate is one of the contributing actors in the implementation of this strategy. In the Action Plan of the “Intersectional Justice Strategy” 2024–2030, the People's Advocate is designated as a responsible institution for conducting background and asset checks of candidates to be part of specific justice governance bodies, in line with highest vetting standards.

Gender-specific Developments 

There have not been any specific recommendations by SCA or international bodies or organisations to indicate gender sensitive approaches with respect to the PA. The work that the NHRI does on these issues is considered in full compliance with the NHRI mandate. However, several recommendations by the European Actors request the Albanian state to increase the capacities and funding of the PA of Albania. The PA contributes to collect gender sensitive data in relation to its work, such data are part of the National Statistics institute as well as the PA annual reports.

The Ombudsperson is a woman, and three of the five deputy ombudspersons are also women. Women make up 63% of the institution's entire number of employees. 

The first GREVIO’sthematic evaluation report for Albania “Building trust by delivering support, protection and justice”, published by the Council of Europe on 17 September 2024 states that:

“As regards data on gender-based killings, this is currently collected annually by the Ministry of Justice, albeit not broken down by sex. GREVIO notes with interest the plans to create an observatory on femicides, a project originating from the office of the People’s Advocate (the People’s Advocate) which is expected to improve data collection by creating a central point of reference for the issue of femicide in Albania” (paragraph 33, pg.15).

During 2024, the People’s Advocate with the support of UN Women and the Government of Sweden, released a comprehensive report titled “The Killings of Women and Girls – Femicide in Albania” (2021-2023). The report, carried out under the Femicides Observatory established in March 2024, serves as a vital monitoring mechanism to prevent femicide. Its objectives include identifying gaps in the protection mechanisms for victims of violence and offer concrete recommendations to responsible institutions. Among its key recommendations, the report calls for recognizing femicide as a distinct criminal offense in the Albanian Criminal Code, strengthening early response, and improving coordination between law enforcement, social services, and the judicial system to better protect women at risk.

The report was launched during the People’s Advocate’s Annual Conference, titled “Femicide – A Social Problem Beyond Statistics”, held on December 10, 2024 (International Human Rights Day) and marked the conclusion of the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence. The conference saw broad participation from representatives of justice institutions, agencies responsible for addressing violence against women, civil society organizations, and international organizations.

Firstly, the national regulatory framework applicable to the People’ Advocate has remained unchanged since 2014. 

Secondly, while the right to access justice is a fundamental right that must be guaranteed by the state to its citizens, the mandate of the People’s Advocate in this regard has not changed, but its institutional approach to the justice system has become more proactive. The new judicial map was fully implemented on July 1, 2023, but 2024 highlighted numerous issues regarding the functioning of the justice system and, most importantly, citizens' access to justice. Although the new judicial map was fully put into effect on July 1, 2023, 2024 brought to light a number of problems regarding the functioning of the justice system and, most crucially, with citizens' access to the legal system.

The People’s Advocate has repeatedly, publicly, raised concerns about citizens' access to justice following the implementation of the judicial map, emphasizing the challenges that were anticipated. In this context, the PA has monitored the implementation of the new judicial map and addressed a series of recommendations to relevant institutions as well as an Amicus Curiae to the Constitutional Court (Letter No. 189/1 Prot., dated 07.04.2023 "Opinion on Decision of the Council of Ministers No. 495, dated 21.07.2022, regarding the reorganization of judicial districts and the territorial competencies of courts"), emphasizing the urgency of taking necessary measures to deliver justice without delays and in accordance with the standards set out in international instruments and domestic legislation.

Also, in compliance with Law No. 111/2017 "On Legal Aid Guaranteed by the State" and the bylaws issued for its implementation, the People's Advocate responded to numerous complaints (including those related to the access to justice and the courts’ performance) and requests made to the institution concerning the requirements and processes that must be followed in order to receive free legal aid. The institution has either directly counselled complainants or collaborated and consulted with major legal aid service providers to handle complaints or requests pertaining to the provision of free legal help. According to 2022 Annual Report of the People’s Advocate (pg. 179), 4712 requests have been treated as advice and guidance on further legal steps to be taken by the complaining/requesting subjects for their cases to be handled. This figure according to 2023 Annual Report of the People’s Advocate (pg. 181), is 5722.

Through its regional offices, the People’s Advocate continues to collaborate with free legal aid centres to inform citizens about their legal rights and responsibilities, how to exercise them, and to offer legal support in completing forms and requests for obtaining secondary legal aid for citizens who have approached these centres. According to 2022 Annual Report of the People’s Advocate (pg. 181 – 182), 2903 requests have been treated as advice and guidance on further legal steps. This figure according to 2023 Annual Report of the People’s Advocate (pg. 183), is 3393.

Additionally, a special report on the efficacy of judicial issues impacting children's rights was developed in 2024 by the PA's Office in partnership with UNICEF and sent to the Parliament (see Letter No. 550 Prot., dated 19.11.2024, addressed to the Parliament of the Republic of Albania, with the subject: "Submission of the Special Report: “Analysis of the Efficiency of Justice for Children in the Field of Child Protection and Family Matters").

Lastly, the People's Advocate (as NHRI) requires a comprehensive legislative framework in addition to a supportive institutional and public environment in order to carry out its activities for the protection and advancement of all human and fundamental rights. In this regard, although the independence of this constitutional institution remains intact and the current framework provides a solid foundation, there are areas that could benefit from amendments to address existing gaps and challenges to ensure its full alignment with the Paris Principles and to enhance its ability to effectively fulfil its mandate. The new draft Law on the People’s Advocate foresees a broader mandate that includes the ability for the PA to address all human rights violations resulting from the acts and omissions of private entities, an improved mechanism to increase the level of the implementation of recommendations, guaranteed functional immunity for the leadership and staff of NHRIs, and the encouragement of ratification or accession to regional and international human rights instruments.

State authorities’ awareness of the NHRI’s mandate, independence and role

Relevant state authorities in Albania have a general awareness of the mandate, independence, and role of the People’s Advocate (NHRI). This is also due to the fact that People’s Advocate in Albania has undertaken several initiatives to foster greater understanding, respect, and collaboration to promote and protect human rights effectively. These includes formal dialogue mechanisms with representatives of state authorities (including ministries, law enforcement agencies, and judiciary institutions); publication of annual and specific reports and reporting to the Parliament; advocating for legislative and policy changes to strengthen the human rights framework in Albania, awareness campaigns including but not limited to its Annual Conference, and active media presence (see 2022 Annual Report of the People’s Advocate, pg. 167 – 169). Since 2022, there has been a slight improvement on the rate of the recommendations’ implementation and budget. According to the Balkan Barometer, and the Report on “Trust in government” (pg. 43) which is funded by the UNDP, the People’s Advocate have achieved to earn public trust as it concerns scrutinizing the government, widely perceived as independent from political influence.

However, the depth of understanding of the NHRIs’ mandate, independence and its role, and cooperation with NHRI varies across institutions. The efficiency of the NHRI is undermined by some state officials/institutions that either show little understanding of the institution's findings or do not take action (see 2022 Annual Report of the People’s Advocate, pg. 76 – 79, and 2023 Annual Report of the People’s Advocate, pg. 17 – 18) but certain state authorities actively participate in the NHRI and follow its recommendations. It is especially worth mentioning the cooperation with the State Police, and the General Directorate of Prisons (the recommendations have been accepted; however, their implementation depends on the budget allocated to these institutions). By not replying in a timely and exhaustive manner within a reasonable time to its requests and recommendations, public administration bodies (mainly local governmental bodies) caused difficulties in the administrative investigation of citizens' complaints. The authorities’ failure to provide reasoned and exhaustive responses to the PA’s inquiries caused delays and impacted the PA’s obligation and ability to conduct a thorough investigation, to reply to the citizens, and to identify the responsibility within the public bodies for their unlawful actions.

In May 2024, the Parliament adopted a new major reform initiative intended to review the legislation and the state’s institutional architecture in central and local government and the role of independent institutions, deepening reforms in the area of good governance, rule of law, and anti-corruption for Albania 2030. A dedicated ad hoc parliamentary committee started its work in July, and the PA contributes to it. However, more action is requested from the Parliament to improve the implementation rate of the People’s Advocate’s recommendations and address the lack of responsiveness from the public administration bodies (see Albania 2024 Report, pg. 27).

NHRI’s access to information and participation in law and policy-making 

The access to information and to policy makers of the People’s Advocate is satisfactory and improved. The People's Advocate institution in Albania is involved in certain phases of the legislative process and policymaking that affect human rights with the line Ministries and the Parliament, but not comprehensively or consistently across all stages. This is also due to the institution's limited resources and financial challenges, which restrict its capacity to actively and broadly participate in legislative and policymaking processes.

Specifically, the People's Advocate provides legal opinions, suggestions, and recommendations on draft laws, strategies and draft Decisions of Council of Ministers related to human rights. Additionally, the People's Advocate participates in parliamentary hearings when issues related to human rights are being discussed by the Parliamentary Committees, expressing his views on the compatibility of proposed laws with international standards. The People's Advocate also contributes to the policymaking process by offering recommendations on policies that impact human rights. It collaborates with state institutions, civil society organizations, and international partners to ensure that public policies are inclusive and respect fundamental human rights. However, in many cases the People's Advocate's recommendations remain unimplemented.

Although in general, the People’s Advocate has an important role in the protection and promotion of human rights, his involvement in legislative and policy-making processes should be strengthened to ensure greater impact and more effective results. In this regard, the new draft Law on the People’s Advocate foresees that “State bodies at both central and local levels are required to consult the People's Advocate on draft laws, bylaws, public policies, and decisions that impact fundamental human rights and freedoms. This consultation goes beyond the requirements set by the Law on Public Consultation, allowing the institution to provide opinions and recommendations to strengthen human rights protection.” 

The People's Advocate recognizes the need for the review and improvement of the legal framework to expand its mandate. Additionally, the institution seeks to ensure that relevant authorities not only to provide timely responses but also well-reasoned justifications to its recommendations.

NHRI’s resources

The staff and budget of the People's Advocate have increased since 2022. However, the level of funding remains insufficient to meet the needs for human resources and the required administrative performance necessary for fulfilling its constitutional mandate. This request remains dynamic, as the expected expansion of the mandate necessitates adequate human and financial resources. Even within the current scope of legal obligations and mandate execution, the People's Advocate has encountered challenges related to necessary human and financial resources. This is particularly evident given its role in the preliminary selection process of candidates for the High Judicial Council and the High Prosecutorial Council from the ranks of lawyers.

During discussions held in November 2024 in the Parliamentary Committee on Legal Affairs, Public Administration, and Human Rights concerning the approval of the 2025 budget, a request was made for the approval of additional staff (three assistant commissioners). This request was fully supported by the Legal Affairs Committee but was rejected by the Committee on Economy and Finance, resulting in their disapproval.

Implementation of NHRIs’ recommendations

The level of implementation of recommendations from public administration institutions has been and remains a continuous concern for the People's Advocate institution. Regarding the necessity of implementing these recommendations, the European Commission in several reports has also noted that Albania needs to strengthen their enforcement (see Albania 2024 Report, pg. 35, and Screening report Albania, 20.07.2023, pg. 31) given that the core competency of these institutions lies in their advisory and recommendatory power, alongside raising awareness, promoting, and protecting human rights. Additionally, the Albanian Parliament highlights in its resolutions the necessity of more effectively implementing the PA's recommendations.

However, parliamentary oversight of the work of independent institutions in Albania remains limited to reviewing their annual reports and utilizing a digital tool to monitor the implementation of their recommendations. The Parliament, in its role as the overseer of both the executive and independent institutions, should play a more active role in pressuring the executive to respond to the recommendations provided by independent institutions, which contribute to good governance and promote the public interest. 

It is considered important to update and enhance the impact of the inter-institutional platform for monitoring and reporting on the recommendations of independent institutions, including those of the People's Advocate. This should be done in the spirit of strengthening parliamentary oversight by the Parliament, promoting a transparent system and a more effective evaluation of the progress in implementing the recommendations of independent institutions by the executive and its subordinate agencies. As previously reported, the Parliament and the Council of Ministers have adopted measures to strengthen the monitoring of progress in the implementation of the PA’s recommendations by relevant institutional bodies.

The People’s Advocate institution continuously monitors the level of implementation of recommendations addressed to public administration bodies through the preparation of updated information, which is included in periodic or annual reports. On the official website of the institution, a section has been created where unimplemented recommendations, responsible institutions, and institutions that have not responded to recommendations addressed by the People’s Advocate are included, providing accessibility and visibility to any citizen or interested party, respecting the rules of transparency and protection of personal data. Additionally, the People’s Advocate's institution will include this updated information in the annual or periodic report. 

Functional immunity and measures to protect NHRI staff

As regards sufficient measures necessary to protect and to maintain the independence and efficacy of the People's Advocate institution in Albania, its leadership benefits from legal safeguards that ensure functional immunity. According to article 61, paragraph 3 of Constitution “The People's Advocate enjoys the immunity of a judge of the High Court”. Moreover, the Article 6 of law ‘’On People’s Advocate’’ stipulates that ‘’The People’s Advocate shall enjoy the immunity of a High Court judge ...’’. With the latest amendments to the Constitution (made by law no. 76/2016, dated 22.07.2016), article 137 of the Constitution provides for the immunity of the judges of the High Court: “A judge (including the judge of the High Court) enjoys immunity for opinions expressed and decisions taken in the exercise of his functions. This immunity is limited to cases of defamation or the commission of criminal offenses.” 

However, since no legal provision offers any particular protection or immunity for activities committed in their official position, the Commissioners and other members of the People's Advocate staff are not entitled to functional immunity. Consequently, the legal protection offered by Article 6 of the law “On People's Advocate” is insufficient when referring to international recommendations and standards that emphasize the need for functional immunity for the NHRIs staff (Venice Principles - "Principles on the Protection and Promotion of the People’s Advocate Institution"). However, in the new draft Law on the People’s Advocate, existing safeguards are reinforced, and additional measures enables the People’s Advocate to operate more effectively, free from intimidation, to fulfil its mandate to promote and protect human rights in Albania. 

Threats to NHRI

There have been no reported cases of SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) targeting the People’s Advocate. However, the risk of such lawsuits remains a concern in cases involving high-profile or controversial investigations. 

Furthermore, there have been no reported cases of institutional threats targeting the People’s Advocate. However, the lack of political consensus on the PA’s election (even that is not considered as a constitutional threat), somehow can be perceived as a threat in this regard.

National authorities should better understand the role and mandate of the PA as an NHRI. They should also implement the international instruments they have adopted or ratified for NHRI. In fact, while the current framework provides a solid foundation for the PA to exercise its mandate, there are areas that could benefit from legislative amendments to address existing gaps and challenges, as follows:

Mandate Expansion: 

• Amendments should ensure that the People’s Advocate has an explicit mandate to address human rights violations by both public and private entities. This would enable the institution to better respond to evolving human rights challenges.
• The legal framework should provide for sufficient financial and human resources to enable the PA institution to operate effectively. This includes ensuring the independence of the People’s Advocate by allowing it to freely allocate its resources according to its priorities.
• Amendments should clarify the Ombudsman's relationship with the justice system within the context of his institutional mandate.

Gender-Sensitive Approach: 

• The framework should explicitly require the integration of gender-sensitive approaches across all areas of work, emphasizing the importance of addressing gender-specific issues.

Enforcement Powers:

• Consideration should be given to strengthening the enforcement mechanisms for the People’s Advocate’s recommendations to ensure greater accountability from public institutions. The framework should establish clearer procedures for follow-up on the People’s Advocate’s reports and recommendations, ensuring that state institutions take timely and meaningful action in response.  There should be as well provided administrative sanctions for cases of failure to cooperate with the PA during the conduct of the investigations.

The People’s Advocate in its monitoring and reporting activity found evidence of laws and state measures negatively impacting the freedom of association. Firstly, the implementation of Decision No. 24, dated May 4, 2021, of the Constitutional Court "On the annulment of the phrase 'without first obtaining permission from the competent authority under specific provisions' in the first paragraph of Article 262 of the Criminal Code and the obligation of the Parliament to amend the legal provision from the date of the Court's decision until its entry into force," remains unimplemented. According to the Constitutional Court (para 22 of the Decision) “… the failure to obtain permission or the breach of permit conditions cannot serve as grounds for legitimizing the dispersal of an assembly. Furthermore, the criminal prosecution of its participants and organizers would constitute an even more serious violation of the fundamental right to peaceful assembly. The restriction of the freedom of assembly and organization must be done according to the criteria set out in Article 17 of the Constitution and in accordance with the ECtHR’s jurisprudence; that is, it must be prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate public interest, and be necessary in a democratic society.”

Additionally, the review of Law No. 8773, dated April 23, 2001, "On Assemblies," as amended, in compliance with European standards, as recommended by the People's Advocate, also remains unimplemented. 

From the monitoring carried out during various protests throughout the reporting period, the People’s Advocate institution has identified numerous cases of excessive use of force by State Police officers, both against citizens (in some cases children) and media representatives, as well as use of irregular procedures (See: 2022 Annual Report of the People’s Advocate - Recommendations No 202003372 (pg. 86), and No 202200371/12).

Another matter that requires attention is the absence of provisions in the current legislation regarding assemblies for impromptu gatherings, which are one of the formats of assemblies.

The PA institution has monitored 6 protests throughout 2024. From this monitoring, it is confirmed that the climate for exercising the right to protest throughout 2024 has generally been within standards. Regarding the criminalization of human rights defenders' work, the PA has not identified any such cases.

In addition, the People's Advocate provides support to women human rights defenders (WHRDs) and LGBTQ+ human rights defenders through:

• Addressing complaints submitted by individuals or civil society organizations to the institution, as well as initiating cases when the institution becomes aware of human rights violations against women and LGBTQ+ individuals.
• Organizing open days with citizens and NGOs, roundtables, workshops, and conferences to identify issues, share insights, and provide opinions and recommendations to institutions for improving laws, policies, or taking specific measures as shown below under the section on the NHRI’s initiatives to promote civil society space.
• Issuing recommendations to state institutions, encouraging legal initiatives, improving standards for social care services for victims of domestic and gender-based violence, and addressing the needs of LGBTQ+ individuals. These recommendations often align with concerns raised by civil society organizations.
• Media appearances/Social networks statements where, in 2024, the People's Advocate raised various issues concerning women's rights, and condemning all forms of violence and highlighting cases where LGBTQ+ human rights defenders faced hate speech, as shown in the section below.  One such example of social networks statements is when the People's Advocate launched a campaign on its official Facebook page, sharing messages on the 25th of every month as part of "Orange Day" to condemn violence against women and call on responsible institutions to act.

During the reporting period, civil society and human rights defenders in Albania faced several challenges that negatively impacted their work. In fact, reports indicated a shrinking space for civil society activities, with increased political polarization and patronage systems limiting effective participation in political processes. The PA’s office in its monitoring and reporting found evidence of the following practices negatively impacting civil society space: 

• Threats and Harassment: Journalists and human rights defenders were subjected to vilification, threats, and punitive civil proceedings.
• Political Influence on Media: The independence of public broadcasters was compromised due to political influence, affecting the impartiality of information dissemination.
• Insufficient Electoral Reforms: Civil society organizations expressed concerns over inadequate electoral reforms, which failed to address recurring issues, potentially undermining the integrity of future elections.
• Violence Against Women and Girls with Disabilities: Despite existing legal frameworks, women and girls with disabilities continued to face multiple forms of violence, compounded by stigma, discrimination, and limited access to support services.
• Online Threats to Women Human Rights Defenders: Women human rights defenders reported online behaviours they considered threatening, with a lack of awareness about digital rights and online safety exacerbating the issue. In his capacity as a promoter of human rights, the Ombudsman has consistently advocated for the causes of civil society and civil society organizations.

Threats to the LGBTQI+ Community

As part of its promotional mandate such as, participation in awareness-raising activities organized by civil society organizations during the IDAHOT campaign, and roundtable discussions focused on protecting the rights of LGBTQI+ individuals, the People's Advocate has observed that members of this community continue to face prejudice, stigmatization, and discrimination. Furthermore, hate speech, especially on social media platforms, remains prevalent against LGBTQI+ individuals and other disadvantaged groups in society.

In May 2024, PA institution participated in a series of activities which started on May 9 with the launch of the project "Proud to Have Rights", organized by ‘OMSA’, followed by the Gala Evening on May 16 organized by ‘STREHA’, the High-Level Dialogue Roundtable on May 22 organized by the Ministry of Health and Social Protection, and concluded with the Pride Parade on May 25.During this campaign, an increase in hate speech was noted, especially on social media platforms, targeting community members and leaders of civil society organizations. Particularly troubling were the threats and offensive language directed at two women/mothers belonging to the lesbian community and their daughters by unknown individuals via Facebook, which intensified after an event held on May 21 on the terrace of Tirana Municipality, featuring a symbolic marriage ceremony between the two women. This event also drew reactions from religious communities, which contributed to creating a tense atmosphere around the activity.

Unrelated incidents were misinterpreted as being organized by the LGBTQI+ community, allegedly aiming to undermine family values. Activists from the "Pro Family and Life Coalition," including Pastor A.P., led these attacks, organizing a protest to defend traditional family values. They accused the LGBTQI+ community of threatening these values and linked a government initiative on reproductive health to this community, further intensifying anti-LGBTQI+ rhetoric.

Additionally, during a roundtable on May 22 organized by Pink Embassy to present a draft law on gender identity, activist A.G. intervened aggressively against the leader and activist Mr. A.H. In response to these events ‘The No Hate Alliance’ issued a statement titled “Against Homophobic Language towards the LGBTQI+ Community” condemning these attacks and reminding everyone that, as citizens of this country, they are all responsible for the development of democracy and progress.

The People's Advocate emphasizes that a key challenge faced by the LGBTQI+ community is the lack of awareness from both state institutions and society about their rights. To address this, the development of specific legislation recognizing changes in gender identity, along with amendments to the Criminal Code and the Family Code, is essential. Furthermore, promotional activities by relevant institutions would help advance the protection and respect for the rights of this community. The Pride Parade, held on May 25, proceeded peacefully without incidents.

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs)

According to data from the Albanian Centre for the Development of Civil Society, during this year, 75 lawsuits have been filed that could be considered SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) against journalists and civil society organizations. In April 2024, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted Recommendation CM/Rec (2024) to address this problem.

It is necessary to align Albanian legislation with the anti-SLAPP standards of the European Union and the Council of Europe to protect freedom of expression and public participation, addressing this problem, and emphasizing the need for protective measures against SLAPP lawsuits.

Limitations to the freedom of association

According to a complaint investigated by the People's Advocate it was found that the Business Registration Centre had impeded the normal functioning of a trade union (the State Police Workers' Union) by unlawfully requiring the continuation of the initial registration procedure for this organization as a beneficial owner, as well as imposing a fine on the union for committing an administrative offense under these conditions. After the intervention of the People's Advocate, the Business Registration Centre acknowledged that their intervention was legally unjustified and subsequently annulled the decision to impose the fine on the State Police Workers' Union.

Also, the Ombudsman, based on a complaint by the employees of the Guard of the Republic regarding the violation of their rights to freedom of association with the registration of the union of the employees of this guard in court, has issued a recommendation in defence of freedom of association, which as a result changed the regulation of the Guard of the Republic, which was in conflict with the law and prohibited the engagement and participation of the employees of the Guard of the Republic in union activities.

In another case, the People’s Advocate (based on a complaint) initiated an administrative investigation procedure on violation of legal obligations regarding the necessary procedures for signing a collective agreement with the Union of Employees of the Albanian Post (1,400 members). This was assessed as a potential unjustified legal obstacle imposed by the employer or relevant authorities and as an interference with the right to trade union freedom, protected under Article 50 of the Constitution, which states that “Employees have the right to unite freely in labour unions for the defence of their work interests” and Articles 159 and following of the Labor Code. The People’s Advocate emphasizes that signing collective agreements is a fundamental right of trade unions and a crucial mechanism for protecting and representing employees’ interests. Due to the fact that the case is currently under review by the competent court, the People’s Advocate interrupted its administrative investigation procedure, but the final court decision will indicate if there’s any possible violation regarding the trade union rights. 

Initiatives, frameworks and policies for the protection of human rights defenders

At the national level in Albania, several initiatives, frameworks, and policies aim to support and protect human rights defenders (HRDs). In particular, the 2019 Parliamentary Resolution on the Protection of HRDs, along with the designation of the People’s Advocate as the focal point for HRD protection, represent meaningful steps in strengthening the enabling environment for defenders. The active role of the People’s Advocate, particularly in promoting the recognition, protection, and support of HRDs, contributes significantly to fostering a higher standard of protection and institutional awareness at the national level.

While Albania has not yet adopted a specific law exclusively focused on HRDs, several general legal provisions, institutional mechanisms, and programs indirectly contribute to their protection:

Constitutional Guarantees

• The Constitution of Albania guarantees fundamental human rights and freedoms, including freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly, which are essential for human rights defenders to operate (Articles 3, 8 and 15-58). Article 5 explicitly obliges the state to implements the binding international law applicable to it, and Article 122 para 2 of the Constitution provides that an international agreement that has been ratified by law supersedes domestic legislation in case of incompatibility.

Human Rights Institutions

• The People’s Advocate plays a vital role in safeguarding human rights and supporting HRDs. The People’s Advocate monitors violations, advocates for better protection, and provides redress mechanisms for those facing threats or retaliation for their work. Legal protection (same as a High Court Judge) offered by Article 6 of the law “On People's Advocate” provides for functional immunity for the head of the institution for opinions expressed and decisions taken in the exercise of his functions (see: Question 11).
• The Commissioner for Protection from Discrimination addresses issues related to discrimination, which is often a concern for HRDs, particularly those advocating for minority groups, LGBTQ+ rights, or marginalized communities.

National Human Rights Frameworks

• The National Strategy for Development and European Integration 2022 – 2030 covers socio-economic development, it incorporates human rights priorities, including measures to strengthen the protection of civil society actors.
• The National Strategy for Gender Equality 2021 – 2030 and its Action Plan serves as a roadmap toward a society where all individuals regardless of age, gender, place of birth or residence, ethnic or social group, disability, religious affiliation or belief, expression of gender identity, sexual orientation, and other individual characteristics, are provided with equal opportunities to develop their potential; HRDs working on women’s rights benefit from policies under this strategy.
• The National Action Plan for LGBTI+ Persons 2021–2027 serves as a roadmap toward an inclusive, accepting, and non-discriminatory society for all LGBTI+ individuals. It aligns with Albania's commitments to international human rights standards and seeks to address the challenges faced by the LGBTI+ community in the country; HRDs advocating for LGBTQ+ rights are supported through initiatives aimed at combating discrimination and hate speech.

Legal Provisions for Protection (main acts - non exhaustive) 

• The Criminal Code includes provisions to address threats, harassment, or violence against individuals, including HRDs, particularly those advocating in sensitive areas such as anti-corruption or environmental protection.
• The Law on the Right to Information and Public Consultation enables HRDs and civil society to access information and engage in policymaking, promoting transparency and accountability.
• The Law on Non-Profit Organizations facilitates the registration and operation of civil society organizations (CSOs), providing a legal framework for HRDs to organize and advocate for their causes (see detailed explanation below at part: ‘Civil Society Engagement’).

Cooperation with International Mechanisms 

Albania cooperates with the United Nations Human Rights Council and has ratified key international treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). These frameworks indirectly support HRDs by providing avenues for advocacy and legal recourse. Among United Nations Human Rights Council resolutions, it’s worth mentioning:

• Resolution 8/4 (2008) ‘The right to education’ which reaffirms the right to education in rural and isolated areas. Through this resolution, various organizations and the People’s Advocate’s office have lobbied for greater access to education for marginalized groups, including girls and persons with disabilities, as a means to empower these communities.
• Resolution 52/4 (2023) ‘Mandate of Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders’ which highlights the state’s supportive role for human rights defenders working in hazardous environments, encouraging the creation of a safe environment for them, including those in isolated areas who often face threats and violence because of their work.
• The EU Integration Process which has spurred Albania to strengthen its human rights commitments, including protections for HRDs, as part of meeting EU accession criteria.

Civil Society Engagement 

The legal framework for civil society in Albania is built on several laws and subordinate acts that regulate the organization, functioning, and activities of non-profit organizations (NGOs) and other civil society actors. Albania has an active civil society sector, with organizations like the Civil Rights Defenders and local CSOs providing capacity-building, legal assistance, and advocacy support for HRDs. Platforms such as the National Council for Civil Society create opportunities for dialogue between the government and CSOs, allowing HRDs to voice their concerns.

Although there is no specific law dedicated solely to the protection of HRDs, the general legal framework ensures that law enforcement agencies are responsible for investigating and addressing threats to the security of individuals defending human rights. Below we list some legal and sub-legal acts (non-exhaustive list):

• Law No. 8788, dated 7.5.2001, “On Non-Profit Organizations,” is the basic law that regulates the creation, organization, registration, and functioning of non-profit organizations in Albania.
• Law No. 7892, dated 21.12.1994, “On Sponsorships” regulates donations and sponsorships for non-profit activities. This law establishes tax exemptions for individuals and entities sponsoring, including exemptions from taxes for donations to civil society or activities beneficial to society.
• Law No. 119/2014 “On the Right to Information” and Law No. 146/2014 “On Public Notification and Consultation” give citizens and civil society organizations the right to request information from public institutions and participate in decision-making processes, including the legislative process.
• Law No. 45/2016 “On Volunteering” regulates volunteering and the engagement of individuals in voluntary activities, which are an important part of civil society activities. This law defines the conditions and principles on which volunteer-organizational relationships are developed.
• Law No. 80/2021, dated 24.6.2021, “On the Registration of Non-Profit Organizations.” This law specifies the procedures for the registration and maintenance of the register of non-profit organizations in Albania.
• Law No. 65/2016, dated 9.6.2016, “On Social Enterprises in the Republic of Albania” regulates the activities of social enterprises, aimed at protecting and socially integrating disadvantaged groups.

Sub-legal acts under the Social Enterprises Law (non-exhaustive):

• Decision of the Council of Ministers No. 16, dated 16.1.2018: “On the Procedures for Monitoring Social Enterprise Activities.”
• Decision of the Council of Ministers No. 17, dated 17.1.2018: “On the Creation of a Fund in Support of Social Enterprises.”
• Decision of the Council of Ministers No. 18, dated 18.1.2018: “On the Approval of the List of Activities Performed by Social Enterprises.”
• Decision of the Council of Ministers No. 19, dated 19.1.2018: “On the Determination of Specific Categories of Disadvantaged Groups.”
• Instruction No. 20, dated 20.1.2018: “On the Creation of the Social Enterprises Register.”
• Instruction No. 21, dated 21.1.2018: “On Employees of Social Enterprises.”
• Instruction No. 22, dated 22.1.2018: “On Procedures and Documentation Needed for Obtaining Social Enterprise Status.”
• Order No. 23, dated 23.1.2018: “On the Approval of the Standard Regulation for the Operation of Social Enterprises.”

NGOs in Albania are subject to a special fiscal regime. According to tax laws, some NGO revenues, such as donations and grants used for specific purposes, may be exempt from profit taxes. Furthermore, NGOs may request exemptions from VAT for goods and services part of their non-profit activities. NGOs are also subject to laws for preventing money laundering and the financing of terrorism, ensuring that their funds are not used for illegal purposes. This includes the requirement to report suspicious transactions and maintain accurate financial records.

Despite these frameworks, HRDs in Albania face challenges such as limited resources, political pressure, and occasional public backlash, particularly when working on controversial issues like anti-corruption, LGBTQ+ rights, or environmental protection. Strengthening the legal framework, providing specific protections for HRDs, and ensuring a more supportive environment for civil society remain critical priorities.

Meanwhile, Resolution 52/4 (2023) highlights the state’s supportive role for human rights defenders working in hazardous environments, encouraging the creation of a safe environment for them, including those in isolated areas who often face threats and violence because of their work.

The People’s Advocate, as an independent institution protecting the rights, freedoms, and legitimate interests of individuals from unlawful actions of public administration bodies, has been proactive in addressing human rights abuses, investigating violations, and advocating for vulnerable communities. During the reporting period (2022 - 2024, the People’s Advocate, had been present to the public with 63 media appearances and interviews covering a wide range of public interest issues, addressing key challenges in the protection and promotion of human rights in Albania. This activity includes annual reports, thematic special reports, reporting to organizations such as ENNHRI and GANHRI, declarations in defense of human rights, monitoring, and investigations related to identified human rights violations, recommendations addressed to responsible institutions, and informational and promotional activities at national and international levels.

The People’s Advocate has expressed a clear stance on the exercise of the right/freedom of assembly, as one of the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals. After media reports on the use of physical and psychological violence by police officers during arrests or detainments of citizens suspected of committing criminal acts during various gatherings, the People’s Advocate recommended disciplinary proceedings against the State Police and the implementation of technical and organizational measures to prevent future violations.

NHRI’s initiatives to promote civil society space and HRDs

In fulfilling its constitutional mission to promote and protect human rights, the People’s Advocate has implemented a dynamic action plan, focusing on raising awareness and ensuring access to justice, particularly for vulnerable groups. Through extensive collaboration with civil society organizations, including the Albanian Helsinki Committee, the Institute for Democracy and Mediation, and the Center for the Study of Democracy and Governance, the institution has strengthened its role in advocating for human rights.

• One of the most impactful initiatives has been the "Open Days," organized across multiple municipalities, including Krujë, Kavajë, Durrës, Elbasan, and beyond. These events have brought the People’s Advocate closer to communities, enabling citizens to voice their concerns and submit complaints while fostering dialogue with local civil society organizations. Additionally, discussions with state institutions providing public services have facilitated institutional cooperation in addressing human rights challenges.
• Throughout 2024, the People’s Advocate has taken a strong stance on various critical issues. It has actively participated in roundtables on the rights of persons with disabilities, accessibility of public services, and gender equality. Key moments include engagements with the "Together" Foundation on the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, discussions on judicial independence following threats against judges, and advocacy for improved services for persons with disabilities at the Albanian Post.
• Gender-based violence has been a central focus, with the People’s Advocate playing a leading role in initiatives such as the launch of the "Femicide Observatory" on International Women's Day. This groundbreaking initiative, in collaboration with UN Women, aims to enhance data collection and policy responses to femicide. The institution has also supported campaigns against sexual harassment in public spaces and participated in the 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence.
• Further engagement in the justice sector has included high-level discussions on the performance of prosecutors and the fight against corruption, as well as the reintegration of individuals returning from conflict zones. The People’s Advocate has strongly condemned attacks on legal professionals and journalists, emphasizing the importance of judicial and press independence.
• The institution has also been active in advancing LGBTI+ rights, participating in the Pride Parade, supporting the recognition of gender identity, and promoting inclusivity through events such as the "Night of Colors" gala. The People’s Advocate was awarded a prize as an independent institution that works, supports, and promotes human rights, including the rights of the LGBT+ community.
• Children’s rights remain a priority, with the institution engaging in initiatives to promote internet safety, youth participation in governance, and improved child protection mechanisms. Collaborations with Save the Children and local youth groups have provided young people a platform to advocate for their rights. Similarly, on the International Day for Older Persons, the People’s Advocate called for improved care and social services for the elderly.
• As the year progressed, the People’s Advocate continued its efforts to defend civil society space, challenge restrictive policies, and advocate for human dignity in post-communist transitional justice. Its participation in events such as the National Day of Activism and International Day Against Impunity for Crimes Against Journalists underscores its commitment to a democratic and rights-based society.

Through its persistent advocacy, engagement with institutions, and outreach to marginalized communities, the People’s Advocate has reinforced its role as a key human rights watchdog in Albania, striving for a society where fundamental freedoms are protected and promoted.

NHRIs actions to protect civil society space and HRDs 

In 2019, the Albanian Parliament adopted a resolution supporting the activities of Human Rights Defenders (HRDs), recognizing their essential role in promoting and protecting human rights, strengthening the rule of law, and enhancing democracy in Albania. In order to encourage the implementation of this resolution, the People's Advocate has been actively involved in media appearances. In keeping with the pledges made in the 2019 resolution, the PA institution carried on working to guarantee that the rights and safeguards granted to HRDs are maintained in 2024.

The People’s Advocate, beyond protecting the civil society space by providing legal assistance, handling complaints and providing recommendations and opinions, also undertook specific initiatives in 2024, namely: 

• Monitoring and Reporting: The institution conducted regular monitoring of the situation of HRDs in Albania, identifying challenges and areas for improvement. Reports were prepared to inform policymakers and the public about the status of HRDs and the effectiveness of protective measures.
• Advocacy and Dialogue: Engaging in dialogue with governmental bodies, the People's Advocate advocated for the implementation of protective measures for HRDs, ensuring that their rights are respected and that they can operate without fear of retaliation.

NHRI’s engagement with international and regional mechanisms in support of human rights defenders and civil society

In 2023, the People's Advocate submitted an Amicus Curiae opinion to the Constitutional Court regarding the trial that started at this court in response to appeals from various environmental and cultural heritage organizations to preserve the Butrint Archaeological Park as a national and international cultural treasure. 

More consideration should be given to new rights that are added to the catalogue of human rights, such as those pertaining to climate change. In addition to actively promoting LGBTI+ rights and advocating for legislative changes, the PA has also openly endorsed and participated in initiatives created by this community.

• Establish and Implement a Comprehensive Legal Protection Framework:  Human rights defenders and civil society organizations should be explicitly protected by clear, comprehensive laws by national authorities. These laws should also establish legal recourse in cases when defenders are subjected to violence, threats, or harassment.
• Promote Financial and Institutional Sustainability: In order to foster civil society, national authorities should guarantee sustained financial assistance for human rights organizations. This involves encouraging independent fundraising efforts and broadening financing sources. To guarantee that civil society's interests are understood and met, authorities should also pledge to hold frequent talks with them. This will help to create a stable and autonomous environment for defenders.
• Strengthen Public Awareness and Civil Society Engagement: National authorities should enhance efforts to raise awareness about the important role of civil society and human rights defenders in promoting democratic values and human rights. This involves planning educational initiatives that give defenders a forum to discuss their struggles and experiences while also educating the public and institutions about the contributions of defenders. Civil society should also be meaningfully included in decision-making processes and actively involved in the formulation and execution of national policies.

• Strengthen Legal Frameworks for Protection: It is imperative that European players support and promote the creation of broad legal protections for civil society organizations and human rights defenders. Legal acknowledgement of their freedom to labor without fear of retaliation, harassment, or prosecution is part of this. Adopting stronger legislation is necessary to safeguard these defenders' work, provide access to the legal system, and offer recourse in situations of abuse or reprisal.
• Ensure Financial Sustainability and Independence: European institutions should prioritize mechanisms to ensure long-term financial support for civil society organizations and human rights defenders. This entails increasing the availability of transparent funding options via public and private channels, including designated EU money, donor tax incentives, and assurances against limitations on foreign donations. Being financially sustainable will shield businesses from becoming reliant on political or governmental pressure.
• Enhance Collaboration and Dialogue with Civil Society: European actors should foster a culture of continuous dialogue and collaboration with civil society organizations and human rights defenders in all decision-making processes, particularly in legislative and policy development. Including defenders in the formulation of pertinent policies and ensuring their consultation not only enhances democracy but also fosters an inclusive atmosphere where their rights and efforts are valued.

Challenges affecting access to justice and effective judicial protection

Based on the PA’s human rights monitoring and reporting, the PA identified significant challenges affecting access to justice and effective judicial protection in the following areas:  independence and impartiality of judiciary; delays in court proceedings; professionalism, specialisation and training of judges; respect for fair trial standards; timely and effective execution of national courts’ judgements; delays and lack of publication of judgements. 

A new judicial map was fully implemented on July 1, 2023, but 2024 highlighted numerous issues regarding the functioning of the justice system and, most importantly, citizens' access to justice. The People’s Advocate, based on complaints and independent monitoring, assessed that the implementation of the new judicial map did not improve access to justice; on the contrary, it undermined this principle. This resulted in increased costs for citizens, a decline in the quality of services provided, prolonged trial periods, delays in preliminary investigation procedures, significant delays in the reasoning of final decisions, and in the execution of criminal sentences. 

In 2024, concerning effective judicial protection, the People’s Advocate observed delays in judicial procedures (case trials and delays in the reasoning of judicial decisions), non-compliance with fair trial standards (execution of national court decisions), as well as delays and/or lack of publication of decisions. In particular, delays in criminal matters also undermined the rights of convicted or detained individuals to benefit from Law no. 33/2024 “On Granting Amnesty.” 

Cases were observed where individuals remained in detention even after their decisions became final due to the reasoning of the decision not being finalized. The People’s Advocate found instances of judgments that were not reasoned by the judge within the legal deadline, primarily in the Tirana Court of Appeals for General Jurisdiction, but also in the first instance courts. The identified delays range from 3 to 18 months for the reasoning of court decisions from the date the judgment was announced. In the Court of Appeals for General Jurisdiction and in the Administrative Court of Appeals, the investigations revealed delays in judicial cases ranging from 2 to 6 years, from the date these cases were registered in the courts until the date a hearing was scheduled. For the cases identified above, recommendations have been addressed to the justice institutions: the High Inspector of Justice, the High Judicial Council, the High Prosecutorial Council, and the respective courts.

This situation arose due to the heavy workload of judges with cases and the shortage of judges following the judicial reform (vetting process) and the implementation of the new judicial map. The same issue occurred with prosecutors, potentially leading to delays in investigations. When an individual is charged, and a personal security measure is imposed, the prosecutor is obligated to comply with investigation deadlines. As a result, investigations of complaints where no individual is explicitly identified as responsible for the alleged criminal offense (i.e., no formal defendant) may have been deprioritized. 

The overcrowding observed in detention centers during 2024, in addition to the above factors, also stemmed from the failure to apply alternative security measures by prosecutors and courts. Detained individuals, due to the non-issuance of execution orders implementing court sentencing decisions, continued to remain in detention facilities. This not only infringed upon certain rights granted to convicted individuals but also contributed to the overcrowding of these institutions and hindered their right to benefit from amnesty. 

Since February 1, 2023, six appellate courts were consolidated into a single court based in Tirana. The Tirana General Jurisdiction Court of Appeals continues to operate with only 26 judges, out of the 78 positions approved in its staffing structure. 

Significant issues have been noted concerning the right to a fair trial, particularly regarding the resolution of cases within a reasonable timeframe.  From the complaints received by the institution, as well as from cases reviewed on its own initiative, the People’s Advocate identified prolonged delays in court proceedings, especially in the First Instance General Jurisdiction Court of Tirana, as well as in Shkodër, Elbasan, and other locations, where the number of judges has been far below the required effective number. 

Today, the justice system is not only facing pronounced vacancies in the number of judges but also a high backlog of cases in the First Instance General Jurisdiction Court of Tirana and the two appellate courts. Additionally, there are shortcomings in infrastructure (court buildings) and the risk of the Albanian state being fined by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg due to delays caused to the parties. 

The People’s Advocate has repeatedly raised concerns about citizens' access to justice following the implementation of the judicial map, emphasizing the challenges that were anticipated. In this context, a series of recommendations have been addressed to relevant institutions, emphasizing the urgency of taking necessary measures to deliver justice without delays and in accordance with the standards set out in international instruments and domestic legislation. 

In the People’s Advocate’s assessment, the right to trial within a reasonable legal timeframe is one of the fundamental rights of citizens. For this reason, the right to a trial within a reasonable timeframe should not remain a declarative right or guarantee but must be a constitutional standard, guaranteed and enshrined in the instruments that define fundamental human rights and freedoms, both at the international level (Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights) and in domestic law (Article 42 of the Constitution of the Republic of Albania). 

The right of access to court, the right to be heard, the principle of equality of arms, the principle of adversarial proceedings, and the obligation of the court to provide reasoning for judicial decisions are some of the essential elements of a fair trial. These rights are organically and functionally interconnected in such a way that the violation of one standard inevitably impacts the violation of others. Through its recommendations, the People’s Advocate has raised concerns about the fundamental issues regarding delays in the reasoning of judicial decisions, whether civil or criminal. In some cases, recommendations have been sent to the respective courts, highlighting delays in reasoning and notifying parties, which impair the exercise of the right to appeal or to lodge recourse and, fundamentally, the right to a fair trial. 

An effective and efficient judicial service means a fast and quality judicial service for the public, capable of swiftly resolving disrupted legal relations between parties through enhanced access to justice. Eliminating judicial delays is the primary principle.

Challenges for women and marginalized groups to access justice

Although the People’s Advocate does not have exact data on challenges in access to justice disproportionately impacting women or marginalized gender groups, the implementation of the new judicial map has limited access to courts for abused women as well as other marginalized groups. This is due to the reduction in the number of first-instance courts, which directly affects the accessibility of justice. 

Additionally, the same issue has been identified and addressed by the People’s Advocate institution in a special report titled “Analysis of the Efficiency of Justice for Children in the Field of Child Protection and Family Matters”).

Follow-up and implementation of the European Courts’ judgments

With regards to actions by State authorities, little progress has been made in the country regarding the implementation of European Court for Human Rights’ (ECtHR) judgments. There has been improvement in individual measures for damages for values under 10 thousand euros, but the implementation of general measures remains problematic.

The PA takes various actions to support the implementation of the European Courts’ judgments, such as engaging directly with courts and with the national coordinator of the execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.

Furthermore, ECtHR judgments are frequently cited in the PA's recommendations. The PA continuously informs the public through interviews and appearances regarding new judgments of the ECtHR, with an impact on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Measures taken to follow up on the European actors’ recommendations on justice systems

As part of the EU enlargement process and to address justice system policies in accordance with the strategic measures outlined in the Rule of Law Roadmap – Chapter 23 “Judiciary and Fundamental Rights”, the Ministry of Justice, in collaboration with all institutions within the justice system, has undertaken the drafting of the Intersectoral Justice Strategy 2024-2030, its accompanying action plan, and the indicator passport. The Council of Ministers approved the “Intersectional Justice Strategy 2024-2030” with Decision No. 787 dated December 18, 2024. This strategy aims to consolidate the reforms initiated during the first phase, harmonize the justice system, and align it with EU best practices.

The National Action Plan (NAP) Against Trafficking in Persons 2024-2025 (approved by the Council of Ministers Decision No. 458 dated July 10, 2024) amended the Decision No. 1140, dated December 24, 2020, “On the Approval of the Strategy Against Organized Crime and Serious Crimes, 2021–2025, and the Action Plan 2023–2025. The People’s Advocate has actively contributed by providing feedback on this document. The NAP is a significant national policy document that coordinates state actors, international organizations, and civil society in joint efforts to combat human trafficking. It represents a clear commitment by the Albanian Government to take all necessary institutional, legal, and budgetary measures to respond in a coordinated manner to trafficking in persons. The interventions and actions outlined in the NAP focus on prevention, investigation and prosecution, protection, and the social and economic reintegration of victims or potential victims of trafficking. The NAP aligns with the recommendations of the Group of Experts on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA), which monitors the implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings.

Additionally, the High Judicial Council has approved the “National Strategy for Reducing the Backlog of Court Cases 2024-2027”.

The People’s Advocate institution has prepared a special report titled “Analysis of the Efficiency of Justice for Children in the Field of Child Protection and Family Matters”, based on identified challenges related to the efficiency of the judicial system. These challenges include prolonged procedures, low case clearance rates, and the high number of unresolved cases, focusing specifically on children's rights in civil and family matters following the justice reform. The main objective of the report is to enhance efforts to improve the case management system for judicial matters involving children’s rights. This involves promoting swift and decisive actions in line with the new justice reform and prioritizing the best interests of the child.

The analysis of the current situation was conducted using both statistical and qualitative data, sourced from published materials, questionnaires, and interviews with interlocutors at the two monitored courts. The report outlines the national and international legal obligations required for courts to meet the standards of a fair trial process, including ensuring cases are adjudicated within a reasonable timeframe.

The key recommendations for the efficiency of the justice system remain:

• The immediate filling of vacancies created within the justice system and reducing the backlog of court cases.
• Increasing the judicial budget concerning the establishment of necessary infrastructure (buildings and human resources, including administrative staff and advisors) and digital case management systems.
• Adhering to the preclusive deadlines set in the Procedural Codes for case adjudication and the reasoning of judicial decisions.

The People's Advocate has identified several significant challenges affecting media freedom and underscore the need for continued efforts to safeguard media freedom and ensure a transparent and independent press in Albania.

The PA has identified the following challenges affecting media freedom in Albania: 

• Intimidation and Pressure on Journalists: Journalists often face intimidation from politicians and institutions, hindering their ability to inform the public effectively, as  identified by the People's Advocate and EU Commission Albania 2024 Report, pg. 36 – 37). This issue is particularly pronounced among female journalists (the case reported in 2023 involving the journalist from Vlora, A.H.), who have been targets of such actions. “Several ODIHR NAM interlocutors acknowledged increase of SLAPPs but highlighted that number of such lawsuits does not capture the precarious reality confronting investigative journalists operating under constant pressure and potential retaliation including by organized crime networks” (see ODIHR Needs Assessment Mission Report 3-6 December 2024, pg. 9).
• Political and Business Influence:  Reports have indicated that companies and political organizations have an impact on media outlets, jeopardizing editorial independence and causing journalists to self-censor (see also, Albania 2024 Report, pg. 37 – 38). According to Reporters Without Borders (RSF) “In Albania, press freedom and media independence are threatened by conflicts of interest between the business and political worlds, a flawed legal framework and partisan regulation. Journalists are victims of acts of intimidation by politicians and organized crime.”
• Legal and Regulatory Challenges: The Albania 2024 Report by the European Commission states that “No progress was made in aligning the legislative framework with the EU acquis and European standards, including the Media Freedom Act.” This report was published in October 2024, and in this context, no significant developments have occurred in this area during the remainder of the year. Nevertheless, within the framework of a project titled “Promoting Freedom of Expression in Albania Through Open Dialogue” (January 2025 to December 2026), implemented by the Council of Europe’s Division for Cooperation on Freedom of Expression and co-funded by the Council of Europe and the European Union, efforts are underway to foster a resilient and independent media sector, in line with Council of Europe standards and to support Albania’s EU accession process. This initiative aims to establish an inclusive platform for dialogue, bringing together a wide range of stakeholders, including government institutions, regulatory bodies, media professionals, civil society organisations, journalists, media outlets, academia, and experts. By addressing key challenges in the area of freedom of expression and media freedom in Albania, the project will assist in implementing the Council of Europe’s standards and recommendations and the priorities outlined under Chapter 23 (Judiciary and Fundamental Rights) of Albania’s EU accession negotiations. Furthermore, despite the decriminalization of libel and defamation in 2012, high fines remain, reinforcing self-censorship trends.
• Access to Information: Despite being legally guaranteed, information access is not always implemented consistently and official responses to requests for information are often delayed. The Albania 2024 Report (see pg. 37) by the European Commission highlights that the “Implementation of the Law on access to information is weak, in particular due to an overall institutional culture of withholding and delaying replies to answers, which affects journalists disproportionately “.
• Digital Platform Restrictions: Recent government actions, such as the year-long ban on TikTok (see The Associated Press;  The Times) following concerns over its influence on youth violence, have sparked debates over freedom of speech and the potential for governmental overreach in digital spaces.
• Legislation improvements: The PA has repeatedly underlined the necessity of regulating online media laws to align them with Council of Europe standards 

Intimidation towards journalists

Also, the People's Advocate has issued public statements in the media and on the official website of the institution regarding instances of intimidation against journalists. The case of journalist E.Q. was investigated by the institution. In this case, although procedural actions were taken by the Special Prosecution Against Corruption (SPAK) based on decisions of the Special Court of First Instance Against Corruption and Organized Crime, it was evaluated that the court did not provide guidance to the investigators regarding what exactly they should access. The court authorized SPAK to access and seize the journalist's electronic work tools without limitation, without conducting any analysis or using any other method to protect the confidentiality of journalistic sources and information unrelated to the case.

For these reasons, Moreover, a legitimate suspicion arises that the specific targeting of the complainant with such a measure, and the failure of authorities to apply alternative investigative measures, seems not only to aim at uncovering the source of information leaks but also to punish the complainant for publishing articles, creating a chilling effect not only on the complainant journalist but on all journalists in Albania. Furthermore, there are serious concerns that swift actions, some without a court order, were taken to determine the extent of the journalist's knowledge about communications in the encrypted app SkyECC, which is suspected to involve several people from the criminal world, but also raising suspicions about the involvement of individuals connected to politics, business, or the media.

His isolation in one of SPAK's offices, where he was held locked for about 7 hours, constitutes intimidation and a violation of Article 27/2 of the Constitution, as his freedom was restricted despite not being in any of the cases foreseen by this constitutional provision. It was assessed that from the documentation and information available, there was no urgency to take such measures against journalist E.Q. either by SPAK or by the Special Court of First Instance Against Corruption and Organized Crime, and furthermore, he was not heard, even though he was present in these institutions. He was not given the opportunity to be heard or defend himself before the court, and there is no record of any analysis being conducted by these institutions to carry out this judicial process without his presence.

These actions have violated the special guarantee for the protection of professional secrecy regarding the protection of journalistic sources, as established by Article 159 of the Criminal Procedure Code (KPP). Moreover, they are in contradiction with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), according to which the seizure of equipment can only be done if the circumstances make this action absolutely necessary and the only way to reach the truth, when all other options have been exhausted or are ineffective. The seizure must be proportional, i.e., it should be limited to the minimum amount of data necessary and not include a large number of devices, and only the necessary information should be accessed to avoid revealing information that leads to other sources, always when it remains the only investigative option after the failure of all other avenues.

Gender-specific challenges in media freedom

Based on the issues related to the use of sexist language in the media, the People's Advocate found that this topic needs to be addressed as a fundamental human rights issue within the national legal framework, which currently has gaps. To this end, the PA prepared a recommendation titled “On taking measures for certain legislative changes, with an emphasis on preventing sexism in the media and addressing problems generated by this phenomenon.” 

This recommendation was directed to institutions with legislative initiative powers to introduce amendments and improvements in several key laws, such as Law No. 9970, dated 24.07.2008, "On gender equality in society," the Electoral Code, the Law on Cinematography, Law No. 97/2013, "On audiovisual media in the Republic of Albania," among others. 

In April 2023, the Albanian Parliament approved Law No. 30/2023, which introduced amendments and additions to Law No. 97/2013, "On audiovisual media in the Republic of Albania," incorporating a definition of sexism in the media. Furthermore, with Decision No. 60, dated 10.07.2023, the Audiovisual Media Authority (AMA) approved the Audiovisual Media Broadcasting Code, which includes a dedicated chapter addressing the fight against sexism and the portrayal of gender stereotypes in audiovisual media content. This code also integrates the recommendations provided by the People's Advocate.

Follow-up to the European actors’ recommendations concerning media freedom

Albania has undertaken several measures to enhance media freedom in response to recommendations from European institutions between 2022 and 2024. Albania ratified the Council of Europe Convention on Access to Official Documents, which improves transparency and access to information, aligning with European standards (see “Monitoring media pluralism in the digital era - Application of the media pluralism monitor in the European member states and Candidate Countries in 2023”, Country report: Albania). Also, several activities aiming to create an environment that aligns with European standards on media freedom and independence, were conducted in cooperation with the Council of Europe (see launch of the "Promoting Freedom of Expression in Albania Through Open Dialogue" Project, January 2025 – December 2026) and the OSCE Presence in Albania (OSCE Presence in Albania has been monitoring and supporting media freedom by upgrading professional standards and ensuring the legal framework complies with OSCE principles).

To strengthen media freedom in Albania and across Europe, national and European actors should consider the following key recommendations:

• Strengthen Legal Protections for Journalists focusing on enforcing legal safeguards against intimidation, harassment, and SLAPP cases targeting journalists; implementing harsher penalties for threats or attacks on media professionals as well as ensuring judicial independence in handling cases of media freedom violations.
• Increase Financial and Institutional Support for Independent Media by providing funding for independent journalism to reduce dependence on political or business interests.
• Enhance Implementation of Access to Information Laws to ensure public institutions comply with legal deadlines for responding to information requests.

During the reporting period, Albania faced persistent structural human rights challenges affecting the rule of law. The judiciary struggled with inefficiency, case backlogs, and political interference (see EU 2024 Rule of Law Report, pg. 2 – 9). Corruption remained a pervasive issue, affecting various sectors of governance and the enforcement of anti-corruption measures was inconsistent, undermining public trust in governmental institutions, as highlighted in the EU 2024 Rule of Law Report. Property rights issues persisted, with 80% of registered property data deemed incorrect and 10% of the territory unregistered (see Bertelsmann Stiftung, BTI 2024 Country Report — Albania. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2024, pg. 22) prompting concerns from the European Court of Human Rights. Freedom of the press was threatened by hate speech, physical assaults, and attacks on journalists (see Amnesty International Report “The State of the World’s Human Rights”, April 2024, pg. 73 – 76). 

Anticorruption and checks and balances

The year 2024 has yielded tangible results in the fight against corruption; to be mentioned: the activities of Special Prosecution against Corruption (SPAK), the completion of the number of prosecutors in the Special Prosecution Office, the appointment of judges in the Special Court Against Corruption and Organized Crime, and the full staffing of the National Bureau of Investigation.

However, challenges remain in strengthening oversight mechanisms and ensuring transparency in the activities of public institutions. This includes improving mechanisms for public reporting and upholding the right to information regarding public activities. The People's Advocate has issued several recommendations concerning respect for the right to information by both public institutions and judicial bodies.

Additionally, there is a need to enhance capacities for prosecuting corruption cases at the highest levels of government and public administration to ensure the effective implementation of criminal and procedural law.

Follow-up to the European actors’ recommendations concerning other areas of rule of law

In 2024, Albania took several measures to address European recommendations on the rule of law, focusing on checks and balances and anti-corruption efforts. A Special Anti-Corruption Commission was established in May to lead governance reforms, though the opposition refused to participate. The EU and the Council of Europe launched an anti-corruption training program in June to enhance public officials' skills in preventing corruption. In July, the Coordination Committee for the Fight Against Money Laundering approved the National Strategy on Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (2024-2030) to align legislation with EU standards and improve inter-agency cooperation. These initiatives reflect Albania’s commitment to strengthening the rule of law and governance. 

Structural human rights challenges

The institution of the People's Advocate handles a significant portion of its work through complaints related to property issues. Respect for the right to property is a fundamental and highly important right in a democratic state, and its violation, which is part of fundamental human rights, continues to be a troubling phenomenon for Albanian society. Upon reviewing the complaints, it has been found that in many cases, the deadlines established by the current legislation for addressing citizens' complaints have been flagrantly violated, as well as delays in responding to the People's Advocate. Furthermore, violations of citizens' rights to have their cases addressed within the legally prescribed timeframes, in a legal, transparent, impartial, and fair manner, while actively assisting them, have been identified. These violations, particularly in property rights, have limited the freedoms and rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the law.

Domestic violence and gender equality remained critical, and little progress on LGBTQ+ rights. Migration policies raised concerns over human rights due to the Italy-Albania agreement on migrant processing centres (see Amnesty International Report “The State of the World’s Human Rights”, April 2024, pg. 73 – 76). Additionally, the absence of a Special Medical Institution as a centre of treatment for forensic psychiatric patients, requiring mandatory medical treatment outside of prison conditions has been identified by the PA and CPT report as a key issue.

• The Parliament should strengthen its oversight role over the work of independent institutions for the protection and promotion of human rights, including the continuous enhancement of institutional capacities and ensuring systematic monitoring of the recommendations made by these independent institutions and their implementation.
• The continuation of the justice reform and the swift and full professional efficiency of the organs of the justice system should be prioritized.
• National authorities should take measures to increase institutional capacities, including the allocation of sufficient budgets to strengthen public structures providing services for children, with the goal of protecting them from exclusion, especially those living in poverty, children with disabilities, children belonging to minorities, and other children at risk.

At present, Andorra does not have an accredited National Human Rights Institution. The Andorran Ombudsman (Raonador del Ciutadà) acts as an Ombuds-type institution and performs broader human rights functions, such as on the rights of persons with disabilities, the fight against racism and discrimination, and children's rights.  

The Andorran Ombudsman joined ENNHRI as an associate member in 2022 and committed to taking steps towards future accreditation. ENNHRI provided informal advice to the institution on its legislative framework in the light of the UN Paris Principles. In October 2022, the Venice Commission issued an Opinion on the Law of the Andorran Ombudsman with reference to the Venice Principles on Ombuds institutions. ENNHRI has not yet received further information on whether legislative or other steps are in course to further align the Andorran Ombudsman’s enabling law with relevant standards on NHRIs.  

In January 2024, one of the political groups in Andorra proposed amendments to the enabling law of the Ombudsman, with the goal of strengthening the institution in line with European standards. In November 2024, the General Council adopted a new law on the Ombudsman in line with the recommendations of the Venice Commission.  

ENNHRI is in touch with its member in Andorra and remains available to support the Ombudsman as well as national authorities on the Paris Principles. 

The Human Rights Defender of Armenia (HRDA) was last re-accredited with A-status in October 2024. 

The SCA acknowledged that the HRDA had been actively engaged in publicly addressing key human rights issues in the country, including discrimination, and women’s and LGBTQ+ rights. Recognising that in practice,  that the HRDA interprets its mandate in a broad manner, the SCA recommended it to continue to advocate for the adoption of the proposed amendments to the enabling law which would make explicit functions to promote all human rights set out in international, regional and domestic instruments and encourage ratification and accession to international human rights instruments. 

Additionally, it recommended that the HRDA advocates for an amendment to its enabling legal framework to provide that the term of office of the Human Rights Defender is limited to one reappointment. 

Considering the relevance for single member NHRIs – such as Ombuds institutions – of pluralistic and diverse staff, the SCA recommended that the HRDA continues taking steps to ensure a pluralistic staff and advocating for pluralism, including minority representation, in its composition.  

Further, the SCA acknowledged that the HRDA has sought to improve its budgetary situation and encouraged the HRDA to continue to advocate for an appropriate level of funding to be provided by the State to permit the employment and retention of staff with the requisite qualifications and experience to effectively carry out its mandate. 

Regarding the selection and appointment process, following up to the previous SCA’s recommendation, the HRDA reported that it advocated for amendments to its enabling law to formalise the consultation and participation of civil society, The SCA reiterated its recommendation that a clear, transparent and participatory selection and appointment process for membership of the NHRI’s decision-making body must be included in relevant legislation, regulations or binding administrative guidelines, as appropriate.

The Human Rights Defender of Armenia was re-accredited with the highest “A” status in October 2024. This re-accreditation reflects our continued commitment to upholding the highest standards in human rights protection and strengthening our institutional capacity. We are currently in the process of implementing the recommendations provided by the SCA. Our team is actively working on addressing the outlined areas to ensure full compliance with the recommended actions.  

According to Recommendation CM/Rec(2021)1 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the development and strengthening of effective, pluralist and independent national human rights institutions, national human rights institutions should be easily accessible to everyone. Over the years, the Defender’s Office has implemented the relevant measures to extend its presence in the provinces of Armenia; the Defender’s Office has 5 regional subdivisions, which are located in areas which are accessible for residents of the provinces, including persons with disabilities. It should also be highlighted that the regional subdivisions of the Human Rights Defender’s Office are located near the border communities and villages, taking into consideration the urgent needs of the residents in those areas.  

Furthermore, as of November 15, 2024, the Government of Armenia adopted a decision on the 'On the Repossession and Consolidation of Real Estate’, allocating new premises to the Office of the Human Rights Defender, which adheres to the principles of universal design. The Human Rights Defender highlights that the new building is in need of serious renovation work and is currently unfit for use in its current state.  

The Defender’s Office is currently working on the development of a new official website, with the aim of making it more accessible to all persons, including persons with disabilities and children. 

As recommended by the Committee of Ministers, the institution of the Human Rights Defender is provided with a firm legal basis, namely the Constitutional Law on the Human Rights Defender of Armenia, which was adopted in 2016. The Constitutional Law established the Defender as an independent official, tasked with monitoring the respect for human rights and freedoms by state and local self-government bodies and officials, as well as by private organizations operating in the field of public service, and facilitating the restoration of violated rights and the improvement of the legislation related to human rights and freedoms. Thus, the Human Rights Defender has a wide mandate to protect all human rights; specifically, the Constitutional Law provides the Defender’s Office with the competency to conduct the independent monitoring of the implementation of convention provisions, in particular, the Defender’s Office has the mandate of the National Preventive Mechanism under the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the mandates to monitor the implementation of the provisions of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the provisions of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 

Furthermore, the Committee of Ministers recommend that “have unfettered access to all relevant premises, including places of deprivation of liberty, and to all relevant individuals…to all relevant information…”. the Constitutional Law provides the Human Rights Defender, within the context of her competencies during the course of the examination of a complaint, with the authority to visit in an unimpeded manner, any state or local self-government body or organisation, including military units, as well as places of deprivation of liberty. At the same time, the Defender has the competency to request and receive from state or local self-government bodies or officials the necessary materials, documents, information, clarification related to a complaint that is under consideration at the Defender’s Office, or an issue that is being considered upon her own initiative. 

The Defender’s Office also highlights that the Committee of Ministers have recommended that the NHRIs should be provided with a broad mandate to protect and promote human rights. In this regard, the Defender’s office is mandated to present reports, implements public awareness-raising campaigns and educational programs, conducts monitoring of the human rights protection system, makes decisions on human rights violations and/or cooperates with competent state bodies to restore violated rights, and contributes to the improvement of normative legal acts related to rights and freedoms.  

In 2019, during the previous accreditation process of the Defender’s Office, the SCA recommended the Defender’s Office to strengthen the implementation of its anti-discrimination mandate, in particular regarding LGBTQ+ and women’s rights.  

In this regard, the Defender’s Office has implemented concrete measures to ensure the implementation of its mandate. For example, the protection of women’s rights is one of the priorities of the Defender’s Office; in 2022, the Defender’s Office established the Public Council on Women’s Rights, which is composed of representatives of NGOs and independent specialists with necessary experience in the field of women’s rights protection. The Council supports the Defender in the implementation of her mandate, namely, ensuring women’s legal equality, promoting political participation, preventing violence against women and gender-based violence, etc. 

As stated in the 2024 State of the Rule of Law Report, Armenia still lacks a comprehensive legislative framework which prohibits discrimination; the Defender has highlighted the fact that Armenia does not have a standalone anti-discrimination laws that clearly define discrimination, its various forms, and establishes procedural safeguards to ensure effective protection of rights in cases of discrimination. The draft law “On Ensuring Equality and Protection from Discrimination”, which was developed and circulated in 2019, however, as of this moment, has not been adopted, provides that the Defender will be entrusted with the mandate of the Equality body, providing broader opportunities for the protection of rights. 

The Defender’s Office highlights that the Human Rights Defender actively engages in public activities aimed at the promotion of the adoption of the law; for example, in 2024, the Human Rights Defender participated in a working discussion on the draft package of the law organized at the National Assembly. During the meetings and discussions, the Human Rights Defender has emphasized the imperative role of the above-mentioned law in terms of raising the guarantee of equality and the prohibition of discrimination to an adequate level. 

The Defender’s Office has also conducted activities aimed at protecting the rights and freedoms of LGBTQ+ people; in 2024, the Defender continued her activities in this regard. For example, a panel discussion was dedicated to protecting vulnerable groups, including LGBTQ+ persons, during the high-level conference dedicated to the 20^th anniversary of the Human Rights Defender’s Office; among the panellists of the conference was a representative from an NGO specialised in the protection of the rights of LGBTQ+ persons. The Human Rights Defender studies and analyses the application/complaints addressed to the Defender’s Office; in 2024, the complaints addressed by LGBTQ+ person were related to discrimination, hate speech, and to applying for asylum (receiving refugee status) in Armenia. (Additional information on the activities of the Defender’s Office regarding LGBTQ+ rights are covered in the “Human Rights Defenders and civil society space” section).   

Among the most significant measures realised by the Defender’s Office in this direction is the launching of the implementation of the Gender Equality Seal (GES) for public institutions in 2024, which is implemented for the first time in Armenia, and for the first time for a national human rights institution. The GES is a specifically designed methodology which aims at assisting State institutions to integrate gender equality principles of the 2023 Sustainable Development Agenda (SDG5) in the national legislation by employing and implementing gender-sensitive approaches in their operations. The primary goal of the GES is to advance gender equality by improving the State system. 

Therefore, the Human Rights Defender highlights that during the accreditation process of the Defender’s Office in 2024, the SCA noted that “the HRDA has been engaging actively to publicly address key human rights issues in the country, including discrimination, and the rights of women and LGBTQI people”. 

The main legal act regulating the mandate of the Human Rights Defender of Armenia is the Constitutional Law on the Human Rights Defender (hereinafter also referred to as “the Constitutional Law”), which has not been amended since the last report. 

The Human Rights Defender highlights that in 2024, the Draft Equality Law was actively discussed, during which the Defender highlighted the importance of the need to establish an equality body and assign the function to the Defender’s Office.  

As discussed in the previous ENNHRI report, the Constitutional Law on the Human Rights Defender was amended on December 7, 2022, enlarging the mandate of the Human Rights Defender, extending the powers of the Office also on the protection of the whistleblowers. According to the amendments, the Defender has the competency to consider complaints from whistleblowers and affiliated persons regarding the violation of their rights by public bodies and officials.  

In this regard, the Human Rights Defender for the first time summarized and published the report and statistics related to whistleblowing, based on the relevant statistical data of the state and local self-government bodies, within the framework of the 2023 Annual Report; likewise, the 2024 Annual Report also includes the status of human rights protection of whistleblowers in Armenia. In this regard, no complaints were addressed to the Human Rights Defender regarding violations of the rights of whistleblowers.  

Furthermore, the Defender’s Office conducts capacity raising training for the representatives of the Office. For example, in 2023, the Defender’s Office organized a workshop titled “The Role of the Human Rights Defender in the protection of whistleblowers”, with the participation of international experts. During the workshop, international best practices in the sphere were presented, and the specifics of the role of national human rights institutions in this regard were discussed.  

In 2024, the Defender’s Office continued its awareness raising activities, through the publication of information materials on issues related to human rights and freedoms. For example, the Human Rights Defender published a guide on the taxation system for micro-entrepreneurship; the guide provides information on what is “micro-entrepreneurship”, what are its benefits, the rights violations when persons can apply to the Defender. The guide was the result of the analysis of the complaints addressed to the Defender’s Office, where micro-entrepreneurs were not aware of their rights, thus they were suffering from the administrative decisions and practices of the State bodies, creating obstacles to the development of the sphere of micro-entrepreneurship, and the protection of small business and the guaranteeing of economic competitiveness. 

Furthermore, the Defender has implemented awareness raising activities, visiting different institutions, schools, receiving various groups, and presenting different human rights issues. During the mentioned meetings, issues related to the rights of the child, manifestations of violence against children,  the right to education, the right to be heard and to express freely their opinion, the best interest of the child, the combat against bullying, issues related to intolerance and discrimination, the rights of national minorities, persons with disabilities,  were discussed. 

With regards to strengthening the NHRI’s regulatory framework, the Human Rights Defender has continuously raised the issue that the Constitutional Law does not provide an explicit mandate to the Defender to encourage ratification or accession to regional and international human rights instruments. This issue is also raised by GANHRI’s Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA).   

In this regard, it should be highlighted that the Human Rights Defender already encourages and submits recommendations to the competent state authorities for the ratification of human rights treaties which will significantly improve the system of human rights protection in Armenia. For example, the Human Rights Defender had raised the importance of the ratification of the United Nations International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries (the Mercenary Convention), which was ratified by the National Assembly of Armenia in 2020. Additionally, the Defender emphasized the significance of ratifying the Oviedo Convention (Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine, signed on May 16, 2024), as well as the Istanbul Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence. 

To address the mentioned issue, the Human Rights Defender has cooperated with Deputies of the National Assembly of Armenia, as a result of which, amendments in the Constitutional Law have been initiated that envisage providing the Defender’s Office with the explicit mandate  to submit recommendations regarding the ratification of (accession to) international conventions for the protection of human rights and freedoms, and the subsequent alignment of its domestic legislation with the international obligations assumed by Armenia. All the other SCA recommendations are also covered by the draft amendments. 

State authorities’ awareness of the NHRI’s mandate, independence and role 

In general, the relevant state authorities have good awareness of the mandate of the Human Rights Defender. Addressing issues related to human rights protection effectively requires cooperation with both national institutions and international partners. The Human Rights Defender, within the scope of her mandate, cooperates with the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, local self-government bodies, law enforcement agencies, while at the same time maintaining the institutional independence of the Office.  

In particular, during 2024, the Defender has participated in the sessions (sittings) of the Government. Additionally, the Defender also participated in the sessions of the National Assembly of Armenia; in this context, the Defender and the representatives of the Defender’s Office participated in public discussions, parliamentary hearings, and consultations. In particular, in 2024, the Human Rights Defender presented the Annual Report of the Defender’s Office and participated in the discussions of the parliamentarians and the Standing Committees of the National Assembly.  

NHRI’s access to information, law- and policy-making processes 

The Constitution and Constitutional Law provide the Defender with the competences to improve the regulatory legal acts related to human rights and freedoms. In this regard, the Defender’s Office has four different functions: 

Drafting of legal acts:

In this regard, when the Human Rights Defender reveals during the implementation of her activities that issues related to human rights and freedoms are not regulated by law or a legal act, and are not fully regulated, the Defender can submit to the competent state body recommendations, indicating the necessity and the extent of introducing amendments or supplements to the legal act. 

For example, the Defender’s Office developed draft laws providing for amendments to the Law on the Detention of Arrested and Detained Persons" and to the Penal Code of the Republic of Armenia. These drafts propose that non-smoking persons deprived of their liberty, due to their health condition and based on the conclusion of the head of the medical unit, be kept separate from smokers, including in medical units located in places of deprivation of liberty, as well as at events organized for prisoners.  

The Defender’s Office developed the draft based on the complaints addressed to the Human Rights Defender, and the analysis conducted by the Defender’s Office. This issue has been continuously raised by the Human Rights Defender and is a systemic issue which is yet to be resolved. The drafts have been submitted to the competent state authorities. 

Providing legal opinions on the draft legal acts:   

The Constitutional law provides the Human Rights Defender with the explicit mandate to submit a written opinion on draft normative legal acts regarding human rights and freedoms prior to their adoption by the relevant body. 

In 2024, 173 drafts of a number of constitutional laws, codes and laws and other legal acts, subject to new regulation or complete amendment, were submitted to the Defender for consideration, in respect of which 226 comments were prepared taking into account international standards, as well as legislative norms. 

The Human Rights Defender highlights that 70 percent of the Defender’s comments regarding the draft packages submitted to the Defender for an opinion and included in the agendas of ministerial committees and Government sessions were adopted by the competent authorities, and appropriate amendments were made to the drafts based on them. 

Work with the Constitutional court: 

The Constitutional Law provides the Human Rights Defender with the capacity to apply to the Constitutional Court on matters of compliance of laws, decisions of the National Assembly, decrees and orders of the President of the Republic, decisions of the Government and the Prime Minister, and sub-legislative normative legal acts. 

In 2024, the Human Rights Defender presented three applications to the Constitutional Court and submitted two special opinions (amicus curiae). 

For example, pursuant to an application submitted by the Human Rights Defender, the Constitutional Court has found the legislative restriction on the use of assisted reproductive technologies due to age to be unconstitutional. 

In particular, the Constitutional Court recognized Article 12, Part 1, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Law "On Human Reproductive Health and Reproductive Rights", in terms of providing for an age limit for the exercise of the right to use assisted reproductive technologies, as contradictory to Article 31, Part 1 of the Constitution, and invalid. 

The Defender’s Office highlights that in an application addressed to the Constitutional Court on June 10, 2024, the Human Rights Defender challenged the establishment of an absolute ban on the use of assisted reproductive technologies based on age. 

It should be noted that amendments were made to the provisions challenged by the Defender on July 12, 2024, establishing a different age threshold, Nevertheless, the Defender maintained that the revised regulation remained inconsistent with the Constitution, as it continued to impose an absolute age-based prohibition. 

In this regard, the Constitutional Court has noted that possible physiological changes affecting reproduction due to age are not absolute and unconditional in nature and are subject to individual professional assessment in each case. 

Work with the National Assembly:   

The cooperation between the Defender’s Office and the National Assembly is imperative from the viewpoint of the promotion of human rights standards and the improvement of the system of human rights protection in Armenia. Within the context of the cooperation of the Defender’s Office with the National Assembly, the Human Rights Defender and the representatives of the Defender’s Office participate in public discussions, parliamentary hearings, and consultations. Furthermore, the Human Rights Defender cooperates with the National Assembly in the following directions: presentation of the annual reports, providing relevant recommendation, indicating the necessity and the extent of making amendments or supplements to the legal act related to human rights and freedoms. participation in the sittings of the Standing Committees of the National Assembly, providing legal analysis regarding human rights issues upon the application of the National Assembly. 

For example, in 2024, the Human Rights Defender participated in the working discussion of the draft Law on Ensuring Equality and Protection from Discrimination, during which the Deputies of the National Assembly, representatives of State and local self-government bodies also participated. 

The Defender also participated in the parliamentary hearings regarding issues that were intended to be presented in the national report of the Republic of Armenia during the fourth cycle of the Universal Periodic Review. 

However, it should be underscored that in certain cases, the Defender’s Office has faced certain obstacles or hindrances during the implementation of its mandate: 

• Cases have been registered where several draft laws related to human rights and freedoms are not submitted to the Defender for an opinion. For example, instances where drafts concerning tax legislation or the rights of persons with disabilities were not submitted to the Defender.
• The Defender highlights that although drafts are submitted to the Defender for an opinion, the deadlines set by the relevant state authorities for submitting a written opinion are often shorter in practice than those specified in the Decision of the Government of the Republic of Armenia No. 252-Լ of 25 February 2021 “On Approving the Operations Order of the Government”. It is also important to emphasize that drafts submitted for opinion within short deadlines are often large in scale, requiring adequate time to study them thoroughly for the purpose of providing a comprehensive opinion. 

NHRI’s resources  

The Human Rights Defender underlines that the adequate funding of the Human Rights Defender’s Office is provided for by the Constitution of Armenia. At the same time, according to the Constitutional Law, the budget of the Defender and the Defender’s Office constitutes a part of the State Budget, which is funded in a separate line; furthermore, the activities of the Defender as the National Preventive Mechanism are also funded from the same budget line. It should be highlighted that the Constitutional Law provides that the State funding of the Defender’s Office cannot be less than the amount provided in the year before (the budget cannot be reduced from year to year). This principle enhances the long-term efficiency and institutional independence of the Human Rights Defender. Nevertheless, while the budget financing meets the basic mandatory needs to ensure the continuous and effective function of the Defender’s Office, the latter emphasizes the need to advocate for further increase in the salary level and guarantees for the Staff of the Defender’s Office, to increase the attractiveness of service at the Defender’s Office and taking into consideration the complex level of the activities and work conducted.  

Moreover, as stated above, it should be highlighted that as a result of the discussions between the Defender and the competent authorities, a new building in Yerevan will be allocated to Human Rights Defender (for the main office), based on the Government Decision N 1785-Ա «On the Repossession and Consolidation of Real Estate».  

The decision is highly significant, as it represents the initial step toward resolving the ongoing issue of improving the conditions for the effectiveness of the Human Rights Defender’s Office. This particularly pertains to the necessity of effectively managing the improvement of the Office's working conditions and the recruitment of staff, as well as guaranteeing the proper and confidential handling of private interviews with individuals who have filed applications and complaints with the Defender. Additionally, it includes ensuring the building is accessible to people with disabilities and facilitating the organization of events within the Office building that involve their participation.  

To guarantee the right of every person to apply to the Human Rights Defender, regional subdivisions of the Defender’s Office have been established in five provinces of Armenia (Syunik, Gegharkunik, Tavush, Lori, Shirak provinces). The subdivisions are located in areas which are accessible to people living in the mentioned provinces.  

The Human Rights Defender’s Office is also equipped with the necessary human resources to adequately implement the mandate of the Defender. In this regard, the Defender has raised the issue of ensuring an appropriate and sufficient salary level for the representatives of the Defender’s Office, given the recent tendency of increasing the monthly salaries of investigators and prosecutors (by 92 percent of the official rate), while the Defender’s staff salaries have remained unchanged. 

Timely and reasoned responses to NHRI recommendations 

No specific changes have been implemented in this regard; every year, during the preparation of the annual report of the Defender’s Office, inquiries are sent to various competent state bodies to gather information on the issues registered by the Defender throughout the year. 

In 2024, the recommendations submitted in the 2023 Annual Report were sent to the relevant authorities to clarify the actions and steps taken to implement those recommendations during the year. The information will be covered in the 2024 annual report of the Defender’s Office. 

NHRI leadership and staff immunity  

The Constitution of Armenia provides the Human Rights Defender with universal immunity. According to Article 193 of the Constitution, the right to immunity which is prescribed to the Deputies of the National Assembly of Armenia is also extended to the Defender. 

The National Assembly must approve the initiation of criminal prosecution or deprivation of liberty for the Defender, requiring at least three-fifths of the total number of Deputies to consent. Furthermore, Article 6 of the Constitutional Law further provides that the Defender cannot be prosecuted or held accountable for actions performed within the scope of his/her mandate, including opinions expressed in the National Assembly, both during and after his/her term in office. Criminal prosecution or deprivation of liberty can only occur with the National Assembly's consent, requiring a majority of three-fifths of the members of the National Assembly. Additionally, the Defender cannot, both during his/her term of office and afterward, be compelled to testify as a witness about any applications or complaints submitted to him/her, the content of documents gathered during the review or consideration of a complaint, or the decisions made by him/her. This is an absolute prohibition. 

The Constitutional Law also provides protections for the representatives of the Human Rights Defender’s Office; staff members, specialists, and independent experts of the National Preventive Mechanism. Additionally, the Constitutional Law provides for immunity for the Defender and the representatives of the Defender’s Office, protecting them from criminal and civil liability for actions taken in good faith while fulfilling their duties. The Constitutional Law also provides for the prohibition of the questionings as witnesses of the representatives of the Defender’s Office and independent experts of the National Preventive Mechanism about the nature of applications or complaints addressed to the Defender or the decisions rendered by the Defender based on their examination (the questioning are only possible after obtaining the written consent of the Defender).  

Overall, the Constitutional Law guarantees the functional immunity of the Defender and the representatives of the Defender’s Office and the NPM and sufficiently safeguards them from criminal and civil liability on the basis of activities conducted in good faith in performing the mandate of the Defender’s Office. 

The Criminal Code of Armenia, in particular Articles 492, 493, and 494 provide criminal liability for the obstruction of the exercise of the powers of the Human Rights Defender, threatening and committing violence against him/her, and insulting or publicly disrespecting him/her. 

Threats faced by the NHRI  

In 2022, cases of offensive and sexist speech against the former Human Rights Defender of Armenia were registered. The gendered nature of the hate speech was highlighted, as mentioned in the ENNHRI’s Report on the State of the Rule of Law in Europe in 2023. Furthermore, Ms. Grigoryan was the victim of hacking through the Pegasus spyware while she was still serving her tenure as the Human Rights Defender.  

The ENNHRI’s Report on the State of the Rule of Law in Europe in 2024 highlighted the fact that the Human Rights Defender Ms. Anahit Manasyan has been the target of gender-based hate speech and statements from certain political actors since her election in 2023. The Defender was targeted by certain political figures and their affiliates solely due to her efforts in advocating for the rights of vulnerable groups, such as persons with disabilities, LGBTQ+ persons, protection of persons with different religious beliefs, ethnic minorities, and her commitment and the concrete measures undertaken in the direction of ensuring gender equality. One of the most concerning circumstances in this context is that the gender-based hate and insulting speech against the Human Rights Defender has been spread by the candidate to the Human Rights Defender’s position presented by certain political forces in 2023. The attacks on the head of the Armenian NHRI continued throughout 2024. 

Amidst a disturbing trend, a number of statements containing hate speech and insults have been directed towards the Defender, particularly during her public addresses on gender equality issues.  

Furthermore, the groundless criticism and the cases of hate speech and insults directed against the Human Rights Defender created real threats to the proper function of the Defender’s Office. It is particularly concerning that the targeting of the Human Rights Defender is carried out by “human rights defenders” and lawyers affiliated with certain political forces.  

The harassment campaign against the Human Rights Defender has been mainly through online platforms; this has resulted in the hindering and obstructing the activities of the Defender’s Office, including calls for not applying or addressing complaints to the Defender’s Office, which is a Constitutional right in Armenia, and has distorted the public perception of the situation of human rights protection in Armenia. Furthermore, a case was registered where a political actor attempted to obstruct the communication of the citizens with the Defender when they were presenting their problems to the Human Rights Defender, by guiding them what they should tell or not mention during their dialogue.  

In another case the advocate affiliated with the same political figures started targeting the representatives of the Defender’s office by using insulting language. All those campaigns were organized and coordinated by certain political forces and actors affiliated with them. The latter have been regularly implementing hatred and insult campaigns against the Human Rights’ Defender and the office. At the same time, during some political processes those campaigns became more and more threatening, as these figures started calling their followers not to apply to the Defender’s office, as well as started factually obstructing the activities of the Defender. Noting the politically polarized atmosphere in Armenia, as well as politicization of all the human rights issues, this is used for political goals and is creating real threats for the proper activities of the Defender’s office. 

Taking into consideration the above-mentioned, in June 2024, the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI) released a statement urging all parties in Armenia to uphold international standards, which include protecting the Defender’s Office from any acts that could undermine its independence and effectiveness. In the statement, ENNHRI emphasized that national human rights institutions should function without political interference, and all stakeholders should support the efforts of building public trust in the Defender’s Office. The statement issued by ENNHRI also highlighted the fact that the campaign against the Defender’s Office was organized and coordinated. 

The Human Rights Defender’s Office recommends the competent state authorities to: 

• Protect the Defender’s Office from intimidation and harassment by certain political actors, and persons affiliated with them, and address the threats issued against the Institution and its Head.
• Increase the awareness of the population in general, and politicians, public officials and figures about the role of the Human Rights Defender and her mandate.
• Submit draft laws for the opinion of the Defender’s Office with a deadline set by the Government Decision No. 252-Լ (based on Council of Europe Recommendations on NHRIs). 

As a result of the monitoring activities conducted by the Defender’s Office of assemblies, protests and gatherings during 2024, systemic issues of continuous nature were registered. For example: 

• Mass administrative arrests (detention) of the participants of the assemblies in violation of national regulations and international standards,
• Procedural violations of deprivation of liberty (for example failure to submit a legal claim before deprivation of liberty, keeping a person deprived of freedom for more than the prescribed period and determining the initial moment of deprivation of liberty),
• Use of disproportionate force during administrative arrest, a disrespectful treatment by Police officers,
• Failure to comply with the requirement to immediately inform the person of the reasons for deprivation of liberty and to notify the rights arising from the status, etc. 

The above-mentioned problems are particularly worrying in the context that they have been ongoing for years, while some of them are based on legislation that is no longer relevant and is unconstitutional. The issue of the relevance of legislation on administrative offenses and their proceedings was already addressed in the Constitutional Court's Decision No. SDO-1339 of January 24, 2017, based on the application of the Defender. According to the decision, the adoption of a new Code on Administrative Offenses of Armenia is an urgent need from the perspective of establishing constitutional legitimacy in the country. These issues have a systemic nature, and their overcoming implies the need for serious systemic changes. 

During 2024, assemblies and protests were held in Yerevan and several provinces of Armenia. To ensure the guaranteeing of the right of peaceful assembly, and the peaceful nature of the protests, the Defender’s Office was working in a round-the-clock regime (emergency mode), based on the instructions of the Defender. 

The rapid response groups of the Defender’s Office visited the Police departments where the apprehended participants of the assemblies were taken, to hold private interviews with them, present them their rights, and register the situation of guaranteeing their human rights on the spot. Furthermore, the Defender’s Office analysed the complaints which were addressed to the Defender and conducted monitoring of the mass media and social media platforms to register violations of rights, and to implement the necessary measures. It should be highlighted that during the intense period of protests and assemblies which were being held in Yerevan and the provinces of Armenia, the Defender released public statements calling on the State to ensure the peaceful nature of the assemblies.   

As a result of the monitoring conducted by the Defender, cases of disproportionate use of force by the Police and the competent authorities were registered. In particular, the persons who were arrested by Police officers mentioned about the fact of the use of disproportionate force; furthermore, in certain cases Police officers did not present any legal demands to the protesters, while the reason for their arrest was based on non-fulfilment of the demands of the Police officers. Additionally, information has been received by the Defender’s Office on the use of disproportionate force by Police officers on those arrested, when they were already under their custody. At the same time, during the private interview with the Police officers who were injured during the protests (and receiving medical assistance), it was registered that protesters threw objects in their direction, as a result of which they received physical injuries. 

The Defender’s Office also highlights that cases of the use of special measures, for example stun grenades, by the Police during the protests and assemblies were also registered. The Defender requested that the competent state bodies examine the legality of the use of the special measures. The Human Rights Defender registers that criminal proceedings have been initiated regarding the incident of the use of a stun grenade. The Defender’s Office notes that it is essential to implement the examination in a rapid manner, and in case of violation, to hold those responsible accountable.  

Furthermore, the Defender highlights the fact that during the protests and assemblies, cases of obstruction of the professional activities of mass media representatives and journalists, their targeting and violence against them, were registered. 

The Defender’s Office has underlined that the targeting the representatives of mass media and journalists while implementing their professional activities is inadmissible, and the competent state authorities should investigate any case that might indicate the obstruction of the activities of the aforementioned. 

In recent years, the Human Rights Defender has been actively involved in protecting and promoting the rights of LGBTQ+ persons. 

In 2024, the Human Rights Defender, with the representatives of the Defender’s Office, participated in discussions held in the National Assembly with representatives from state bodies, of the draft package of the Republic of Armenia's Law on “Ensuring Equality and Protection from Discrimination”, as well as related legislation. 

The Defender has also provided a number of comments on the draft package of the Republic of Armenia's Law on “Ensuring Equality and Protection from Discrimination”. 

A representative of the Human Rights Defender's staff participated in a conference dedicated to Pride Month, organized by the Public Organization for the Advancement of Rights. 

On the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia, and Transphobia was observed, with its purpose being to unite the efforts and struggles of LGBTQ+ individuals, human rights defenders, and other stakeholders to raise awareness about the violations faced by LGBTQ+ people and to create an inclusive society free from discrimination, hatred, and intolerance. On this occasion, the 'Pink' Human Rights Organization organized a roundtable discussion titled 'The Situation of Human Rights of LGBQ+ Individuals in Armenia.' The discussion was attended by human rights defenders, LGBTQ+ individuals, as well as representatives from international organizations, embassies, and state bodies, including the Human Rights Defender, who delivered a welcoming speech. 

The Human Rights Defender attended a reception dedicated to Pride Month at the U.S. Embassy in Armenia, where representatives of the LGBTQ+ community were also present. The Defender also delivered a welcoming speech. 

A representative of the Defender's Office participated in a meeting-discussion organized by the 'Diversity' socio-cultural and human rights organization, as part of the observance of Gender Equality Day in Armenia on July 27. The discussion focused on the prevention of violence against transgender individuals and sex workers in Armenia. 

During 2023-2024, representatives of the Defender’s Office also held numerous meetings with representatives of civil society, public organizations advocating for the rights of LGBTQ+ Persons, and members of the LGBTQ+ community.  

The protection and promotion of women’s rights is also among the priority directions of the activities of the Human Rights Defender. For example, in 2024, the Human Rights participated in the "Katarin-Tavush" women's political leadership conference, and acted as a speaker on the topic "Promotion of women's rights as a guarantee of gender equality". The event was attended by more than 50 women from the educational, art and health sectors. The Human Rights Defender also joined the 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence, participated in a panel discussion organized as part of an Expanded Meeting of the Gender Thematic Group. The event aimed to review activities after the adoption of the Law on Prevention of Violence within the Family, Protection of Victims of Violence within the Family and Restoration of Peace in the Family, to identify the key priorities of the upcoming years, and to address challenges faced by women during humanitarian crises. 

In 2024, the Human Rights Defender received representatives of NGOs dealing with environmental issues. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss existing environmental issues in relation to the human rights protection system. 

During the meeting, the representatives of the NGOs stated that there is ongoing pressure on environmental activists, environmental organizations, human rights defenders, and residents of affected communities in relation to harmful mining projects, including attempts to misrepresent their real objectives. According to these individuals, this is reflected in the presence of hate speech, insults, and defamatory publications, which appear, inter alia, in public speeches and interviews. 

According to human rights defenders and environmentalists, this is also evident in the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs). These issues have been ongoing since 2023, with various international actors focused on human rights, environmental issues, and public participation also expressing concern. 

The Human Rights Defender highlights that, in 2023, the Berne Convention Standing Committee found allegations regarding restrictions on public involvement and the unprecedented number of SLAPPs aimed at hindering public participation to be concerning. The Armenian legislation does not contain any provisions aimed at the prevention of SLAPPs or the protection of the victims of SLAPPs. 

During the meeting, civil society representatives also referred to perceived pressures on environmentalists, as well as obstacles to accessing and obtaining information on environmental issues. 

As stated, concerns have been raised that in 2024, defamatory attacks and hate speech intensified following the publication of a statement on the controversial “Amulsar” mine project in January, which was signed by 118 NGOs and 57 Armenian citizens. 

In 2023, the Defender’s Office registered cases of interference in the activities of CSOs/NGOs and human rights defenders. For example, the president of the "Direct Democracy" NGO reported that during a meeting of the Council of Elders in the Vanadzor community of Lori province, the acting Head of the Community publicly insulted the chairman of the NGO and members of the "Armenian Deaf Society" NGO. In this regard the Defender addressed a letter to the Corruption Prevention Commission of Armenia. In response, the Commission provided clarification, stating that individuals holding public positions (excluding MPs, judges, members of the Central Committee, prosecutors, investigators), heads of communities, their deputies, heads of administrative districts of the Yerevan community, are subject to the rules of conduct outlined in the Code of Conduct. These rules are derived from the principles defined by the Law on Prevention Commission. The Commission, prompted by the letter from the Human Rights Defender, addressed the acting Head of the Vanadzor community. The Commission did not initiate an investigation because the Code of Conduct had not entered into force at the time of the incident. The Commission acknowledged the concerning nature of the incident described in the application. Thus, the Commission recommended taking appropriate measures, including raising awareness about the principle of the Code of Conduct, and the necessity to adhere to the rules. 

In 2024, representatives of CSOs have presented to the Human Rights Defender the long-standing pressure in the Republic of Armenia against environmental activists, environmental organizations, human rights defenders, and residents of affected communities who speak out against harmful mining projects, including attempts to distort their true purpose. As stated in ENNHRI’s 2024 Report on the State of Rule of Law in Europe, according to representatives of CSOs, the aforementioned pressures were intensified by a statement raising concerns about the controversial Amulsar mine project and were expressed through hate speech, insults, defamatory publications, which were included, inter alia, in public speeches and interviews, as well as strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). 

In the Republic of Armenia, human rights defenders are frequently targeted for their efforts, particularly in advocating for vulnerable groups. In this light, it is imperative for the state to develop and implement robust mechanisms that effectively prevent and address such harmful actions, ensuring the safety of those conducting their activities to defend human rights.

NHRI's initiatives to support civil society space and HRDs 

The Human Rights Defender highly values the role of civil society organizations (CSOs) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in an open, transparent, and democratic society; the role of these organizations is imperative in the effort to strengthen the system of human rights protection and perform a democratic oversight function over the State institutions. In 2024, the cooperation of the Defender’s Office with CSOs and NGOs specialized in the various spheres of human rights protection was continuous.  

It is important to highlight that the basis of cooperation of the Defender’s Office is the Constitutional Law. For example, it provides that NGOs can apply to the Defender, with the written consent of the person, for the purpose of protection of his/her rights. Furthermore, the Constitutional Law provides that the Defender’s Office can establish councils adjunct to the Defender; the councils are composed of NGOs, CSOs, and independent experts. 

In this regard, the Defender’s Office has established 6 public councils adjunct to the Defender:  the Council on Children and Youth Rights, the Council for the Protection of the Rights of People with Disabilities, the Advisory Council for the Prevention of Torture, the Women’s Rights Council, the Expert Council on Human Rights Protection in the Armed Forces, the Council on Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Persons Belonging to National Minorities. In 2024, more than 10 sessions of the adjunct councils were held. 

Moreover, the Human Rights Defender also organizes workshops and discussions regarding specific human rights issues registered in the country. For example, based on the initiative of the Human Rights Defender, a workshop/discussion was organized on the use of special measures, physical force, and weapons in penitentiary institutions and detention centres in Armenia. The workshop was attended by representatives of State bodies, deputies of the National Assembly, Ambassadors, and representatives of CSOs and NGOs. 

The Defender’s Office and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) jointly organized a workshop titled “Limitations and opportunities: Challenges of refugees and asylum seekers in Armenia" highlighting issues registered in the sphere of the protection of the rights of refugees, asylum seekers, and forcibly displaced persons, and the best practices in overcoming them, the achievements and existing challenges in the sphere, the current state of protection of their rights in our country, and the gaps in legislation; civil society organizations specialized in the field participated in the workshop, and provided their valuable input. 

Highlighting the importance of the relationship and cooperation between civil society and State, the members of the Public Council on the rights of children and young people adjunct to the Defender were hosted by the National Assembly. During the meeting, the members of the Council presented their priorities, direction of activities and issues registered in the sphere, among which are the provision of alternative care, provision of accessible environment for children with disabilities, and identifying and responding to bullying in educational institutions. 

The Human Rights Defender also holds regular meetings with the representatives of CSOs and NGOs to discuss thematic issues in the field of human rights protection, and to collaborate on specific directions. Among the topics discussed during such meetings refer to the protection and promotion of women’s rights, and the measures undertaken in Armenia in this regard, the rights of children, persons with disabilities, and national minorities, issues related to environmental rights, and access to public services, medical facilities, and adherence to professional ethics. 

For example, the Defender’s Office organized discussion on "the protection and promotion of women's rights in the field of business" in Gegharkunik province, during which more than 40 women engaged in various activities in the business sector of the region participated, including representatives of NGOs and forcibly displaced persons. Human rights issues, including socio-economic problems, were highlighted. 

The Defender also highly values the role the representatives of CSOs and NGOs perform in the process of development and drafting of laws and legislation, and decisions that may affect the stakeholders of CSOs and NGOs. In this regard, the draft Law on National Minorities was discussed during a session of the Public Council for the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Persons Belonging to National Minorities adjunct to the Defender. During the session representatives of NGOs that are members of the Council, as well as the representative of Yazidi Centre for Human Rights (non-member) participated in the works of drafting the document. The Human Rights Defender notes that the members of the Public Council presented their observations, comments, and suggestions regarding the draft law; the Defender’s Office summarized the suggestions and presented it to the competent state bodies. 

The Human Rights Defender is an independent official, tasked with monitoring the respect for human rights and freedoms by state and local self-government bodies and officials, as well as by private organizations operating in the field of public service, and facilitating the restoration of violated rights and the improvement of the legislation related to human rights and freedoms. 

The Human Rights Defender continuously monitors the sphere and highlights the obligation of the State not to impede the lawful activities of human rights defenders and NGOs; in this regard, the Defender’s Office underscores the importance of the imperative need for the State to prevent and eliminate obstacles which may exist which hinder the activities of human rights defenders and NGOs. The Defender also emphasizes the need to protect the activities of human rights defenders, denouncing intolerant and discriminatory treatment towards them, to address hate speech. 

Additionally, the Defender has the competency to consider complaints from whistle-blowers and affiliated persons regarding the violation of their rights, by public bodies and officials. 

The Defender’s Office also highlights issues registered in the sphere of the protection of the rights of human rights defenders. CSOs and NGOs are one of the priorities of the activities of the Defender and are presented as a separate chapter in the annual reports of the Defender’s Office.  

Furthermore, as part of the commitment of the Human Rights Defender in supporting human rights defenders, the Defender’s Office has actively engaged with international and regional mechanisms, including cooperating with OSCE/ODIHR.  

The collaboration of the Defender’s Office with OSCE/ODIHR has been instrumental in addressing key challenges and strengthening the protection mechanisms for those who face risks due to activities related to human rights.  

The Defender’s Office actively participates in various initiatives. This includes involvement in the annual NHRI Academy, which serves as a platform for capacity-building and knowledge sharing.  

This year, the Academy will focus on enhancing the capacity of NHRIs to protect human rights defenders. The goal is to equip NHRIs with the tools and knowledge needed to address the threats and challenges faced by human rights defenders, leveraging their institution’s mandate for protection, monitoring, promotion, and cooperation.

• The Defender calls upon the State to develop and implement measures to prevent and eliminate any obstacles to the lawful activities of human rights defenders and CSOs/NGOs.
• The Defender recommends the State to conduct effective investigation of cases of hindering the lawful activities of CSOs/NGOs and establish clear mechanisms of accountability for violations of the rules of conduct.
• Ensure proper investigation of cases of targeting of and attacks against representatives of CSOs/NGOs.  

Based on its human rights monitoring and reporting, the Defender’s Office highlights that, as a result of changes to the Tax Code of the Republic of Armenia, starting from October 1, 2024, businesses providing legal services will pay a 10% tax instead of the previous 5%, negatively affecting access to legal aid. Additionally, starting from January 1, 2025, they will be subject to around 20% VAT and 18% corporate tax, which is calculated based on the difference between taxable profits and deductions attributed to the gross income of the tax year.

On April 25, 2024, the Human Rights Defender publicly released a position on the proposed changes to the Tax Code during the drafting phase and submitted it to the Ministry of Finance of Armenia. In the position, the Defender expressed concerns that the proposed draft did not include an assessment of the legality of the tax policy changes in accordance with international standards, nor did it present an evaluation of the potential impacts and risks of the new regulation on the human rights protection system. Furthermore, adequate public awareness efforts and necessary consultations with stakeholders had not been implemented.

The Defender has identified the issue of the emergence of tax obligations in the case of providing free legal assistance as the primary concern.

Given the aforementioned changes, the Human Rights Defender has made every effort within the scope of her mandate to address the concerns of all interested parties. This includes publicly expressing a position during the drafting phase of legislative changes, presenting issues raised by civil society organizations and the legal community to the Constitutional Court, and creating a platform for dialogue for all concerned parties. It is worrying that a final solution has not yet been reached regarding the tax obligations imposed on lawyers providing free legal aid.

The Human Rights Defender remains in ongoing communication with the competent state bodies regarding the legislative regulations on tax obligations for lawyers offering free legal aid, following recent amendments to the Tax Code. The Defender emphasizes the importance of continued efforts to address these issues.

At the same time, the Defender’s Office has welcomed the steps taken by the competent authority to resolve the situation. In this context, the Defender also underscores the importance of the involvement of all interested parties in the decision-making process. The guarantee of free legal aid remains under the attention of the Defender’s Office. 

NHRI's actions to support implementation of European Courts' judgments

The annual reports of the Human Rights Defender, in which issues related to human rights violations, and provides recommendations to the relevant state authorities to improve the system of human rights protection in Armenia, also refers to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Thus, for example, in the 2024 annual report, the Defender’s Office made reference to several judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, including the Moskal v. Poland (10373/05) regarding the pension rights and social security; Brincat and Others v. Malta (60908/11, 62110/11, 62129/11, 62312/11 and 62338/11) within the context of labour rights; Buturugă v. Romania (56867/15) related to the right of respect for private and family life, 

Moreover, the Defender also highlights the importance of the judgments and the role of the ECtHR during events dedicated to human rights education; for example, in 2024, the Human Rights Defender presented a lecture during the fourth course of the Academy of International Law, which was a two-day training organized in cooperation with the Defender’s Office and the Armenian International Law Association. During the training, the students, inter alia, were introduced to the functions of the ECtHR and its judgments.

Regarding the raising of awareness about the judgements of the ECtHR among the general public, the Human Rights Defender refers to the judgements of the ECtHR in the statements published regarding human rights violations. For example, the Defender’s Office released a statement regarding a violation of the right to personal liberty of a person who was kept in a psychiatric institution for 3 months without justification for the need for inpatient treatment. In the statement, the Defender’s Office referred to the judgement of the ECtHR in the case of T.A. v. Armenia (2648/22). The ECtHR ruled that a person cannot be deprived of their liberty as "having mental health issues" unless the following three minimum conditions are met:

1. The fact of having a mental health issue must be confirmed by the competent authorities based on an objective medical examination.
2. The mental disorder must be of such a type or degree that it requires mandatory deprivation of liberty.
3. The justification for continuing the detention of the individual depends on the continuity of the mental disorder.

Furthermore, the Human Rights Defender and the representatives of the Defender’s Office participate in workshops/trainings regarding the implementation of the judgements of the ECtHR; for example, in 2024, the Human Rights Defender delivered the opening speech during the interdepartmental workshop on the implementation of the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights against Armenia, which was held within the framework of the Council of Europe’s “Fostering Human Rights in the Armed Forces of Armenia” program. The aim of the workshop was to promote the resolution of the issues raised in the Muradyan v, Armenian case (11275/07).

Additionally, in 2025, the representatives of the Defender’s Office participated in a training aimed at developing their capacities regarding submitting special positions (Rule 9 Submissions) to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. The training was conducted by a representative from the Department for the Execution of Judgements of the ECtHR. Inter alia, the representatives of the Defender’s Office were presented with the process of executing ECtHR judgments, Armenia's experience, and the important role of the Human Rights Defender in the execution process.

In this regard, it should be highlighted that the representatives of the Defender’s Office conducted a study visit to France. During the study visit, meetings were organized with representatives of the Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe and the ECtHR, and discussions were held on the problems of the displaced population, issues related to the protection of rights, as well as issues related to the protection of human rights in biomedicine. The study was implemented within the context of the "Protection of Human Rights in Biomedicine II", and “Strengthening Human Rights Protection for Displaced Persons in Armenia” projects of the Council of Europe.

The Defender’s Office also submits Rule 9 communications to the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers as an independent assessment of the execution of ECtHR judgments by Armenia. For example, as discussed in the ENNHRI’s 2023 Report on the State of the Rule of Law in Europe, the Defender submitted a Rule 9 communication related to the case of Shirkhanyan v. Armenia (54547/160), which is part of the “Ashot Harutyunyan v Armenia” case group. The case addresses the lack of proper medical care, support, and access to outdoor exercise for a detainee with health problems, which led to degrading treatment.

Currently, there are 70 cases against Armenia transmitted to supervision, which are pending execution, out of which 27 are leading cases.

The Human Rights Defender highlights that the Armenian authorities have taken relevant steps in the direction of the execution of the judgements of the ECtHR; for example, in December 2024, in the Virabyan v. Armenia (40094/05), one of the leading cases,  the Committee of Ministers noted the important developments and progress which were achieved through a series of general measures which were adopted to address ill-treatment by police and ineffective investigation, and decided to close their supervision of the case.

Similarly, the Defender’s Office also notes that the Committee of Ministers also closed its supervision of the Ashot Harutyunyan v Armenia (34334/04) case (leading case); in this regard, the Committee of Ministers encouraged the authorities to continue their efforts to improve the healthcare system of the penitentiary institutions, highlighting the progress achieved through the implementation of a series of general measures.

In 2024, the issues in the field of mass media in Armenia, including the absence of an effective system of self-regulation for the media and a lack of terminology in line with international standards, continued to remain relevant. The Human Rights Defender's concerns and observations regarding the proposed amendments to the 'Law on Mass Media' were presented to the representatives of the Venice Commission delegation in 2024.

In this regard, the Venice Commission emphasized that the current legislative and institutional mechanisms governing the media in Armenia have significant shortcomings. For example, among the issues registered by the Venice Commission in this regard were related to the definition of “mass media”; according to the Commission, the concept and definition of mass media are fluid, while the definition provided for in the current ‘Law on Mass Media’ has become outdated. Thus, the Commission has recommended revising the definition of “mass media” to ensure full compliance with Committee of Ministers Recommendation CM/Rec(2011)7 on a new notion of media. Furthermore, the Commission has also noted that the Law on Mass Media does not yet adequately regulate the functioning of the media self-regulation framework, including the definition of various media content types and the assessment of content accuracy and reliability. 

Thus, the Venice Commission welcomed the initiative of the Armenian authorities to promote media self-regulation (the independence of media regulatory bodies), as the official recognition of self-regulatory bodies is of significant importance for the effective implementation of accountability mechanisms in the media.

Moreover, the Venice Commission noted that the proposed amendments have the potential to strengthen the role of the media; The Commission also noted that while some of the new definitions presented in the proposed amendments align with international standards, others still require clarification. Moreover, some provisions remain ambiguous due to the lack of comprehensive regulation and corresponding rules, as well as the use of unclear wording, making it difficult to draw final conclusions on these elements. 

The opinion notes that clarification is needed regarding the terms 'prerequisites' related to journalist accreditation, 'media activity,' 'disseminator of public information,' as well as the consequences of accreditation.

In this regard, the Human Rights Defender highlights that the Defender’s Office presented 7 comments on the draft Law on Mass Media, 6 of which was accepted by the competent State bodies of Armenia.

• The Human Rights Defender urges the competent state bodies to develop and implement an adequate mechanism and system for the regulation of the media sphere in Armenia.

In 2024, the Human Rights Defender’s Office received numerous complaints regarding loud music and noises from entertainment venues, restaurants, food courts, pubs, etc. Additionally, complaints were addressed to the Defender’s Office regarding construction work being conducted, especially in Yerevan, and frequent cuts in electricity and water supply

Regarding the mentioned large-scale construction works, the complainants referred to the loud noise, dust, and issues related to safety due to construction and demolition works. Furthermore, the complaints addressed to the Defender’s Office highlight the fact that construction activities are conducted on non-working days and hours. 

The Defender registers the aforementioned construction activities have resulted in the violations of various human rights of the citizens. For example, certain complaints addressed to the Defender’s Office have highlighted the disruption of school activities of the institutions which are located in the vicinity of the construction sites, violating the right to education of the child. 

In this regard, the Defender has raised the mentioned issues with the competent state bodies, and has called for the development of mechanisms, including legislative, to resolve the problems. Although the State has clear obligations in this sphere, by taking the necessary measures to develop appropriate structures to address the issues, and ensure their consistent implementation, the Defender highlights that the mentioned issues have remained unresolved over an extended period of time. 

In this context, the Defender’s Office notes that the Municipality of Yerevan has questioned the competences of the Defender’s Office and its mandate regarding several human rights issues, which is problematic and unusual and this attitude towards the HRDO should be excluded. 

• The Human Rights Defender calls on the Armenian authorities to take continuous steps, including through regular trainings, to exclude the use of disproportionate force and ill-treatment by the Police, carry out a proper, objective and multi-faceted investigation regarding the use of disproportionate force and ill-treatment, guaranteeing the inevitability of responsibility.
• The Human Rights Defender calls upon the competent state authorities to make the cases of obstruction of the professional activities of journalists the subject of proper investigation.
• The Human Rights Defender urges the Municipality of Yerevan to take into consideration and implement the recommendations made by the Defender’s Office regarding the cases of the violations of rights.

The Austrian Ombudsman Board (hereinafter “AOB”) achieved its first-time A-status reaccreditation in March 2022. On that occasion, the Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA) welcomed the amendments to the institution’s enabling laws and the Federal Constitutional Law in relation to recommendations made by the SCA during its 2011 review. In its recommendations, the SCA further noted that the current selection and appointment process for Board members is not sufficiently broad and transparent. Thus, the SCA recommended that a clear, transparent and participatory appointment and selection process is formalised in relevant legislation, regulations or binding administrative guidelines. The SCA also encouraged the institution to work towards greater pluralism in its Board membership and staff composition. In particular, it noted the gender imbalance in the composition of the Austrian Ombudsman Board members at the time of the assessment and the lack of sufficient formal provisions to ensure ethnic, geographic, religious, and minority representation. The SCA also encouraged the institution to formalise its working relationships with domestic civil society organisations and human rights defenders, including those working on the rights of vulnerable groups. 

In relation to the SCA’s recommendation that the AOB continues to enhance and formalize its working relationships and cooperation with civil society organisations and human rights defenders, including those working on the rights of vulnerable groups, the AOB has undertaken the following initiatives: 

1. The initiative of the NGO Sounding Board continued in 2024 and will continue in 2025. The informal meetings between representatives of the AOB and NGOs are a way to coordinate their work and inform each other about new developments in the field. Apart from efforts to coordinate media work, the NGOs and the AOB tried to bundle individual cases. In case people complained with NGOs, the NGOs encouraged them to submit a complaint to the AOB. The idea behind this approach was that NGOs usually do not handle individual complaints compared to the AOB. Additionally, if the AOB receives an increased number of complaints about a particular issue, it gains stronger leverage to highlight systemic problems in public administration.  
   Moreover, the NGO Sounding Board helped to prepare the NGO Forum. Together they agreed on a topic for the event. Members also had the opportunity to propose speakers and participants.
    
2. The topic of the NGO Forum in 2024 was “The Rights of the Child”. Around 70 participants representing various NGOs and experts of the AOB collaborated during the one and a half day-event. Representatives of several Federal Ministries, the Länder and children themselves gave input for the working groups. These small working groups offered an opportunity for an exchange of experience about the following topics: child participation in environment protection, education and cultural inclusion, child poverty, health of children, and protection of children against violence. The discussions and suggestions in the working groups were summarized in minutes that are soon to be published in a public conference volume.  
   The NGO Forum closed with a discussion with Members of Parliament (MPs).  
   The interaction between NGOs and government representatives contributes to a rule of law culture. Due to their work on the ground, NGOs can report about the quality of the implementation of policies or the lack thereof. (See the article “NGO forum 2024: “Fully implement children’s rights!”, available in German only).
     
3. In 2024, the kick-off event for the lecture series “One in five” as in previous years took place at the premises of the AOB. The Centre for Forensic Medicine at the Medical University of Vienna, the Austrian Women’s Shelters Association and the AOB launched this year’s interdisciplinary lecture series with a thematic focus on “Domestic Violence against Women” with an in-person event on 20th November 2024, which focussed on violence prevention in care homes, shared accommodation for persons with disabilities and shared accommodation for children and adolescents. Apart from violence prevention in these settings, experts from different fields also discussed what persons affected by violence as well as witnesses of violence can do in case of violence in these places (see the article “Kick-off event: One in five – Domestic violence in a care home – Who can help?”, available in German only).
    
4. Another initiative for female empowerment in cooperation with civil society was launched by Ombudsperson Gaby Schwarz in 2024: an exchange for female journalists on the topic of online hate in cooperation with the network for women in media on 16th April 2024 (see the article “Together against online hate and defamation”, available in German only).
    
5. In 2024, the AOB made an active effort to reach adolescents and teach about the AOB’s mandate and the rule of law. The members of the AOB obtained a list of all education institutions for adolescents from the age of 14 and above from the Federal Ministry of Education. A letter was sent out to those institutions informing about the possibility for schools to visit the AOB. 
   Since then, many school classes visited the AOB. The aim of this initiative is to increasingly reach the younger generation and raise awareness about maladministration and possible remedies.
    
6. Overall, the approachability of the AOB has again been confirmed in the 2024 APA/OGM Confidence Index, which asks a specific number of people whether they trust an institution or not. The balance resulted in an even higher score of plus 62 for the AOB, showing that the AOB is among the most trusted public institutions in Austria (see the article “Further increase in confidence in the Austrian Ombudsman Board”, available in German only).  

With regard to the SCA’s recommendation on pluralism and diversity of the members of the Austrian Ombudsman Board (hereinafter “AOB”), the AOB notes that the AOB has always had a high percentage of female staff members (currently nearly 70 percent of the AOB’s staff members are women). However, as opposed to the time of the latest re-accreditation of the AOB – two out of three Ombudspersons of the AOB are presently women. In addition, out of the current three Chiefs of cabinet of the Ombudspersons, two are women (see the AOB’s organigram, only available in German).

The Austrian Ombudsman Board has been identified as one of the Fundamental Rights bodies under Article 77(2) of the EU AI Act (see Digital Austria’s website on Article 77 AI Act, only available in German). However, the regulatory framework of the AOB has not been changed as this article of the AI Act strengthens already existing supervisory and regulatory powers of authorities or public bodies for fundamental rights. 

The Austrian Ombudsman Board notes that the relevant state authorities have good awareness of its mandate, independence and role. In addition, it also notes that it has adequate access to information and to policy makers, and according to Chapter 1 § 1 (2) item 4 Ombudsman Act 1982  may comment on any proposed draft legislation or ordinance.  

The Austrian Ombudsman Board also notes that it has adequate resources to carry out the full breath of its mandate. The AOB has sufficient personnel and financial resources to carry out its tasks. Its financial autonomy underlines its independence. In line with Art. 148d (2) of the Austrian Federal Constitutional Law (B-VG), the AOB discusses its own budget in the relevant committee and then in the plenary session of the National Council. Subsequently, the AOB’s independence is ensured through direct discussions with the members of parliament (MPs). 

As regards the timely and reasoned responses to NHRI recommendations, the Austrian Ombudsman Board notes that according to Art. 148c of the B-VG, in conjunction with Art. 6 of the Ombudsman Act, the responsible federal, regional, or local authorities are obligated to comply with recommendations on measures to be taken in or by reason of a particular case addressed to them by the AOB. They shall do so within a term of eight weeks and inform the AOB accordingly or give the reasons in writing why the recommendation has not been complied with. 

While recommendations and suggestions are always communicated to the relevant authorities, all general recommendations including the reactions of the concerned governmental department are also found in the annual reports of the AOB. Specific recommendations that derive from individual cases and subsequent actions of the AOB and the concerned authority are frequently uploaded on the AOB website. Therefore, the public can easily access all recommendations including government reactions. The availability of recommendations and consecutive activities creates transparency in the tracking process of recommendations.  

Ordinarily, the recommendations and suggestions are followed up and implemented by the authorities. The appreciation and trust in the AOB of the MPs as well as the federal and local authorities contribute to a high implementation rate of recommendations. Moreover, the weekly TV show “Bürgeranwalt” (People’s Advocate) assists in the implementation of recommendations as the public display of grievances may increase the willingness to rectify them. 

As regards the functional immunity of the leadership and staff of the Austrian Ombudsman Board, according to Art. 148a (6) of the B-VG, the AOB is an independent organ. The three Ombudsman are elected by the National Council (Parliament) to represent the AOB independently and impartially. Each Ombudsman has a fixed tenure of six years that cannot be revoked by the parliament (Art. 148g (1) B-VG).  

The members of the AOB enjoy almost absolute independence and cannot be dismissed. This does not apply in cases of constitutional responsibility (Article 142 B-VG) or in the case of accountability according to the Austrian Criminal Code. Only if a member of the AOB is found guilty of a criminal offence and sentenced to imprisonment, provided that, the (conditional) sentence imposed exceeds one year, the non-conditional sentence exceeds six months, or the conviction was exclusively for the offense of abuse of authority (§ 212, Austrian Criminal Code), the incumbent can be dismissed (§ 27, Austrian Criminal Code). 

The Austrian Ombudsman Board continues to enhance and support the civil society and Human Rights Defenders through several initiatives. For more information on the initiatives, please see the section on “Follow-up to international and European actors’ recommendations on NHRIs and relevant developments”. 

Based on the human rights monitoring and reporting, the Austrian Ombudsman Board notes that there are significant challenges affecting access to justice and/or effective judicial protection in in the area of delays in court proceedings. Over the years, the AOB has received many complaints about delays in court proceedings at the Federal Administrative Court, in particular in asylum appeal proceedings.  Between January and December 2024, the AOB identified maladministration in 25 cases due to delays in appeal proceedings of asylum seekers (see the list of cases of maladministration and respective AOB recommendations in 2024, last updated on 7th January 2025, available in German only).

The Human Rights Commissioner of Azerbaijan was re-accredited with ‘B’ status in May 2024. The SCA acknowledged the efforts of the NHRI to implement its previous recommendations, however, it was of the view that there are still a number of issues which need to be addressed to ensure full compliance with the Paris Principles.

The SCA welcomed advocacy by the NHRI which resulted in changes to the law that ensure the timely renewal of the Commissioner to avoid a long transitional incumbency. However, the SCA continued to be of the view that the current selection and appointment process is not sufficiently broad or transparent. Therefore, it encouraged the NHRI of Azerbaijan to continue to advocate for appropriate amendments to ensure a transparent and participatory selection and appointment process. 

In addition, the SCA recommended that the NHRI take proactive steps to promote and protect all human rights including in relation to human rights defenders and serious human rights violations. 

Furthermore, the SCA recommended that the NHRI advocate for amendments to its enabling law to empower it to authorize full investigations into all alleged human rights violations and to ensure that the mandate of the institution extends to acts and omissions of the private sector.

Finally, the SCA recommended that the NHRI also advocate for legislative provisions expressly dedicated to the functional immunity for staff of the institution.

As a National Human Rights Institution (NHRI), the Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights (Ombudsman) of the Republic of Azerbaijan  has taken necessary steps to bring the Constitutional Law on the Commissioner for Human Rights (Ombudsman) of the Republic of Azerbaijan (CLO) in line with the Paris Principles, following the recommendations of the Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA).

In 2023, the CLO was amended to expand the Ombudsman’s mandate. These amendments formally established the Ombudsman as the independent monitoring mechanism for the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and for ensuring equality and the prevention of discrimination. The Ombudsman is now also empowered to analyse the implementation of state programs, strategies, national action plans, and concepts in the field of human rights and submit comments and recommendations to the responsible institutions.

To support these new functions, specialized Monitoring Groups have been created within the Ombudsman’s Office. These groups are authorized to visit detention facilities and workplaces to assess human rights conditions without discrimination. They also review legislation for gaps, propose improvements, assist victims with legal and psychological support, evaluate state programs, and provide recommendations to ensure non-discrimination and compliance with international standards. Furthermore, a dedicated Unit on Ensuring the Right to Equality has been established to strengthen institutional capacity in this area. We take the SCA recommendations into consideration while preparing the recommendations included in the Annual Report of the Ombudsman and remain fully committed to further improvements in line with the guidance provided by the SCA.

NHRI follow-up on the recommendations concerning their institution, issued by European actors

Following the adoption of Recommendation CM/Rec(2021)1 and in line with the 2022 national baseline report on NHRIs, the Ombudsman Institution of Azerbaijan has taken significant steps to strengthen its institutional framework and enhance compliance with the Paris Principles and the Council of Europe standards.

As mentioned above, in 2023, substantial amendments were made to the Constitutional Law on the Commissioner for Human Rights (Ombudsman) of the Republic of Azerbaijan to align it more closely with the Paris Principles. These legal changes expanded the mandate of the Ombudsman, officially designating the Institution as the independent monitoring mechanism for the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Furthermore, the Ombudsman has also been entrusted with the mandate to promote equality and prevent discrimination, in line with the emphasis placed by the Recommendation on a pluralist and inclusive approach.

In practical terms, specialized monitoring groups have been established within the Office of the Ombudsman. These groups are empowered to visit places of detention and workplaces, analyse laws and policies for compliance with human rights standards, provide support to victims of discrimination, and make targeted recommendations to relevant authorities. A dedicated Unit on Ensuring the Right to Equality was also created, further enhancing the institution’s capacity to prevent and respond to human rights violations.

In line with the Recommendation's emphasis on visibility and public accessibility, the Ombudsman Institution has prioritized enhancing its outreach and cooperation with civil society. Regular awareness-raising events are held across various regions of the country to increase public awareness of human rights and to foster a safe and enabling space for civil society and human rights defenders. These efforts aim to improve access to the Ombudsman’s services, especially for individuals and groups in vulnerable situations, as highlighted in the Recommendation.

The Azerbaijan Ombudsman Institution also has been active in developing new cooperation with regional networks of the Ombudsmen, such as Asian Ombudsman Association (AOA) in the field of  business and human rights.

In collaboration with AOA an online event was held on “Business and Human Rights” for ombudsmen and NHRIs working in the Asian region. 

In 2024, the Ombudsman Office prepared a national baseline assessment on Business and Human Rights considering the opinions and recommendations made by international experts. The participants of the online event were comprehensively informed about this document, which reflects the recommendations that will stimulate the improvement of this field at the national level.  

The Ombudsman also regularly monitors the implementation of national strategies and action plans in the field of human rights and provides recommendations and feedback to government institutions involved in monitoring and evaluation. These contributions are guided by international standards, including those set out in CM/Rec(2021)1, and reflect the Institution’s growing role in legislative analysis and policy development.

Moreover, in line with the Recommendation's call for effective follow-up, the Ombudsman Institution takes into account relevant recommendations from European actors such as the European Commission and the Council of Europe. While there is still room for progress in some areas, the reforms undertaken thus far represent significant progress toward fulfilling the goals of the Recommendation. The Institution also supports the implementation of these recommendations by actively participating in dialogue with European partners, contributing to international reporting mechanisms, and engaging in regional and global NHRI networks such as ENNHRI and GANHRI.

Changes in regulatory framework

The national regulatory framework applicable to the Ombudsman Institution of the Republic of Azerbaijan has been further developed since January 2024.

This includes the further operationalization of the Ombudsman’s newly assigned mandates on anti-discrimination and equality, as well as on monitoring the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

New internal guidelines and working procedures have been adopted to enhance the effective functioning of specialized units, particularly in the areas of monitoring, legislative analysis, and victim support.

Additionally, cooperation mechanisms with civil society organizations, public authorities, and international stakeholders have been strengthened, including through the improvement of procedures for the follow-up on recommendations made by the Ombudsman.

Mandate strengthened to contribute to access to justice

The NHRI’s mandate to contribute to access to justice for individuals has been strengthened since 2022, including through: 

• Complaints handling:  The Institution worked hard to make it easier for people to submit complaints and receive timely responses. This includes expanding its digital tools and making sure its services are more accessible, especially for those in remote areas or in vulnerable situations. It is also following up more closely on each case to ensure that concerns are addressed properly.
• Strategic litigation before courts:  While the Institution doesn’t represent individuals in court, it has taken steps to take part in key cases.
• Providing legal assistance to individuals: the Institution does help people understand their rights and options. It offers guidance, explain the steps they can take, and connect them with the right support services when needed.
• Awareness-raising: The Institution has expanded its outreach work to help more people know about their rights and how to claim them. This includes holding awareness events, working with schools and universities, and partnering with civil society groups to spread the message in a way that really reaches people.

Gender aspects

In the process of strengthening its role and contributing to the protection of the rule of law, the Institution has paid particular attention to gender-related aspects. It has observed that women and girls may face specific challenges, especially in cases related to discrimination or gender-based violence. Therefore, it have been integrating a gender-sensitive approach into its work, including in complaints handling and awareness-raising efforts, to ensure that everyone can access justice on equal terms.

NHRI regulatory framework should be strengthened

While the current framework provides a strong base, there’s definitely room for improvement. Strengthening the Ombudsman Institution’s independence, particularly by ensuring clearer safeguards in the law, would make a big difference.

State authorities’ good awareness of the NHRI’s mandate, independence and role

Relevant state authorities have a good awareness of the Ombudsman Institution’s mandate, independence, and role. Over time, the Institution has worked closely with various government bodies to ensure they understand the scope of its work and the importance of its independence in promoting and protecting human rights. Regular communication, joint initiatives, and continued awareness-raising efforts have helped to foster this understanding and collaboration. 

NHRI’s access to information and law- policy-making / Adequate resources

The NHRI has adequate access to information and to policy makers and is it involved in all stages of legislation and policy making with human rights implications. The NHRI has adequate resources to carry out the full breath of its mandate.

Timely and reasoned responses to NHRI recommendations

The government has taken steps to ensure timely and reasoned responses to the Ombudsman’s recommendations. Clear procedures have been established, requiring state authorities to respond within a set timeframe and provide justifications. This has improved communication and accountability. Additionally, the Ombudsman’s annual report now tracks the implementation of recommendations, making it easier to monitor progress. These changes have made the process more effective, though there’s still work to be done to ensure full implementation and address any gaps.

Functional immunity / Measures to protect NHRI staff

The Ombudsman enjoys functional immunity, as outlined in the Constitutional Law on the Commissioner for Human Rights (Ombudsman) of the Republic of Azerbaijan. According to Article 6 of the law, the Ombudsman enjoys immunity while in office. This immunity includes protection from criminal liability, arrest, detention, and administrative sanctions, except in cases of being caught in the act of committing a crime. In such a case, the arresting authority must inform the Prosecutor General and the Milli Majlis within 24 hours.

The immunity extends to the Ombudsman’s residence, workspace, means of transport, communication, and private property, as well as any correspondence. Furthermore, the immunity also applies after the Ombudsman leaves office, covering actions taken and opinions expressed during their term in office. Any legal violations or crimes committed during their term can only lead to liability through a process that involves the Prosecutor General and the Milli Majlis.

These legal protections ensure the Ombudsman’s ability to carry out duties without fear of retribution or interference, fostering a safe and independent environment for human rights work. 

• In the Ombudsman’s annual report for 2024 the following was proposed: taking into account the positive practices of foreign countries, "to grant the Ombudsman the right of legislative initiative” in order to significantly enhance the effectiveness of the Ombudsman’s activities in the field of legislative improvement, to ensure the prompt and timely submission of new draft normative legal acts to the legislative body, and thereby to achieve more effective protection of human rights and freedoms;
• Given the importance of the Ombudsman’s cooperation with the parliament in the improvement of legislation, to amend the legislation to allow the Ombudsman to participate in parliamentary discussions of draft laws concerning human rights and to provide opinions on such drafts;
• Based on the effective cooperation between the Ombudsman and the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan in the field of the protection of human rights and freedoms, to introduce relevant amendments to the legislation in order to improve the interaction between the Ombudsman and the Constitutional Court. Additionally, to establish, through legislation, the Ombudsman’s right to apply to the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan for the interpretation of the Constitution and laws in matters concerning the implementation of human rights and freedoms.

In 2024, the NHRI promoted civil society space and human rights defenders through joint meetings and/or roundtables.

Considering that 2024 was declared the Green World Solidarity Year in Azerbaijan and that it hosted the 29th session of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP29), the Ombudsman and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) jointly organized a research paper competition for students on the topic of “Climate Change and Human Rights”. The main motto of the competition was “Youth Vision for Climate Change.”  

A training session was organized for the participants of the competition and was held in a Hackathon format. 45 persons (9 teams) registered for the competition, and 6 teams submitted the required research papers and short videos in the end. 

Furthermore, a seminar on “Climate Change and Human Rights: A Young Perspective” was organized in Gabala on October 18-20, 2024, to announce the results of the competition, present certificates to the participants, and further deepen the knowledge and skills of young people on the impact of climate change on human rights. Young people who volunteered in the Ombudsman Office also participated in the seminar.

Finally, prizes and certificates were presented to the winners, and certificates were presented to all other team members.

Significant challenges affecting access to justice and/or effective judicial protection

Based on the Institution’s human rights monitoring and reporting, identify significant challenges affecting access to justice and/or effective judicial protection are delays in court proceedings, access to legal aid, timely and effective execution of national courts’ judgments and delays in and/or a lack of publication of judgments.

Despite the implementation of measures aimed at increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the judicial-legal system, complaints received by the Ombudsman in 2024 reflected issues such as delays in court proceedings, dissatisfaction with judges’ actions or inactions, violations of procedural legal norms during court hearings, including the principle of adversarial proceedings, failure to comply with procedural deadlines, untimely delivery of copies of court decisions to the parties involved, dissatisfaction with court rulings, unjustified restrictions on the right to appeal court decisions to higher courts, failure to enforce or implement final and binding court decisions, and other related problems.

The Azerbaijani NHRI underlines that strengthening the cooperation with regional and European actors are always beneficial in respect of exchange of good practices in protection and promotion of human rights. The Azerbaijani NHRI underlines that strengthening the cooperation with regional and European actors are always beneficial in respect of exchange of good practices in protection and promotion of human rights.

This country-specific report was coordinated by the Federal Institute for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights (FIRM-IFDH). It was co-authored by four ENNHRI members: FIRM-IFDH, Unia, Myria, and the Combat Poverty, Insecurity and Social Exclusion Service, as well as three public institutions with human rights remit that are not members of ENNHRI : the Central Monitoring Council for Prisons (CTRG-CCSP), the Flanders Human Rights Institute (FLANHRI) and the Institute for the Equality between Women and Men (IGVM-IEFH). 

Belgium currently has two NHRIs accredited with B-status, signifying partial compliance with the Paris Principles. 

In March 2023, the SCA accredited FIRM-IFDH with B-status. At that time, the SCA included recommendations in relation to the NHRI’s human rights mandate, annual report, pluralism, selection and appointment, and adequate funding. Further information on the recommendations and the actions undertaken in follow up are detailed in the section below. 

When the SCA accredited Unia with B-status, it included recommendations in relation to human rights mandate, interaction with the international human rights system, selection and appointment, full-time members, and functional immunity. 

FLANHRI was created in 2022 with a broad human rights mandate within the competences of the Flemish Region and the Flemish Community. FLANHRI works in collaboration or in complementarity with other public institutions, both at the federal and the regional level.

FIRM-IFDH

In March 2023, GANHRI’s Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA) accredited FIRM-IFDH with a B-status. It formulated two core recommendations:

• An amendment to FIRM-IFDH’s enabling law, in order to expand and strengthen its mandate beyond the federal level. An inter-federalisation of FIRM-IFDH’s mandate can only be achieved through a cooperation agreement between state governments and the federal government. However, despite being mentioned in the 2020, the inter-federalisation has not taken place and the recommendation remains unimplemented. FIRM-IFDH continues to advocate for its inter-federalisation. Both the 2025-2029 Federal Government Agreement and the 2024-2029 Flemish Government Agreement mention the government will aim for A-status through a cooperation agreement. the inter-federalisation has not taken place and the recommendation remains unimplemented. FIRM-IFDH continues to advocate for its inter-federalisation. Both the 2025-2029 Federal Government Agreement and the 2024-2029 Flemish Government Agreement mention the government will aim for A-status through a cooperation agreement.
• An amendment to provide FIRM-IFDH with unannounced and free access to inspect and examine any public premises, such as places of deprivation of liberty, as well as any documents, equipment, and assets without prior notice. This recommendation has been partially implemented : the Act of 21 April 2024 grants free and unannounced access to all places of deprivation of liberty. However, this access is limited to the scope of the mandate of the Prevention Mechanism (NPM). 

The SCA also formulated four additional recommendations, which were mostly implemented: 

• To ensure that FIRM-IFDH’s annual report be subjected to public scrutiny. The Act of 21 April 2024 provides that it is sent and discussed in the federal Parliament (art. 19).
• To ensure that the principles of pluralism and diversity are reflected in its composition and/or work, and implemented in practice. FIRM-IFDH’s enabling law now explicitly mentions it.
• To require broad consultation and/or participation, including of civil society organizations, in the application, screening, selection and appointment process to FIRM-IFDH’s board of directors. This recommendation was also implemented by the Act of 21 April 2024 (art. 11). 

Finally, as the SCA recommended, FIRM-IFDH advocates for the financial resources necessary to ensure it can effectively carry out its mandate.

Unia

During the 2024 elections campaign, several political parties (Parti socialiste p. 678; CD&V p.82, OpenVLD) included in their programs that a human rights institution in Belgium should obtain the A-status. Given the fragmentation of institutions in Belgium, inter-federalisation is necessary to obtain A-status. The 2025-2029 Federal Government Agreement states that: "Efficient accessibility and service for citizens are essential. Collaboration with the country's human rights institutions must be maximised in the interests of those seeking justice. Through a cooperation agreement, we are aiming for A-status for the country. The remit of each institution must be clearly defined. [...] We will reduce Unia's funding by 25%."

NHRI follow-up on the recommendations issued by European actors 

FIRM-IFDH provided (informal) input and recommendations to the Belgian administration participating in the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH), which held dedicated meetings on the implementation of Council of Europe’s Recommendation CM/REC(2021)1, on the development and strengthening of effective, pluralist and independent national human rights institutions. As some of these recommendations aligned with the SCA’s recommendations regarding FIRM-IFDH, some progress has been made. Those progresses include more guarantees for pluralism in the appointment and composition of the decision-making body, access to premises and information, as well as the protection of its independence.  

Core mandate 
 
FIRM-IFDH

On 21 April 2024, the federal Parliament adopted an Act modifying FIRM-IFDH’s enabling law. The Act established a torture prevention mechanism (NPM) at the federal level within FIRM-IFDH, in accordance with the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT). The NPM is now a separate department within FIRM-IFDH with specific duties regarding the situation of persons who have been deprived of their liberty. This mission is carried out in close collaboration with specialized institutions such as CTRG-CCSP, Myria and the Standing Police Monitoring Committee. In addition to the establishment of the NPM, the Act of 21 April 2024 also brought changes to FIRM-IFDH’s general mandate.

Unia

The anti-discrimination legislative framework within Unia’s remit has changed since January 2024. Both the Brussels Region (Joint Decree of 4 April 2024) and the French Community (Decree of 16 May 2024) have significantly strengthened their anti-discrimination legislative frameworks, following earlier changes brought to the Walloon (2019) and federal (2023) anti-discrimination framework. The following forms of discrimination are now also prohibited at these levels:

• intersectional discrimination (except in the Walloon Region);
• discrimination by association;
• and discrimination based on a previous state of health. 

Furthermore, the new Brussels Equality Code now covers reasonable accommodation by association and the federal and French Community laws have tripled lump-sum compensations for victims of discrimination outside employment relationships. 

Unia was also excluded from a major legislative change, namely from joining the new OPCAT-mechanism created by the Act of 21 April 2024,. Unia actively participated in numerous preparatory consultations on the establishment of a NPM in Belgium. Its skills and expertise in the field of disability (in prisons) and internment have always been recognized. 

FIRM-IFDH together with CTRG-CCSP, Myria and Unia adopted a concerted joint approach that served as the basis for the bill to create the NPM at federal level. However, following an opinion from the Council of State (requesting a revision of its cooperation agreement beforehand, which Unia contests), Unia was excluded from the mechanism. Unia’s absence is a missed opportunity, since it already has the competence and significant expertise in monitoring the respect of the rights of persons with a disability deprived of their liberties. Its inclusion in the mechanism would have significantly reinforced the NPM’s functioning and expertise. Unia has not been able to take part because the current framework only exists at the federal level. If the NPM becomes inter-federal, Unia intends to integrate it based on its CRPD mandate. 

FLANHRI

The decision of the Flemish Government on the composition of and the procedure for the litigation chamber of the Flanders Human Rights Institute was published on 23 January 2024. As a result, all processes and procedures before the Litigation Chamber became operational as of February 2^nd, 2024. At the same time, the "Decree implementing the decree of 10 July 2008 containing a framework for the Flemish equal opportunities and equal treatment policy” was amended on 22 March 2024.

Combat Poverty Service

Within the framework of the Interministerial Conference ‘Social integration, Housing and Policy on large cities’, a new cooperation agreement on homelessness was drawn up to replace the 2014 agreement. The mandate of the Combat Poverty Service as a general gathering point for data on homelessness was confirmed. This new agreement was approved by all (previous) governments at the end of the last legislative period. It still has to be approved by the Consultation Committee, the Council of State and ultimately the parliaments as well. At the time of this writing, the agreement still has the status of a 'draft'.

Complaints handling

FIRM-IFDH

The mandate to contribute to access to justice for individuals through complaints handling has not been strengthened since 2022. The 2020-2024 Federal Government Agreement intended to give FIRM-IFDH a complaint-handling mechanism. However, it had not implemented it at the end of the previous legislature. FIRM-IFDH advocates for a complaints-handling competence in conjunction with its inter-federalisation.

FLANHRI

The mandate to contribute to access to justice for individuals through complaints handling has been strengthened since 2022.  As of mid-March 2023, FLANHRI has assumed the responsibilities previously held by the Flemish ombudswoman Gender, who had a mandate to handle complaints on discrimination based on gender, and Unia, which had a mandate to handle discrimination complaints in general (apart from gender and language). The working model of the new Human Rights Institute includes a new, tribunal-type Litigation Chamber, based on the model of the Dutch College voor de Rechten van de Mens.

In cases of (perceived) discrimination, individuals can file a complaint with FLANHRI, following initial assistance. Individual complaints may undergo mediation between parties. If mediation proves unsuccessful or impossible, FLANHRI’s Litigation Chamber can render a non-binding judgment. 

Strategic litigation before courts

FIRM-IFDH

Although this is not a change of legal mandate in the strict sense, FIRM-IFDH initiated its first legal action in 2024, before the Belgian Constitutional Court. FIRM-IFDH is also conducting an internal reflection on its forthcoming legal actions, which will be completed around the summer of 2025, with the aim of establishing a strong strategic litigation policy.

Providing legal assistance to individuals

IGVM-IEFH

IGVM-IEFH’s mandate was strengthened by the addition of a new criterion protected against discrimination, namely ‘family responsibilities’ (Act of November 15, 2022). It constitutes a major step forward in the protection of all people with caring responsibilities, whatever their gender. In addition, the protected criterion of ‘gender reassignment’ has been reclassified as ‘medical or social transition’ (Act of June 28, 2023). This better reflects the reality of transgender people, as these terms cover a wider range of steps that transgender people could take as part of their gender transition.

As mentioned hereabove, Belgian legislation now recognises instances of discrimination based on multiple protected criteria. Discrimination by association, a concept already recognised in European case law, has also been explicitly enshrined (Act of June 28, 2023). This enables the relevant equality bodies to better assist victims of discrimination. 

A new Act of 7 April 2023 also strengthened protection against reprisals for people who take action to remedy discrimination. This was necessary because many people confronted with discrimination or transgressive sexual behaviour are afraid to report it (internally).

FIRM-IFDH

Since 2022, the mandate of FIRM-IFDH has been strengthened with additional competence under the federal whistleblower legislation. FIRM-IFDH provides legal support by informing whistleblowers about the law, offering personalized legal advice, and, when needed, covering part of legal fees for judicial procedures or directing them to pro bono lawyers. Since 2023, FIRM-IFDH has financially supported legal representation by lawyers for 14 whistleblowers. 

Unia

Unia has set up a ‘legal protection fund’ to cover the legal costs of victims in vulnerable situations, enabling them to access justice and assert their rights. Given the recent decision to reduce Unia's funding by 25% (hereabove), the sustainability of this fund is not assured.

FLANHRI

As an institution with legal personality, FLANHRI has the capacity to take legal action, including a general collective right of action pursuant to article 17 of the Judicial Code.

Awareness raising

FLANHRI

FLANHRI’s legal mandate includes the handling of all human rights complaints and questions within the competences of the Flemish Community and Region, by informing the public, raising awareness and conducting research. It can also advise government(s), either on demand or on its own initiative on human rights-related issues.

FIRM-IFDH

The mandate to contribute to awareness-raising has been strengthened since 2022 FIRM-IFDH has generally a broad mandate regarding awareness-raising and sensibilization aimed at the general public, but few changes have been made since 2022. In 2023, FIRM-IFDH received an additional mandate regarding whistleblowers’ support and information, which included a specific mission regarding the promotion of a whistleblower-friendly culture in Belgium. Accordingly, FIRM-IFDH has launched a media campaign aimed at improving awareness of whistleblowers’ role and importance in society. 

Strengthening of the NHRI’s regulatory framework

Unia

As mentioned above, several federated entities have recently significantly strengthened their anti-discrimination legislative frameworks: the Walloon Region in 2019, the federal level in 2023, the Brussels Region and the French Community in April 2024. Compensations for victims of discrimination has improved at the federal level and in the French Community. However, in other respects, the compensations remain too low. 

The German-speaking Community has not evaluated nor adapted its anti-discrimination legislative framework since 2012. There is currently no specific protection against multiple discrimination, discrimination by association and discrimination based on a previous state of health. An evaluation procedure of the anti-discrimination Decree of 19 March 2012 is underway, to which Unia has submitted recommendations. 

FLANHRI

The present lack of a formal cooperation agreement between different human rights institutions and equality bodies in Belgium hinders the protection of human rights in Belgium. The recent Flemish and Federal government agreements both include the goal to accrue A-status through a clear, inter-federal collaboration agreement.

Next to a mandate to protect and promote human rights, FLANHRI has an additional mandate to protect against discrimination under the Flemish competences. Several elements in the Directives on Equality Bodies (2024/1499 and 2024/1500) could lead towards strengthening also the protection and promotion of human rights, for example the optional role involving data collection.

FIRM-IFDH

FIRM-IFDH recommends two important changes to its regulatory framework. 

First, the federal government and federated entities should sign a cooperation agreement to expand FIRM-IFDH’s mandate to include matters falling under the competences of the communities and regions (with the exception of matters under the jurisdiction of the Flemish Region and the Flemish Community, for which FLANHRI is responsible). Such a cooperation agreement should also grant FIRM-IFDH the competence to handle complaints. Additionally, the agreement should expand FIRM-IFDH’s NPM mandate to cover places of deprivation of liberty under the competences of the relevant communities and regions. 

Second, at present, FIRM-IFDH employees have no pension rights, due to a legislative omission in FIRM-IFDH’s enabling law. With members of CTRG-CCSP’s board and the two federal ombudsmen, FIRM-IFDH employees are at present the only members of the working population in Belgium not to build up pension rights nor derived rights (for example, the right to a survivor's pension for the spouse) through their employment. The Council of State recently pointed out that this situation constituted a violation of the principle of equality. In addition, the absence of pension rights jeopardizes the independence and effectiveness of FIRM-IFDH. A law proposal was introduced into Parliament in November 2024 to fix the omission but has not yet been adopted. FIRM-IFDH believes that the bill adequately establishes a legal basis to grant and fund a statutory pension under the civil service pension scheme for its permanent staff. However, an amendment is needed to provide a retroactive legal basis. FIRM-IFDH recommends that the bill with the necessary amendment be adopted without delay. 

Awareness of the NHRI’s mandate, independence and role

FLANHRI

Flemish authorities' awareness of FLANHRI's mandate, independence, and role remains limited. Although the Institute is mentioned in the most recent Flemish Government Agreement and engages with the Flemish Parliament on a regular basis, its role and activities are not yet widely recognized. This is not unusual given FLANHRI’s relatively recent establishment, in 2023.

Efforts to raise awareness have included introductory meetings with policymakers, government departments, and human rights partners. These initiatives highlight the importance of further engagement to establish the Institute's presence and role.

FIRM-IFDH 

Generally, relevant state authorities have good awareness of the NHRI’s mandate, independence and role.

Access to information and involvement in law and policy making 

Unia

Unia, as other human rights institutions in Belgium, operates in a complex institutional environment with six different state-level authorities. Access to information and cooperation with each of these policy makers vary, depending on several factors such as the modus operandi of a specific ministerial cabinet, the relationships previously established, the specific issue discussed, and so on. No executive power is required to provide information to Unia related to the issues within its mandate, nor is there any obligation to notify it of policy measures or proposed regulations.

It does happen that Unia is consulted formally, for example by the legislative power, when a bill is tabled, and informally. The latter happens, for instance, with a request from a cabinet of a minister or by the administration for more explanation on a particular issue.

FLANHRI

The FLANHRI-decree (arts. 9 and 10) habilitates FLANHRI to give advice to the Flemish parliament and government on matters relating to human rights (including the right not to be discriminated). However, no legislative or executive framework determines in what way and form FLANHRI is to be consulted. The European directives on standards for equality bodies stipulate that Member States ought to ensure that equality bodies are consulted with regard to non-discrimination legislation, policy, procedure and programmes (art. 15). Parliament has to ensure simultaneously that the increased workload is not detrimental the execution of FLANHRI’s other responsibilities.

FIRM-IFDH

FIRM-IFDH is frequently asked by the government or the federal Parliament to provide advice on legislative initiatives. However, the frequency and nature of this contact can vary depending on the individual official holder.

Upon its request, FIRM-IFDH is also invited to Parliament to present its reports. For example, in January 2025, FIRM-IFDH was asked by the federal Parliament to present itself to the new members of Parliament. It was also auditioned on the Belgian chapter to ENNHRI 2024 Rule of Law Report and on its thematic report on the protection of human rights defenders in Belgium. 

IGVM-IEFH & Unia

Until December 2023, IGVM-IEFH and Unia received from the judiciary a copy of judgements relating to their areas of competence. They were also informed when a case concerning their areas of competence had been scheduled for a court hearing. This information is very useful for their legal functions of supporting victims of discrimination, intervening in legal proceedings relating to anti-discrimination laws and publishing anonymised court decisions. This circular – COL13/2013 on judicial anti-discrimination policy – was amended in 2024. The transmission of this information to Unia and IGVM-IEFH of notices of court proceedings has been suspended pending an in-depth examination of the issue, due to uncertainties linked to data protection. To date, the examination is still ongoing. The Institute and Unia therefore still do not have access to this information. For the same reasons, Unia and IGVM-IEFH no longer receive court decisions relating to discrimination, as the judicial authorities are currently unable to make them anonymous. Unia can therefore no longer analyze them and publish them on its website in accordance with its mandate.

Adequate resources

FIRM-IFDH

In 2024, FIRM-IFDH was entrusted with a new NPM-related competence (hereabove), exercised in collaboration with several specialized bodies (Myria, CTRG-CCSP and the Standing Police Monitoring Committee). Exercising this new function of monitoring places of deprivation of liberty requires substantial resources. However, Parliament has only allocated limited new resources to the three specialized bodies and FIRM-IFDH for their additional NPM mandate (each received 1 FTE extra staff, instead of the requested total staff of 18,5 FTE, in addition to cuts in the requested operational costs). They have therefore to devote additional existing human resources to the intensive process of implementing the NPM and organizing monitoring visits. This lack of resources poses real problems for the functioning of the NPM. 

Additionally, operational costs requested by FIRM-IFDH for its general mandate have equally been reduced, which will mainly impact on the budget for whistleblowers support, as well as on its available funding for strategic litigation and ongoing research projects. 

FIRM-IFDH also requested additional budget to adhere to the pension scheme of the so-called “Pool for parastatal institutions”, its only possible alternative if the law proposal mentioned above is not adopted by Parliament. This budget was refused, with explicit referral to the law proposal. If the proposal would not be adopted within a reasonable delay, FIRM-IFDH will submit a new request to receive this budget, in addition to considering legal steps as to ensure a basic pension scheme to its staff. 

Lastly, FIRM-IFDH does not have sufficient office space for its staff. FIRM-IFDH is hosted by the federal Parliament. Currently, its 24 staff members are working in 4 rooms and a small meeting room, while 3 additional staff members are to be recruited soon. Negotiations to expand office space have been ongoing for years. Additional offices in the same premises have been promised over a year ago, but practical obstacles keep delaying the expansion. This situation is appalling and a cause of stress for all staff members.

FLANHRI

FLANHRI’s budget is approved by the Flemish parliament. However, this budget is presently sourced from the Flemish Agency for Home Affairs’ resources. The budget should come directly from the Flemish parliament and be uniquely earmarked for FLANHRI.

The present budget is substantial. Nonetheless, additional duties allotted to FLANHRI should be accompanied by a reasonable increase in its budget. Presently, according to its decree, FLANHRI’s budget must be adequate to fulfil its mandate effectively and independently and cannot be decreased if its mandate remains the same (art. 40). 

Unia

Some of Unia's new or reinforced missions are not accompanied by a financial reinforcement for the hiring of additional personnel. Examples include: 

• Unia is tasked by decree to take an active part in several new advisory councils (council to combat racism or related to policies for people with disabilities), without any additional financial support.
• Unia is also a member of several monitoring committees for the European Structural and Investment Funds. The investment required in terms of time and expertise is substantial, although no support in terms of human and financial resources is envisaged.

Above all, the new federal government decided to reduce Unia’s funding by 25%, without explanation. As a consequence, Unia will have to drastically reduce its staff and activities, which will weaken its effectiveness. 

IGVM – IEFH 

IGVM-IEFH did not always receive additional resources when it was given certain new legal missions. This has notably been the case for the non-consensual dissemination of intimate images, even though IGVM-IEFH receives many reports on this subject every year since 2020. In addition, the development of artificial intelligence and legislation in this area also represents new challenges. IGVM-IEFH was recently given an additional mandate in accordance to article 77 of the AI-Act, for which additional resources are requested. 

Timely and reasoned responses to NHRI recommendations

FLANHRI

The FLANHRI-decree enables FLANHRI to offer advice to the Flemish parliament and government on matters relating to human rights, either on its own initiative or upon request. The advice is non-binding, but FLANHRI closely monitors the compliance with its advisory opinions. The decree also specifies that FLANHRI actively and carefully monitors the compliance with the non-binding rulings of its Litigation Chamber. Given the recent establishment of FLANHRI, it is still too early to assess whether these legal safeguards are sufficient. 

FIRM-IFDH

FIRM-IFDH is regularly in contact with parliamentarians, the Government and public authorities to present and discuss its recommendations. Nevertheless, FIRM-IFDH does not automatically receive feedback from the authorities. While the Act of 12 May 2019 allows FIRM-IFDH to request written explanations regarding the follow-up of these opinions, recommendations and reports (art. 6 §3), the Institute has not used this possibility yet. 

The Act establishing FIRM-IFDH was revised through the Act of 21 April 2024, incorporating several recommendations from the SCA. As a result, the law now foresees the annual report must be presented to Parliament (art. 19).

Functional immunity / measures to protect NHRI staff

FLANHRI

There are mechanisms in place to protect FLANHRI’s leadership and staff, such as limitation of dismissal reasons and procedural guarantees. Its decree forbids members of its staff, of its board of directors and of its litigation chamber to receive instructions from the Flemish parliament, the Flemish government or any other public entity (art. 27). Members of the board of directors cannot be removed due to opinions voiced during the execution of their function. The Flemish parliament can summon the chairperson of the board of directors and the general director to evaluate FLANHRI’s functioning, but the chairperson of the litigation chamber cannot be summoned.

FIRM-IFDH

FIRM-IFDH’s enabling law provides for an immunity for both members of its board of directors and its staff members. The Institute and its members are immune to civil and criminal liability for their decisions, acts or behaviours in the performance of FIRM-IFDH’s legal tasks (art. 18). The immunity can only be lifted in the cases provided for by law and if so, decided by the federal House of Representatives by a two-thirds majority (art. 11). 

Unia

Unia's two directors have 6-year mandates, which can be extended twice. Measures are taken internally within Unia to protect employees who come into direct contact with expressions of hate, contempt and harassment. 

Unia itself is regularly attacked in the media, in public and in political programs. These attacks recently led to a political agreement within the new government to reduce Unia's budget by 25%.

Threats faced by NHRIs

Unia

The program of the current prime minister’s political party (NV-A, see p. 89), published ahead of the June 2024 elections, aimed at dismantling Unia. It suggested withdrawing the federal competences from Unia, which would be equivalent to reducing Unia to a pittance (80% of its budget). Additionally, it intended to withdraw the power to take legal action from Unia. 

Following negotiations between the current members of the government coalition, the government decided to reduce Unia's federal funding by 25%. The 2025-2029 Federal Government Agreement provided no explanation nor argument to justify this measure.

FLANHRI

The institution has not faced threats. However, during the recent Belgian and Flemish elections, one major political party stipulated that they would “evaluate FLANHRI’s working and make adjustments where necessary.” This could be interpreted as a potential risk. Additionally, there were also negative political reactions on one of the first rulings of the Litigation Chamber (on a case which involved the use of burkinis in a public swimming pool).

1. Transpose in the most ambitious way possible the European directives on the standards applicable to equality bodies, establish or strengthen their investigative powers, their ability to take legal action and the obligation to consult them in legislative and political processes.
2. Work on a cooperation agreement to expand FIRM-IFDH’s mandate to include matters falling under the competences of the communities and regions (with the exception of matters under the jurisdiction of the Flemish Region and the Flemish Community, for which FLANHRI is responsible). Grant a complaints-handling competence to FIRM-IFDH.
3. Expand FIRM-IFDH’s NPM mandate (OPCAT) to places of deprivation of liberty under the competences of the relevant communities and regions. Properly fund the NPM mandate, both for FIRM-IFDH and the specialized bodies.
4. Allocate additional resources for each new mandate and each extension of existing ones.
5. Establish stronger guarantees with regard to FLANHRI’s budget. The budget should also come directly from the Flemish parliament, with resources uniquely earmarked for FLANHRI.

Freedom of association

The 2025-2029 Federal Government Agreement announced a new legal mechanism allowing it to ban “dangerous radical organisations such as Samidoun because of their links with terrorism or the propagation of anti-Semitism”. This announcement raises concerns about the possible broad interpretation of this forthcoming statute. Furthermore, the Agreement does not contain any information regarding procedural guarantees and remedies against a possible ban. 

A recent proposal for a resolution at the federal Parliament suggests labelling several non-violent civil disobedience organisations, such as Black Lives Matter and Extinction Rebellion, as terrorist organisations. This would have severe consequences for their activities and funding and would allow the prosecution of individuals associated with them.  

Freedom of assembly

In 2024, freedom of assembly has increasingly been under pressure, both from new measures and old issues that remain unresolved. 

For instance, the new Criminal Code has outlawed the ‘malicious interference with public authority’ (art. 547). FIRM- IFDH, numerous civil society organisations, academics and trade unions have underlined that this measure carries a real risk of penalising legitimate political and social protest, and may thus lead to a criminalisation of human rights defenders. 

ENNHRI 2024 Rule of Law report also underlined a legislative proposal from the Belgian government to introduce a judicial ban on demonstrations in the Criminal Code, for up to five years for the individual concerned. This proposal was ultimately dropped but the 2025-2029 Federal Government Agreement has suggested reintroducing it. Furthermore, a circular from the former Minister of the Interior already allows mayors to preventively ban individuals from demonstrating in their municipality if they suspect them of threatening public order. FIRM-IFDH has argued that a circular is not a sufficient legal basis to preventively restrict freedom of assembly. 

Most demonstrations in Belgium also require a permit, granted by the police authorities in consultation with the mayor. Demonstrators sometimes have to apply several weeks in advance. In the context of the armed conflict in Gaza, certain demonstrations were not authorized by the local authorities. In a ruling on 4 October 2024, the Council of State annulled a measure banning an assembly, which had been taken informally by a police commissioner instead of the legally competent mayor. Without this authorization, demonstrators risk a municipal administrative sanction up to 500,- €. Municipal administrative sanctions are also sometimes used to criminalize non-violent disobedience during demonstrations. 

A dozen CSO’s reported the repression of peaceful demonstrations in Belgian cities. Examples include the use of police force (water cannon, tear gas) to disperse a peaceful demonstration on the sole reason of its lack of prior authorization; the use of administrative sanctions imposed for the sole participation to a peaceful demonstration ; and the police requesting individuals wearing signs (Palestinian flag and keffiyeh) to remove them to “protect the neutrality of the public space”, on pain of arrest or administrative fines, criminal investigations into the occupation of university buildings.

Finally, ENNHRI 2024 Rule of Law Report noted an increase in ex parte petitions and penalties, placing the right to strike under pressure. Emergency unilateral proceedings against trade unions appeared to have been less widely used in 2024, likely due to the lack of large-scale labour disputes, as had occurred in 2023. However, in the meantime, several higher courts have ruled on the dispute. The Constitutional Court found the legitimate use of the right to strike did not constitute a cause of absolute necessity that justified the use of emergency unilateral applications to forbid picketing. The Court found that the “ordinary” emergency procedures – that allow the defendant to be represented – were already sufficient to cover the situations brought to its attention, such as the need to restore access to a picketed store. However, a little more than a month after this decision of the Constitutional Court, the Gent Labour Court found that one of the retail chains had been justified in using the emergency unilateral procedure against the trade unions, arguing that the strike actions had been a threat to the store’s property right.

Freedom of expression

Punishable written opinions disseminated in the press or on social networks are deemed “press offences”. The Belgian Constitution provides that press offences fall within the jurisdiction of the Assize Court, which involves a trial before a jury of peers (art. 150). The only exception is for press offences inspired by racism or xenophobia, which falls under the jurisdiction of “ordinary” criminal courts. Because of the difficulty and cost of an assize trial, there is a de facto impunity for all non-racist discriminatory speech written and disseminated in the press or on social networks. Hence, no judicial remedy exists to combat behaviour that hinders the freedom of expression of those targeted, who will more often be people with a protected criterion, such as women and transgender people. Victims of hate speech implement strategies of avoidance and withdrawal from public space. 

Barriers in access to information and law and policymaking processes

Publicity of official documents in Belgium requires undergoing a complex procedure, with little emphasis placed on the proactivity of the administration to make documents more easily accessible. Three different publicity regimes co-exist at the federal level, and two different appeal bodies exist to challenge the refusal of access to documents by a federal authority, namely the Commission d'accès et de réutilisation des documents administratifs and the Commission fédérale de recours pour le droit d'accès à l'information en matière environnementale. Yet those two appeal bodies’ rulings are not binding for public authorities. The effectiveness of this system has been criticized. Efforts are required in order to improve the right of access to public documents. Regional appeal bodies also exist for access to documents within the competences of the Regions or the Communities, whose decisions are generally binding. 

Furthermore, procedures for effective access to documents are relatively long in Belgium. This is particularly detrimental to journalists who often need swift access to certain documents due to publishing deadlines. It would be advisable to provide an emergency procedure, allowing a decision to be obtained within a shorter period of time if the circumstances justify this.

Criminalisation of human rights defenders’ activities

The criminalisation of human rights defenders’ work has also been reported as a challenge.

Limit access to funding - including from foreign sources

The previous Flemish government amended the decree on social-cultural work so that funding would have prioritised organisations that focus on integration, rather than those who “revert back to their ethic-cultural origin.” This ambiguous amendment has been the subject of much controversy and could have had a negative impact on the freedoms of association, assembly and expression, as the decree created the risk that grant funding would become dependent on consistency with policy orientation, compromising the independence of organisations and making critical voices vulnerable to defunding. The Belgian constitutional court ruled in September 2024 that this condition was ambiguous and ought to be annulled.

In June of 2024, the Flemish Equal Rights Decree was amended. Several changes appear to positively impact the protection of human rights in Flanders, including the expansion of discrimination grounds; the facilitation of the procedure for a request for reasonable accommodation by a person with a disability; and the increased penalty that can be imposed by a judge. However, the amended decree also changed the allocation of subsidies. Civil society organisations now have to request subsidies every five years. Successful organisations are granted the status of a ‘partner organisation’ for the upcoming five years, leading to more financial predictability. However, for organisations that are not granted the status of ‘partner organisation’, the lack of subsidies for a period of five years could be detrimental to their existence. 

Enforcement of judgments

Lack of enforcement of thousands of judgments – especially decisions related to the reception of international protection seekers – by public authorities has a severe and direct impact on non-governmental organisations, attorneys and magistrates working on migrant rights. It has led to a gigantic work overload for these actors – as pointed out among others by the European Court of Human Rights, which had to rule on more than a thousand of such cases – which severely impacts their functioning.

Specific support to women or LGBTQ+ HRD

IGVM-IEFH provides legal support to people who suffer discrimination in relation to their gender, in the broadest sense of the term. This can include women, transgender and intersex human rights defenders. IGVM-IEFH examines on a case-by-case basis whether a link can be made with its areas of competence. If so, it provides them with legal advice and can take action alongside them, including court action.

IGVM-IEFH and Unia are currently conducting a study in collaboration with LGBTQ+ advocacy associations to evaluate the federal action plan ‘For an LGBTQI+ Friendly Belgium’ 2021-2024’ and propose recommendations to the new authorities. Additionally, Unia has long-standing collaboration agreements with LGBTQ+ advocacy associations. 

At the end of 2022, Unia sent a contribution to the United Nations as part of its evaluation of Belgium’s conformity with the CEDAW. Unia specifically underlined the higher risks of discrimination and violence for women with a disability. 

FIRM-IFDH did not include specific questions regarding women human rights defenders in its recent study of the situation of human rights defenders (HRDs) in Belgium. It plans to address this gap in a forthcoming edition of its study by disaggregating data by (possible) grounds of discrimination as much as possible. This will help to highlight the unique and cumulative challenges faced by vulnerable and marginalized groups, and to develop specific measures to support these groups. 

Furthermore, FIRM-IFDH conducted several focus group discussions which made clear that women human rights defenders, especially those with a migration background, are particularly targeted on social media. 

Verbal or physical attacks on civil society organisations and/or human rights defenders, their work and environment

FIRM-IFDH has carried out research into the quality of civic space and the threats and pressures faced by civil society organisations. 159 organisations responded to its questionnaire, a majority of whom (55%) said they had experienced at least one form of intimidation and aggression between 2020 and 2022. These attacks could take several forms including: 

• legal intimidation (24%);
• negative media campaigns (22%);
• online attacks on their digital infrastructure (19%);
• political sanctions (17%);
• destruction of material goods belonging to employees or to the organisation itself (12%);
• regular verbal attacks (11%);
• physical attacks (such as being slapped or pushed) (10%);
• and illegitimate acts of violence committed by members of the police (such as unjustified arrests, use of force disproportionate to the type of action taken) (5%). 

Negative attitudes/campaigns towards/perceptions of CSO and HRD by public authorities and the general public

In 2024, an alert regarding political intervention was made to the Council of Europe’s Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists, following criticisms expressed publicly by the French-speaking Media Minister regarding a reportage titled “How to be less racist?” by the public broadcast media RTBF.  

Intimidation, harassment or violence before, during or after protests

The French-speaking professional journalists association expressed concerns about the behaviour of certain members of the police force towards journalists in the exercise of their duty to provide information. Its statement followed the brief arrest and the seizure of video material of a journalist of Zin TV covering an unauthorized demonstration in November 2024, where physical and verbal violence from the police against the journalist were reported, including sexist and racist insults. Three persons, including the journalist, filed a criminal complaint.

Harassment in the form of excessive administrative controls or audits

Nearly one in ten organisations who replied to the questionnaire of FIRM-IFDH’s research on human rights defenders report that they have been disproportionately controlled by an (official) administrative body after communicating openly on a sensitive and controversial subject or carrying out a contested action.

In one specific example, journalists at Zin TV, in Brussels, reported to the RTBFbeing the subject of political pressures, intimidation and a politically-motivated police investigation of their professional premises. The journalists believe these pressures are due to having hosted a conference on the criminalisation of Palestinian voices in the European Union four months earlier.

Surveillance by state actors

In FIRM-IFDH’s research on the situation of human rights defenders in Belgium (covering the timespan between 2020-2022), 6% of the organisations surveyed suspected having been kept under surveillance by state actors, either by Belgian or foreign governments. Organisations report suspecting they were being targeted because the organisation's actions were sometimes prevented due to pressure from representatives of foreign governments, even though no communication on the action had yet been made; or because they were the subject of verbal attacks based on such personal data (about members of their family, for example, or private experiences) that only a secret service could discover. In addition, several organisations reported they have discovered that the phones of some members of the organisation have been put under surveillance using Pegasus spyware.

Strategic lawsuits against public participation – SLAPPs

Threats or legal and/or administrative intimidation occur occasionally and more often against staff members than against organisations (±15% compared to ±10%). At least 5% of organisations report that they have been the subject of (threats of) legal proceedings (‘SLAPP’) from natural or legal persons, organisations and/or public authorities who have initiated (or threatened to initiate) proceedings against them (such as claims for damages, criminal charges, injunctions, administrative actions or fines and tax complaints).

In March 2024, the Gent Court of Appeal squashed an earlier ruling that had forbidden the publication of embarrassing information regarding the president of the Flemish socialist party.  

Gender aspect

A study commissioned by IGVM-IEFH shows that women candidates for political elections are subject to more aggressive and sexist behavior than their male counterparts on social networks and in real life, which can have a very real negative impact on them. It affects their well-being and their political commitment. It can also lead them to give up a career in politics, which has serious consequences for democracy in the long run. 

FIRM-IFDH’s study on the threats faced by civil society organisations defending human rights also show that personal characteristics – such as gender, sex, sexual orientation and physical appearance – are often the target of online and offline verbal aggression. This is specifically the case where individual employees are targeted, as reported by four out of every ten participating organisations. Employees working for organisations that defend women's rights and/or LGBTQIA+ rights are (much) more likely to be confronted with misogynistic and/or transphobic comments.

Threats and attacks on human rights defenders

In FIRM-IFDH’s research on the situation of human rights defenders in Belgium (covering the timespan between 2020-2022), 8% of the organisations surveyed reported online bullying against employees. Online verbal attacks, which are initially directed at organisations, increasingly target employees, mainly via social networks. Staff members are repeatedly confronted with hate messages and insults, often in the form of online trolls. These are presumably members of the public but may also be members of extremist political parties who have organised to take coordinated online action.

More than 1 in 3 of the surveyed organizations reported offline verbal attacks. These may take the form of recurring and even threatening phone calls. Negative and threatening speeches – in which, for example, the raison d’être of organisations is publicly questioned – are sometimes made by politicians during parliamentary debates.

The perpetrators of those threats and intimidation attempts have a diverse profile. Threats to individuals mostly appear to come from members of the general public. Organisations (as legal entities) tend to be targeted by actors from political circles.

The area of human rights defended by the organisations influences their experiences of pressure and threats. Those working on 1) racism, migrants and refugees and/or 2) LGBTQIA+ are most often targeted, particularly by verbal attacks. They are also more likely to be threatened, particularly by politicians. These threats take the form, for example, of proposals to defund the organisation in question in policy papers; the making and relaying of threats against them via the press and other media; or disproportionate and unforeseen monitoring of activities (by a public service responsible for employment or social security, for example).

Transnational repression of human rights defenders

Some recent concerns were raised by the Flemish journalists association about damages caused to two Kurdish-language television channels and material seized by the police during raids as part of a European Investigation Order into terrorist financing, and its possible consequence on press freedom. The Belgian state has not yet reply to the alert made on 31 May 2024 on the Council of Europe’s Platform for the Safety of Journalists. 

FIRM-IFDH’s study on human rights defenders highlighted that 6% of the participating organisations had suspected surveillance by national or foreign security services in 2021-2022. A situation of physical aggression committed by representatives of a non-European state during a demonstration in Belgium to denounce violations committed by the leaders of this state was also reported by one of the participating organisations active abroad.

Finally, some human rights defenders in Belgium have been sued before foreign jurisdictions in cases that have been deemed SLAPPs. This raises significant concern regarding possible forum-shopping and underlines the need for an ambitious transposition of the European anti-SLAPP directive in Belgium. 

Initiatives, frameworks, or policies for the protection of human rights defenders existing at the national level

In 2024, FIRM-IFDH conducted a research report on the protection of HRDs in Belgium. A majority of the consulted human rights organisations had recently faced pressure and intimidation. Many indicated that the situation as a whole had deteriorated over the past two years. More protection for the civic space and HRDs is needed. A number of concrete proposals were included in the report, some of which are presented hereunder.

There are no specific protection mechanisms such as emergency response systems or safe houses specifically aimed at HRDs in Belgium. However, in 2023, the Federal Government adopted 3 royal decrees to provide structural funding for coalitions of civil society organisations active in:

1. The fight against racism;
2. The fight against discrimination based on sexual orientation;
3. and the fight for gender equality.

Specific strategies to protect human rights defenders and/or inclusion of human rights defenders in human rights action plans

While there are no specific strategies to protect human rights defenders, three national action plans do include HRDs:

1. The National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights (2024-2029) foresees that “companies and investors [should] respect the space for civil society organisations and provide consultation mechanisms with them”. Supporting civil society is framed as a way to gain better understanding of a market.
2. The National Action Plan in the Fight against Gender-based Violence (2021-2025) provides for integrated policies around gender equality, involving civil society organisations and for the establishment of a National Consultative Platform, composed of civil society organisations, monitoring independently the National Action Plan.
3. The National Action Plan against Racism 2021-2024 also includes several provisions regarding civil society organisations, including its consultation for drafting the plan. One of the Plan’s strategic objectives is to maintain a permanent dialogue between the authorities and relevant stakeholders, especially civil society organisations. 

A majority of the consulted human rights organisations in FIRM-IFDH’s study on the protection of HRDs had recently faced pressure and intimidation. Many indicated that the situation as a whole had deteriorated over the past two years. More protection for the civic space and HRDs is needed. A number of concrete proposals were included in the report, some of which are presented in this chapter.

Gender aspects 

FIRM-IFDH’s research report on human rights defenders in Belgium found that nearly four surveyed organisations in ten reported that the incidents against members of staff were perpetrated with explicit reference to their gender or sex, especially in organisations that defend the human rights of women and the LGBTQI+-community. Amongst staff members, women, and especially women of colour, Muslim women and queer women, were found to be targeted in a disproportionate, aggressive and orchestrated manner. Any measure taken to better protect HRDs in Belgium should take this gendered reality into account.

NHRI actions to promote civil society space and human rights defenders (HRDs) 

Awarding of prizes

Every year, Unia takes part in juries organized by several Belgian public authorities to award prizes to projects involved, for example, in the fight against homophobia, or the fight against cyber-hate. These juries allow for the funding of local initiatives to combat racism, homophobia, etc.

Promotion Campaigns

FIRM-IFDH conducted a ‘Defend the defenders’ promotional campaign, from December 2023 to January 2024, through posters in public places and with specific events as well as online publications. The aim was to improve HRDs’ protection by raising public awareness for the need to defend their rights.

Joint meetings and/or roundtables

In October 2024, numerous human rights organisations and public institutions met for a workshop to identify potential courses of action to support HRDs in Belgium and Europe. They also discussed FIRM-IFDH’s role in the protection of HRDs and the concrete actions it could potentially take. Based on these discussions, FIRM-IFDH is currently considering several actions to be taken at national level that fall within its mandate.

FIRM-IFDH also took part and organised several events dedicated to this subject matter, including a roundtable on a protection mechanism for HRDs and civil society organisations in Europe in April 2024; a workshop on “Strengthening NHRIs’ role as protection mechanisms for human rights defenders” (26 September 2024); a roundtable on civil society and threats to the rule of law (8 October 2024); and a panel discussion on standing up for human and children's rights (24 October 2024). FIRM-IFDH also became a member of an advisory group that supports a study on safeguarding civil space for a vital democracy, conducted by a consortium of Belgian universities. 

Unia has set up two commissions bringing together various actors (civil society organisations, trade unions, etc.), one working in the field of anti-racism and the other related to the field of disability. The commissions meet several times a year, providing a forum for exchange and support. Unia also takes part in the general meeting of the NAPAR coalition, which brings together a large number of actors in the fight against racism. Unia also participates in several working groups and advisory councils with civil society. 

Advocacy and publications

FIRM-IFDH also participated to several auditions before the federal Parliament on the subject of the protection of HRDs. On 29 January 2025, it presented the Belgian chapter to ENNHRI 2024 Rule of Law Report to the Justice Commission of the House of Representatives, including the main findings of its report on HRDs protection in Belgium. The HRDs protection report was also presented to the federal Senate’s Commission of Institutional Affairs on 3 February 2025. Additionally, the main findings of this report were presented and discussed to most major political actors in several meetings throughout 2024 and included in its main priorities for political parties ahead of the June 2024 elections. 

FIRM-IFDH published a guide for whistleblowers in December 2024, together with the Federal Ombudsman. It is aimed at people who report abuse or fraud in the workplace or would like to do so. It informs whistleblowers of their rights, directs them to the appropriate contact point and support organisations (including FIRM-IFDH and the Ombudsman) and encourages them to speak out.

Unia supports local NGOs with training and cooperation about equal rights and non-discrimination. In 2024, Unia trained a.o. first line workers of LGBTQIA+ organisations, trade unions and centres promoting the integration of newly arrived migrants.

Finally, Unia and the Combat Poverty Service plan to initiate a collective complaint procedure before the European Committee of Social Rights on the grounds of digital inequality. Several human rights civil society organisations will be associated to this complaint.

NHRI actions to protect civil society space and human rights defenders (HRDs)

Monitoring

As mentioned above, FIRM-IFDH conducts research into issues relating to the quality of civic space and the pressure and intimidation experienced by human rights defenders. It ensures that its studies complement those undertaken by other observers, whether they come from other public institutions or from civil society. FIRM-IFDH also formulates recommendations aimed at HRDs and policy makers and follows up on them.

Complaints handling

Four co-authors of this report have a complaints-handling mechanism that can be used to support HRDs and civil society space if a situation falls within their competence: Unia, IGVM-IEFH, FLANHRI and Myria. 

IGVM-IEFH’s mission includes ensuring respect for the equality of women and men and combating all forms of discrimination or inequality based on gender. In this capacity, it assists, within the limits of its mandate, any person seeking advice on the extent of their rights and obligations, and issues opinions and recommendations to the public authorities. In 2024, IGVM-IEFH received and processed 1,126 reports as part of these legal missions. It also drafted 12 advisory opinions. 

In 2023, Unia received and handled 1704 reports. It formulated 18 advisory opinions and policy recommendations. It also prepared 74 recommendations for its June 2024 Elections Memorandum.

FLANHRI receives reports and complaints about human rights issues. These reports feed into its investigatory and research priorities, which often lead to advising Flemish public entities on human rights issues.

Legal assistance

Unia joined forces with CAWaB, a collective of more than 20 associations active in the field of accessibility for people with disabilities, to ask the rail operator (NMBS-SNCB) to extend its assistance to people with disabilities to embark and disembark trains with the help of a train assistant. Owing to insufficient results from this approach, Unia has introduced a legal action against NMBS-SNCB. 

In August 2024, 24 Brussels-based civil society organisations filed an application with the Constitutional Court for the annulment of one of the provisions of the ‘Brussels Digital’ ordinance (nr 8303). In October 2024, Unia joined them in its capacity as an equality and anti-discrimination body and as an independent mechanism responsible for monitoring the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 

IGVM-IEFH’s mandate also includes providing legal assistance, including in order to protect human rights defenders that face a form of gender-based discrimination, or any other of its related criteria. 

Recommendations and opinions

Unia regularly joins forces with one or more associations to draw up recommendations. For example, Unia recently joined forces with CAWaB, Dito, Kannet and the National High Council for People with Disabilities to provide the negotiators of the next federal government agreement with coordinated recommendations on the accessibility of rail transport. Additionally, Unia drew up a recommendation on digital inequalities for a umbrella group of associations defending illiterate people (Lire et Ecrire).

FIRM-IFDH’s Report on the quality of civic space in Belgium contain a number of recommendations aimed at better protecting civil society space and HRDs’ in Belgium. Some of these recommendations were also included in FIRM-IFDH’s Memorandum for the June 2024 elections, as well as in two recent Parliamentary hearings. 

Capacity building

FIRM-IFDH conducted several meetings with organisations involved in human rights over the course of 2024. One of those meetings, in October 2024, aimed at allowing French- and Dutch-speaking to discuss their respective experiences and learn from each other, as well as discussing more structural solutions to better protect human rights defenders in Belgium.  

Through NHRI’s specific/additional mandates

FIRM-IFDH has two specific mandates regarding HRDs’ protection. First it is legally mandated to provide support to whistleblowers, including legal assistance, either directly or via attorneys. It offers training on whistleblower protection. FIRM-IFDH and the Federal Ombudsman recently published their Whistleblower’s Guide to provide more information on these missions. 

Second, FIRM-IFDH was appointed focal point against SLAPP by the Ministry of Justice in 2022. In this capacity, it gathers and shares information on available resources regarding protection against SLAPP. It is also participates as an observer in the Belgian anti-SLAPP working group.

Examples of NHRI engagement in this area with international and regional mechanisms in support of human rights defenders and civil society

FIRM-IFDH’s research report on Human Rights Defenders in Belgium formulates recommendations grounded in various regional and international guidelines on the protection of HRDs. FIRM-IFDH presented these to policymakers in diverse forums, including parliamentary committees, bilateral meetings, and discussions on priorities for the new government. FIRM-IFDH also met and involved in its research a member of an international coalition dedicated to the protection of HRDs and civil society organisations in Europe. FIRM-IFDH will continue to follow support relevant developments at the European level.

Recommendations to national actors

On Human Rights Defenders:

• Ensure that the space for human rights organizations to defend and promote human rights is preserved at all times.
• Facilitate the development of human rights organizations that monitor human rights compliance and continue to foster mutual engagement between authorities and human rights organisations.
• Ensure that human rights organisations have access to stable and predictable funding. Providing organisations with resources cannot have a negative impact on their independence in the performance of their work and cannot prevent them from adopting a critical stance on policies.
• Work towards increasing awareness of the importance of human rights and the role of human rights organisations in order to foster a culture that values the work human rights defenders do. This includes supporting educational initiatives that inform the general public about human rights issues and likeminded efforts by human rights organisations.

On Freedom of Assembly:

• Guarantee the right to protest under all circumstances by refraining from criminalizing peaceful demonstrations.
• Ensure that municipal regulations on demonstrations do not unlawfully restrict the right to protest.

On SLAPPs:

• Effectively protect human rights defenders from clearly unfounded or unlawful legal proceedings, including by an ambitious transposition of the EU anti-SLAPP Directive. 

On hate speech:

• Establish a policy to combat online and offline hate messages and remove the legal obstacles that prevent their prosecution. 

Recommendations to European actors

1. Closely monitor the transposition of the EU anti-SLAPP Directive, taking into account the standards set out in the European Commission Recommendation 2022/758 and the Recommendation CM/Rec (2024)2 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. This should include an effective support system for defendants in SLAPP procedures.
2. Support the implementation and broad application of the Digital Services Act, including by fostering and supporting the trusted institutions that combat illegal, online content (art. 22). The European Commission should also encourage Belgium to designate ‘trusted flaggers’ as soon as possible. Additionally, the Commission could offer clearer guidelines and strong, effective means to ‘trusted flaggers’ that have already been designated by public authorities. 

Independence and impartiality of judiciary

The 2025-2029 Federal Government Agreement envisages appointing judges at the Council for Alien Law Litigation (CALL – an independent administrative tribunal for immigration cases) for a renewable mandate of five years instead of for life. 

The federal government will also examine whether the competence regarding the reception of applicants for international protection could be transferred from the labour courts to the CALL. This change could be in response to the State’s thousands of convictions for refusing to provide applicants for international protection with their legally mandated reception and the State’s subsequent refusal to enforce those judgments and pay the penalties ordered by the labour courts. 

As mentioned in ENNHRI 2024 Rule of Law Report, there are also some concerns regarding several recent law proposals that would reinforce disciplinary control exercised on the judges, including by controlling them more frequently, by creating new bodies tasked with the upholding of the discipline (and sometimes removing the current privilege of the chef de corps) and to allow for new sanctions. These law proposals seem intended to break with the tradition of magistrates’ disciplinary proceedings being mostly conducted by the judiciary itself, in order to improve both the effectiveness of the proceedings and its appearance of impartiality to the larger public. A more thorough analysis of these proposals was published in last year’s report. Furthermore, the 2025-2029 Government Agreement mentions a reform of the disciplinary regime applicable to magistrates, even though few details are currently available. The Agreement does seem to indicate that the law on the autonomy of the judiciary might be paused until the disciplinary reform has been made. This could be concerning given that the law on the autonomy of the judiciary was expected to lead to increased resources for the judiciary. 

Delays in court proceedings

As underlined in the European Commission 2024 Rule of Law Report on Belgium, delay in court proceedings remain a significant problem in Belgium. Furthermore, there remains a lack of statistical information that allow to measure the evolution of this problem, despite multiple recommendations to gather this information. 

Access to legal aid

Many litigants in Belgium are giving up their rights due to of the cost of a judicial procedure, significant delays and lack of confidence in the justice system. Without covering exhaustively this subject, some issues limiting access to legal aid can be highlighted, related to the competences of the authors of this report: 

• In 2024, a coalition of Belgian civil society organisations, judicial actors and trade unions made a number of recommendations to improve access to justice. They include setting thresholds for access to completely free legal aid above the poverty line, and a yearly indexation based on inflation. The platform also expressed concerns about the physical accessibility of courts for people with reduced mobility and/or disabilities and for people without electronic identity documents (checked at the entrance of certain buildings), as well as regarding access to digital documents for people with limited online access.
• The 2025-2029 Federal Government Agreement envisages to re-evaluate the remuneration for free legal aid for applicants of international protection, to increase its control and the fight against fraud.
• The Act of 4 May 2020 established IGVM-IEFH’s competence to deal with non-consensual dissemination of images and recordings of a sexual nature. However, the Public Prosecutor's Office regularly refuses to take statements as injured party from IGVM-IEFH in such cases, on the pretext that there is no gender dimension. Courts have also ruled that IGVM-IEFH’s legal action in such cases was inadmissible. IGVM-IEFH finds two faults in this reasoning: first, it does not seem necessary for the Institute to demonstrate any gender discrimination as the 2020 Act habilitates it to act. Second, there is a gender dimension to these cases, since they often rely on gender and sex-related stereotypes.
• The Combat Poverty Service dealt with access to legal aid in the context of its work on the non-take-up of rights. It recommended that authorities and actors involved initiate a reflection on non-take-up, provide for better monitoring and for the necessary measures to improve access to justice.
• Finally, the quasi-impunity associated with discriminatory press offences is also an obstacle to access to justice for victims.

Professionalism, specialisation and training of judges

The Commission for the evaluation of the federal antidiscrimination laws recommends to step up training efforts for judges on anti-discrimination legislation, with the assistance of equality bodies. This training should include awareness-raising of the impact of discrimination, hate speech and hate crimes on victims and society.  

Respect for fair trial standards

In recent years, municipal administrative sanctions have been increasingly used to combat behaviours deemed problematic by public authorities and to prosecute certain minor offences (such as insults, graffiti, non-violent thefts of less than a few hundred euros, etc.). Although the law provides a remedy to the police court, access to the judge can be difficult in practice to challenge those fines. Research from the National Institute of Criminalistics and Criminology suggests that the existing remedy is rarely used, owing to a lack of information and the potential costs associated with the procedure that could end up much higher than the challenged fine (maximum 500 euros). For example, on 7 October 2024, the Antwerp police court ordered a person to pay €299 in additional costs in addition to the confirmed fine of €60 for its participation in an unauthorized peaceful demonstration that had not disturbed public order. 

The 2025-2029 Federal Government Agreement intends to introduce remote hearings or hearing at prisons premises for the legality review of the pre-trial detention. This represents a significant change from the recently adopted remote hearings Act, as the Agreement establishes as a general principle that the hearings could be held remotely without the consent of the parties to the proceedings. This change could lead to a serious risk of violation of the right to a fair trial. 

Digitalization of the judiciary system can have significant positive impact but should not render access to justice more difficult for the most vulnerable. According to the numerical barometer of the King Baudouin Foundation, in 2023, 40% of Belgians aged between 16 and 74 were in a situation of digital vulnerability. Furthermore, the digital gap between people on low and high incomes is increasing.

Finally, in its 2024 concluding observations for Belgium, the UN Committee on the rights of persons with disabilities noted a lack of sufficient age-appropriate, disability and gender responsive procedural accommodations to ensure effective participation in all legal processes. Judicial staff, such as judges, clerks, magistrates, and others, are often inadequately trained about the individualized requirements of persons with disabilities. Thus, as the Unia has shown in its parallel report for the UN Committee and in two additional reports on the rights of persons with disabilities and on their political participation, they are not sufficiently heard by the judge. This is particularly the case with decisions to place people with mental disorders under observation or under judicial protection. People with disabilities also often lack the financial means to go to court, especially since they are no longer automatically entitled to free legal aid. Deaf and Hard of Hearing litigants do not benefit from a sign language interpreter in civil matters, and the courts are not always accessible.

Timely and effective execution of national courts’ judgments

Non-enforcement of judicial decisions by public authorities remains a significant problem in Belgium, with very little progress being made over the last year. As this issue has already led to several recommendations by the Council of Europe and the European Commission, this section only highlights a number of unenforced court decisions that have not been previously reported on.

An examination of recent case law on prisoners’ complaints shows that the proceedings before the complaints commissions set up in each prison suffer from the lack of participation from many prison directors. The directors often choose to limit themselves to a written defense, or even to forgo presenting a defense altogether. The fairness of the proceedings suffers, and the procedures are often delayed. Furthermore, the implementation of the complaint’s commissions’ rulings is regularly or even – and this is more worrying – simply ignored. However, the law of principles provides that any decision of the complaints commission is enforceable, except if decided otherwise by the chair of the appeals commission. The refusal to enforce a decision can also be challenged in a new procedure before a civil court, but this undermines the effectiveness of the right to lodge a complaint.

In 2019, the Belgian Constitutional Court delivered an important ruling on gender registration in civil status documents. The Court ruled that the Belgian system poses a problem for people of non-binary gender (i.e. who do not fall into the dichotomous categories of ‘man’ and ‘woman’), as they are obliged to have a registered gender that does not correspond to their gender identity. Almost 6 years later, non-binary registration is still not allowed. 

In 2024, FIRM-IFDH launched a study on the non-execution of national judgements. The first part of this study – which will be completed by the end of 2025 – is a (non-exhaustive) inventory of non-executed decisions. To this end, FIRM-IFDH has already identified unexecuted decisions in areas as varied as the right to a healthy environment (overflight of Brussels by planes, ‘nitraat arrest’, etc.), the fight against terrorism (Trabelsi case, return of a terrorist to France), labour law (protection of contractual trade union delegates in the public sector, recording of overtime, grounds for dismissal in the public sector, etc.), company law (refusal to grant subsidies on political grounds), or administrative law (arms exports, payment of penalties to the Council of State, etc.). In total, at the time of this writing, judgements regarding 23 ‘themes’ are considered unexecuted, with sometimes several dozen or even several thousand unexecuted decisions within a theme.

Delay in and/or a lack of publication of judgments

In 2022, a law created the Central Registry of civil and criminal judgments. The law entered into force on 30 September 2023, but the registry remains inaccessible to this date, mostly due to technical difficulties. In 2025, the government announced it would make the registry operational, which would be powered by algorithms. Effectively creating the registry would improve the transparency and the accessibility of the case-law. However, clarification could be brought on the application of the research tool to identify human-rights case-law, such as decisions regarding journalists, criminal investigation involving police officers or civil servants, etc. 

Gender aspects

Some of the issues regarding access to justice indeed affect disproportionately women and marginalised gender groups:

• The non-execution of the abovementioned Constitutional Court's 2019 ruling creates problems for non-binary people as they are still unable to have a registered gender that corresponds to their gender identity despite the situation being unconstitutional;
• The refusal to recognize IGVM-IEFH’s competence in case of non-consensual dissemination of images and recordings of a sexual nature likely has a greater impact on women. IGVM-IEFH can thus not offer them its legal support.
• Women, transgender and intersex people are more likely to be the target of press offences (e.g. cyberstalking or written hate speech). These groups are therefore disproportionately affected by the quasi-impossibility to sanction press offences.
• Finally, the ongoing reception crisis disproportionately impacts vulnerable groups, with a particularly significant effect on single men seeking asylum. The exclusion not only exacerbates their physical and psychological distress, and impacts on their preparedness for the asylum procedure, it also limits their ability to access justice.

Implementation by state authorities of European Courts’ judgments - progress: 

L.B. and W.D. (internees in prison)

The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted an interim resolution on December 5, 2024, expressing its deep concern about the persistence of prolonged detention of internees in prison psychiatric wings without sufficient and adapted therapeutic support. The Committee, among others, urged the authorities to adopt all relevant measures to remedy the situation, speed up the creation of places for internees outside prisons and reinforce care services. The Committee will resume consideration of this group of cases in March 2026. Unia, CTRG-CCSP and FIRM-IFDH had sent a joint rule 9 submission to the Committee. Proper implementation of the L.B. group will require efforts from both the federal authorities and federated entities (Flemish and French Communities).

Order of Flemish Bar Associations – cooperation in the field of taxation

As mentioned in ENNHRI 2024 Rule of Law Report, the European Court of Justice had answered a preliminary question from the Belgian Constitutional Court regarding attorneys’ obligations to notify intermediaries, as stipulated in the Flemish Decree of 21 June 2013, which transposed Council Directive 2011/16/EU on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation. The CJEU determined that this obligation encroached on legal professional privilege, was unwarranted and contravened the fundamental right to uphold confidentiality in lawyer-client communications. Consequently, the Constitutional Court had annulled key provisions of the decree. 

Remaining unresolved issues were resolved after the European Court of Justice answered the remaining preliminary questions in case C-623/22.

Horion (de facto indefinite prison sentence)

The European Convention on Human Rights does not prohibit life imprisonment. However, individuals sentenced to life imprisonment must have a realistic chance of reforming and, if so, to be released. If this is not possible, the sentence is considered inhumane. In the Horion case, the detainee cannot be released before completing a stay in an internee facility, which is not possible under the present legislation. CTRG-CCSP and FIRM-IFDH have sent a Rule 9 communication to the Committee of Ministers, noting the lack of sufficient measures to remedy the situation. 

Camara (non-enforcement of judicial decisions in the context of the so-called “reception crisis”)

More than 1,5 years after the Camara judgement of July 18, 2023, the reception crisis is still ongoing. Numerous court judgments forcing the federal government to grant humane reception to international protection seekers remain unenforced. FIRM-IFDH and Myria submitted a Rule 9 communication to the Council of Europe, highlighting Belgium's insufficient efforts to address the lack of reception capacity. On September 20, 2024, the Committee of Ministers stated that Belgium had not taken adequate measures to resolve the reception crisis. At the end of December 2024, there were still 3,000 single men on the waiting list for a reception place. The average waiting time was 3 to 4 months. The Committee called on Belgium to increase reception capacity and improve intergovernmental cooperation to tackle the crisis. Belgium's next action plan will be monitored by the Committee in September 2025. This issue is addressed at greater depths hereunder.

Vasilescu (prison overcrowding) 

ENNHRI 2024 Rule of Law Report noted significant concerns regarding non-enforcement of judicial decisions relating to prison overcrowding. The situation was such that, in May 2024, the French-speaking and German-speaking Order of Belgian Bar Associations seized the unused prison of Forest. Despite this effort, the millions in penalties occurred (but not paid, in violation of the law) by the Belgian State, and the numerous attempts to draw the attention of the authorities to this issue, two of the three prisons concerned by those court decisions remain overcrowded. 

From December to February, the Federal Parliament held a series of hearings on overcrowding. In December 2024, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted a decision “urg[ing] the authorities to adopt, without further delay, all the measures required to solve the problem of prison overcrowding everywhere”. The Committee of Ministers also “reiterated their urgent call on the authorities to focus their efforts on achieving a sustainable reduction in the prison population and not on increasing capacity”. However, the 2025-2029 Federal Government Agreement appears to focus mostly on increasing prison capacity (both in Belgium and by renting prisons in other Member States of the European Union). In February 2025, CTRG-CCSP called on the authorities to adopt a form of binding prison regulation. 

Bell (excessive length of proceedings)

Excessive length of proceedings remains an ongoing concern in Belgium. Disaggregated statistical data on the disposition time and the clearance rate of Belgian courts and tribunals have not yet been published, despite being emphasized by several actors, including the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and the European Commission. This issue is addressed at greater depths hereunder. 

NHRI actions to support implementation of European Courts’ judgments 

Rule 9 submissions to the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers

Rule 9 submissions were addressed to the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers regarding the execution of the following cases:

• Clasens (CTRG-CCSP and FIRM-IFDH);
• Bell (FIRM-IFDH);
• Camara (Myria and FIRM-IFDH);
• Horion (CTRG-CCSP and FIRM-IFDH);
• Vasilescu (CTRG-CCSP and FIRM-IFDH);
• L.B. (Unia, CTRG-CCSP and FIRM-IFDH).

Referring to the judgments of European Courts in the reports and recommendations to state authorities

References to judgments of European Courts are often included in the reports and recommendations of Belgian human rights institutions. Examples include:

• Myria’s annual report on international protection;
• The Combat Poverty Service’s case-law overview;
• Unia’s parallel report to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its 2023 monitoring report on the rights of internees;
• FLANHRI’s advisory opinion on the Flemish reform of antidiscrimination law;
• IGVM-IEFH’s report on anti-gender campaigns in Belgium;
• CTRG-CCSP’s advisory opinion on prison regulation;
• And FIRM-IFDH’s audition by the Federal Parliament regarding the Rule of Law in Belgium.

Engagement with courts

• FIRM-IFDH held several meetings with magistrates’ organisations in 2024, to discuss non-enforcement of court judgments and the protection of human rights defenders;
• The Combat Poverty Service has an annual training day with judges on magistrates’ view on poverty. 

Awareness raising of the general public

Unia, CTRG-CCSP, FLANHRI and FIRM-IFDH, regularly communicates to the general public on decisions of European Courts or the Committee of Ministers and the lack of implementation by state authorities (for example: Internering in gevangenissen: Europa wijst België op zijn… | Unia). Unia also refers to these decisions in presentations and formations for the general public and professionals as well as in media interventions. 

Human rights education

FIRM-IFDH held several human rights trainings in 2024 and early 2025, including to police agents at the Kazerne Dossin and for junior attorneys of the Young Bar Association. 

Support to specific groups

At the end of 2023, the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) and International Movement ATD – Fourth World filed a complaint before the European Committee of Social Rights. The Committee is asked to find that the repression of begging by local ordinances in Belgium does not comply with the European Social Charter, partly based on a joint study of the Combat Poverty Service and FIRM-IFDH. In 2024, ENNHRI addressed a third-party intervention to the Committee, in support of the claimants and asked the Committee to recognize that begging enjoyed protection under the Charter. 

Measures taken in your country to follow up on the recommendations concerning justice systems, issued by European actors

Non-enforcement of judicial decisions 

Failure to enforce court decisions – both European and national – remains one of the main threats to the rule of law in Belgium. In 2023 and 2024, the European Commission noted its “serious concerns” regarding non-compliance with final judgments. The Commission recommended to Belgium to “[t]ake measures to ensure compliance by public authorities with final rulings of national courts and the European Court of Human Rights”. This is both a long-standing problem – some convictions have been pending for more than twenty years – and a widespread one – affecting both the federal state and the Communities and Regions. It is also getting worse.

This phenomenon has been particularly well illustrated since 2021 by the refusal of the federal authorities to enforce numerous court decisions ordering them to provide dignified reception to applicants for international protection. Court rulings ordering accommodation and assistance to asylum seekers are still systematically non-enforced by the Belgian authorities. There were up to 10.206 convictions by labour courts in December 2024. The Belgian authorities continue to refuse to pay the penalties ordered by the labour courts for non-compliance with court judgements. 

Since December 2024, men with protection status in another EU member state have been doubly targeted: the Secretary on Asylum and Migration announced their exclusion from the legally-mandated reception and their removal from the Fedasil waiting list that could eventually lead to their reception. On 27 December 2024, the Council of State ordered the suspension of this ‘instruction’, requiring it to be submitted for legislative advice. In response, the Secretary on Asylum and Migration announced plans to proceed with the controversial policy despite the court ruling. This ongoing reception crisis exacerbates the humanitarian crisis, leaving many asylum seekers without shelter and at risk.

In its review of the follow-up to the ECtHR Camara judgment in September 2024, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe noted the inadequacy of the measures taken in view of this continuing crisis. The Committee called on Belgium to “eradicate (...) the problem of non-execution of judicial decisions at its source”. In a recent audition before the Justice Commission of the Federal Parliament, FIRM-IFDH also underlined non-enforcement of final judgments as one of the main problems affecting the rule of law in Belgium today, pointing out that a government that does not guarantee effective legal protection undermines all human rights. 

Additional resources for the judiciary 

The European Commission 2024 Rule of Law Report noted, as it had done in 2022 and 2023, the need to “continue efforts to address the structural resources deficiencies in the justice system, taking into account European standards on resources for the justice system.”. In particular, The Commission highlighted the recent workload measurement, which confirmed structural shortcomings. Based on the 2024 scoreboard on justice in the EU, the Commission points out that the justice budget in Belgium is below the European average and that the number of professional magistrates per 100,000 inhabitants is well below average. 

The same observation can be made at the level of the Council of Europe: in recent years, Belgium has allocated approximately 0.22% of its GDP to its justice system, compared to 0.28% of GDP for the median of the Member States of the Council of Europe. It has an median of 14.4 professional judges per 100,000 inhabitants, compared to 17.6 professional judges at the Council of Europe level. Finally, Belgium has 48.8 non-magistrate judicial personnel per 100,000 inhabitants, compared to a median of 57.9 personnel for the Member States of the Council of Europe. 

This observation of a lack of resources is widely shared by those involved in the judicial system. In a joint memorandum, the Constitutional Court, the Court of Cassation and the Council of State emphasized that it is “urgent that judicial activity as a whole receives increased attention and budgetary resources”. In July 2024, the Justice Ministry called on the next government to allocate more financial resources, claiming it would otherwise be unable to pay its bills. In March, and then in November, the professional organisation of sworn translators and interpreters pointed out that some of its members had not been paid by the State for months, a problem that was largely resolved in December. Staff at the Nivelles courthouse were denied access to its archives due to the presence of serious health risks, making it impossible to hold scheduled hearings in some cases. As the situation deteriorated further, the Nivelles courts had to relocate urgently following the closure of the entire courthouse building. Other courthouses have also suffered: between June and October 2024, several media outlets reported that the archives of the judicial districts of Liège, Brussels, Mons and, last year, Tongres had been damaged by water leaks, fungus and mould. This has led, among others, to the inadmissibility of proceedings against a man sentenced in absentia to 25 years' imprisonment because the right to a fair trial could no longer be guaranteed, due to the destruction of the necessary evidence and documents.

The 2025-2029 Federal Government Agreement does not contain clear commitment to significantly increase the resources for the judiciary, contrarily to other sectors – such as defence spendings – which are set to increase. Some improvements have been announced, such as better pay for the judges in training. The government also plans to achieve the autonomous management of courts and tribunals, which has in the past been linked to increased resources (albeit with more responsibilities). However, the Government Agreement also states that the autonomous management will not be finalized until a reform of the discipline and evaluation applicable to judges has been renewed. Such conditionality is worrying, as it could lead to a ‘carrot-and-stick’ situation, where additional resources are denied unless the magistrates agree to a reform. It is also important to prevent the conditionality attached to additional resources to have the unwarranted effect of threatening the quality of the work of the judiciary as well as the independence of the judiciary, nor impede citizens’ effective access to justice. Furthermore, the conditionality should avoid leading to sanction understaffed and underfunded courts and tribunals if they fail to meet the objectives due to a lack of resources. In general, more resources should be allocated to the judiciary in order to ensure that it can carry out its duties in proper and safe working conditions.  

Reducing the length of proceedings 

In its 2024 Report on the Rule of Law, the European Commission recommended that Belgium improves the efficiency of its justice system, “particularly to reduce the length of proceedings based on comprehensive statistical data.” However, excessive length of court proceedings remains a significant problem in Belgium. 

In a recent assessment of the execution of the European Court of Human Rights’ rulings on this matter, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe emphasised “the importance of making progress without delay, and in particular of finalising the mapping of the backlog and processing times of all courts, while strengthening the resources of the most overburdened ones”. The Committee also invited the government to provide statistics on the disposition time and the clearance rate of civil and criminal cases, both in first instance and on appeal, and both at the national level and on the number of cases disaggregated by court within each court of appeal. The clearance rate is a measurement of the capacity of a court or judicial system to resolve as many cases as it receives within a specified period of time. It is obtained by dividing the number of cases resolved by the number of new cases within the same period.

While efforts have been made to better map the processing of court cases, statistics on the clearance remain incomplete as they do not take into account the differences existing between different jurisdictions within the same judicial district. Furthermore, statistics on the disposition time have not yet been published. 

FIRM-IFDH has written several times on the length of legal proceedings as part of its follow-up to the Bell v. Belgium ruling of the European Court of Human Rights. In April 2024, it published its second communication to the Committee of Ministers, which took stock of previously published statistics on the processing time of legal proceedings and the clearance rate of Belgian courts. FIRM-IFDH, like the Commission, has asked federal authorities to publish statistical data on the length of judicial proceedings in civil and criminal cases, which would account for the disparities between judicial districts. It has also asked the State to detail the measures it intends to take to address staffing problems and the increasing backlog of several jurisdictions, including in family courts. 

Strengthening Parliament’s integrity framework 

The European Commission 2024 Rule of Law Report recommended to strengthen the federal Parliament’s integrity framework, including by adopting rules on gifts and benefits for members of Parliament. In 2024, article 6 of the deontological code of the House of Representatives was modified in order to clarify which gifts can be received by members of Parliament. A reference was made to the existing legal framework for electoral spending (article 16bis of the Act of 4 July 1989). Contrary to the government’s deontological code (art. 5), no gifts register was introduced for members of parliament. This was not considered desirable, given the difficulties of control and the heavy administrative burden it would lead to.

1. Non-execution of Judgements: the lack of execution of judicial decisions—both European and national—is one of the greatest threats to the rule of law in Belgium. A government that fails to ensure effective legal protection undermines all human rights. Respect for these decisions must urgently become a priority for the government and Parliament.
   1. Organize a parliamentary hearing on the non-execution of judicial rulings to highlight the scope of the issue and discuss possible solutions.
   2. Request the government to provide regular updates on the follow-up of significant rulings that have not yet been implemented.
   3. Approve legislative amendments to address gaps identified by courts and tribunals.
2. Additional Resources for the Judiciary
   1. Commit to approving an adequate budget for sufficient personnel and resources for courts and tribunals, taking into account European standards for resources to the judiciary.
   2. Ensure that judicial funding remains independent of performance criteria set by the executive branch to safeguard judicial independence.
3. Addressing Excessive Length of Judicial Proceedings
   1. Publish data – either through the government or in a parliamentary report – on the length of judicial proceedings and case resolution rates, broken down by judicial district and by each jurisdiction within them, including distinctions between civil and criminal divisions of the courts of appeal.
   2. Provide details on the measures the government plans to take to address the growing backlog in family courts.
   3. Allocate additional resources to reduce backlogs in the most affected courts and tribunals.
4. Providing Care and Assistance to Internees and Detainees
   1. Increase efforts to provide (mental) health care and assistance to internees, detainees and former detainees. At present, it is not clear for many detainees and internees which services (psychological, educational,…) are available, due to lack of information about them (or registration to them), lack of translation and illiteracy. Internees and some detainees do not have access to those services because of their legal status, residence status, multiple problems or disorders, foreign language, or because there is no or only limited provision.
   2. Facilitate the transfer of internees from prisons and forensic psychiatric facilities into the ordinary care circuit. Solutions should be found for internees without residence permits.
5. Legal aid
   1. Make information regarding legal aid accessible through different channels (personal contacts, leaflets, collaboration with neighbourhood organizations) to reach the widest possible audience and use as little legal jargon as possible.
   2. Review and address financial and material obstacles to legal aid and legal insurance.
6. Non-take-up of Rights
   1. Provide appropriate financial resources and training to the administrative authorities tasked with overseeing the effectiveness of rights.
   2. Undergo an ex ante and ex post evaluation – where people in poverty and other relevant actors are included – of measures with a possible impact on situations of poverty. These analyses must particularly consider effective ways to reach vulnerable persons – including take-up and non-take-up of rights.
   3. Adopt a plan to combat the non-take-up of rightsat the federal, regional and local levels.

Media independence

• In Belgium, audiovisual media (including online platforms and influencers) are an exclusive competence of the communities. Audiovisual media in Flanders have a specific supervisory institution, the Vlaamse Regulator voor de Media (VRM), with which FLANHRI closely collaborated in developing this section. 

Several safeguards are in place to guarantee media independence in Flanders, including:  

• Editorial statutes. These written frameworks define the relationships between editors, editor-in-chief, and management within a broadcast media, ensuring the independent operation of editors in relation to the broadcaster;
• Legal guarantees. The Flemish Media Decree explicitly states that broadcasters must be independent of political parties and that broadcasts are under the final editorial responsibility of the staff.
• Historical reasons. Historically, newspapers in Belgium were affiliated with political parties and labour organizations. However, those affiliations faded out after World War II due to the consolidation of many newspapers into a few media groups. Most newspapers are now owned by commercial entities and the largest are all independent from political groupings. Politically affiliated news brands exist but do not have a large audience nor are they seen as leaders within the Flemish media landscape. This independence is supported by the yearly media concentration reports published by VRM.
• Strong self-regulation. The remaining area of concern, such as media groups promoting their own products, are generally seen as manageable. The presence of norms and good practices published by the Media Councils (Raad voor de Journalistiek) helps to uphold editorial ethics. 

According to a 2024 survey, most journalists in Flanders are satisfied with the collective autonomy of editors from commercial and other pressures. Internal bodies or self-regulatory instruments also play a crucial role in protecting journalists from commercial pressures and other external pressures. Belgium’s rise to the 16th place in the World Press Freedom Index by Reporters Sans Frontières (RSF) also suggests a relatively healthy media environment.

However, a statement by the Flemish Association of Journalists argues in favour of a more pluralistic board of directors of the current public broadcaster VRT. A partial depoliticization took place in 2021 which resulted in four independent directors being required among the total of twelve. Eight out of twelve directors remain politically assigned, with a system of equal representation for the biggest parties in the Flemish Parliament. This shift within the appointment system leads to smaller political parties not being represented within the current board of directors. The current system of appointment risks to jeopardise the safeguards laid out in the new European Media Freedom Act, which calls for a management board where members are appointed on the basis of transparent, open, effective and non-discriminatory procedures and transparent, objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria laid down in advance at national level.

Media pluralism

Both the Flemish and the French-language media markets remain highly concentrated. However, several actors, such as the Media Pluralism Monitor and the European Commission consider this concentration to be sufficiently counterbalanced by the independence of media regulators. In Flanders at least, media regulators have an obligation to publish a yearly report on media concentration. Furthermore, over the past five years, media pluralism among individual television channels has increased.

Harassment, threats and attacks against journalists and media outlets (including legal harassment, SLAPPs)

In 2024, several worrying trends regarding the protection of journalists against frivolous lawsuits and other actions aimed at limiting the right to information became exacerbated. A number of noticeable cases appear to point at attempts to go against the constitutional ban on preventive censorship (art. 25), as the two professional organisations representing (French-speaking and Flemish) journalists highlighted in a statement. Several examples can be mentioned:  

• The Court of Appeal in Ghent ruled on 28 March 2024 that a well-known politician could not rely on a legal basis to prohibit the publication of an article about him. The court ruled that the order of the first instance tribunal had violated the constitutional prohibition on preventive censorship.
• On 10 October 2024 – just days before the municipal elections – a judge in Liège acting on an emergency unilateral application imposed a publication ban on an article about a candidate for the municipal elections.
• The Minister of the Interior together with an official working on the ‘QatarGate’ requested the removal of several online publications by the Sudinfo media group. Additionally, a ban was sought on "any similar publication in the future." The judge found the request to be in direct contradiction with the Belgian constitutional ban on preventive censorship.
• A bailiff requested banning the distribution of a broadcast of the public media RTBF before the French-speaking Business Court of Brussels. While the court ruled in favour of RTBF, the reasoning it followed has raised concerns that commercial legislation on unfair practices could be invoked and used to justify preventive censorship.
• Lastly, several instances of violence and other forms of harassment have been reported against journalists, among else by the French-speaking and the Flemish Journalists Associations, and the NGO Mapping Media Freedom. More examples of violence and harassment against journalists are presented under question 15 hereabove. 

Independence and effectiveness of media regulatory bodies

According to the Flemish Media Decree, the Flemish media regulator VRM is set up as a separate legal entity and its independence is explicitly recognized in the legal framework (art. 215). Its deciding organ is entirely composed of experts that are independent from both media organisations, commercial interest groups and broadcasters (art. 216).

VRM has never been condemned after an investigation by an anti-corruption body. 

Challenges in access to public interest information/documents

The European Commission has long recommended Belgium amended its legislation regarding access to public documents, arguing in its July 2024 report that Belgium should “(…) strengthen the framework for access to official documents, in particular by improving request and appeal processes, taking into account European standards on access to official documents”. The federal law on access to official documents had then just been amended by the Act of 12 May 2024. However, those changes were received with mixed enthusiasm, due to a lack of reform of the main deficiencies of the current publicity regime. The appeal bodies competent to contest a refusal to receive access were not granted binding decision-making powers, nor was an urgent procedure introduced. Furthermore, two new absolute grounds to refuse access to official documents were introduced, leading to criticism, among others, from the French-speaking and the Flemish Journalists Associations. 

While the federal parliament adopted an act giving assent to the Council of Europe Convention on access to official documents (the ‘Tromsø Convention’), Belgium is still to formally ratify the convention. The Act also does not appear to have been published yet in the Belgian Official Gazette. It is also unclear whether all relevant parliaments from federated entities have adopted laws assenting to the Convention, especially for the Walloon Region. 

In 2024, the new Penal Code was adopted. It included, among other things, revised articles regarding the protection of state secrets. These articles expand, among other things, the definition of state secrets. FIRM-IFDH expressed its concern about these provisions in a 2023 advisory opinion to the federal Parliament. These provisions, when applied, could pose a threat to press freedom and to the role of whistleblowers, and their ability to contact and bring relevant information to journalists. Furthermore, journalists could themselves be prosecuted under this new statute based on their having access or storing state secrets. The Flemish and French-speaking Professional Journalists associations recently introduced legal proceedings against this new offence before the Constitutional Court. The ruling is expected in 2026. 

Gendered aspects 

Analyses show that women are less represented than men in media. Transgender people are also underrepresented. Furthermore, women and men are distributed depending on the types of programmes. For example, men are more represented in sports programmes. This impacts gender-related representations.

In its legal assistance mandate to combat gender discrimination, IGVM-IEFH is sometimes confronted with problematic behaviours in the media. This involves, for example, comments and behaviours made in programmes that trivialise gender-based violence (such as "rape is not systematically experienced as a tragedy") or express contempt for women (for example, a guest on a programme who refused to answer questions from a female journalist). The impact in terms of equality can be considerable given how widespread these types of behaviour appear to be.

A recent study amongst Belgian journalists found that Belgium has a relatively undiversified group of journalists in terms of minorities and gender, with only one third of journalists being women. It also found that violence against journalists is widespread and disproportionately affects women. Those findings confirm other reports which found that Belgian journalists have been confronted with increased violence in recent years, as highlighted in ENNHRI 2024 Rule of Law Report. Indeed, in June 2023, the French-speaking and Flemish professional Journalists’ Associations published their third study ‘Portrait of Belgian journalists’ surveying almost 1400 journalists on a variety of subjects, including threats and violence they had experienced. 55,8% of journalists reported having been confronted with transgressive behaviours, including verbal violence (41,3%), threats and intimidation (29,2%), sexually transgressive behaviours (7,1%) and physical violence. 64,1% of female journalists reported having been targeted by transgressive behaviours, compared with 51,4% of male journalists. The difference is mainly due to:

• much more prevalent forms of sexual transgressive behaviours (18,6 % of female journalists, compared to 1,2% of male journalists);
• and discrimination (14,8% of female journalists compared to 4,4% of male journalists);

Physical violence also appears to have a gendered component: twice as many men were victims (6,6 % to 3,2% for women). 

Concerns over increasing online intimidation against female journalists, especially those of color, arise as well, as illustrated by other studies: a 2022 study also found that a large majority of women journalists, and especially women journalists of colour, faced online intimidation and violence, including rape and murder threats. 

1. Transpose the EU anti-SLAPP directive, taking into account EU Commission Recommendation 2022/758 of 27 April 2022 as well as Recommendation CM/Rec(20244)2 adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 5 April 2024;
2. Further strengthen the federal legislation regarding access to information and ratify the Council of Europe Convention on access to official documents.

Three issues related to areas of the rule of law remain to be addressed within this report. 

Checks and balances

First, the separation of powers in Belgium has increasingly been under pressure in the last few years, mostly to the detriment of the judiciary. This is the result of several distinct but mutually reinforcing trends : 

• Persistent lack of funding for the judiciary – Belgium only allocates 0,22% of its GDP to the judiciary, while the European median is 0,28% ;
• Attempts to increase the executive branch’s control over the judiciary, such as by conditioning the means allocated to overburdened tribunals to the realization of certain objectives set by the executive or by reforming the judges’ disciplinary procedures ;
• Lack of compliance with court rulings ;
• And increasingly shifting the sanctioning of certain minor offenses from the judiciary to the executive branch, mainly through administrative sanctions. 

Second, there has been growing concern for the impact of organized crime on the rule of law in Belgium. The 2024 European Commission Rule of Law Report on Belgium underlined concerns regarding corruption by organized crime groups and drugs traffickers, including the unauthorized access to databases by public officials to obtain data for criminal groups, and the lack of resources and coordination for the internal integrity police. The situation has deteriorated since, with growing intimidation against magistrates, journalists, police officers and politicians by criminal organisations. Furthermore, measures to step up the fight against organized crime have also had a significant negative impact on the rule of law, including by weakening the separation of powers.

Lastly, concerns were raised regarding the area of migration and asylum. The means of control and constraint that can be mobilized as part of the migration removal policy were considerably extended (Act of 18 April 2024, Act of 12 May 2024, Act of 16 May 2024). Myria argues the extension of these prerogatives are not sufficiently regulated. Furthermore, the recent 2025-2029 Federal Government Agreement envisages many far-reaching measures for irregular migrants, asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection as well as in the framework of family reunification. This will need to be followed up with scrutiny in terms of respect for international and European law and of safeguarding the necessary checks and balances.

Measures taken in your country to follow up on the recommendations concerning other areas of the rule of law (such as checks and balances, anti-corruption), issued by European actors

FIRM-IFDH participated in the OECD Working Group on Bribery's country visit to Belgium in September 2024. It contributed to discussions on whistleblower protection. The finalization of Belgium’s Phase 4 evaluation report is scheduled for the first semester of 2025.

On 29 January 2025, FIRM-IFDH presented the Belgian chapter to ENNHRI 2024 Rule of Law Report to the Justice Commission of the House of Representatives. It also included an update on most of the recommendations formulated in the European Commission 2024 Rule of Law Report on Belgium. FIRM-IFDH encouraged the members of Parliament to take specific measures in order to improve Belgium’s compliance with these recommendations. 

Persisting structural human rights issues impacting on the national rule of law environment

Impact of the so-called “reception crisis” on the rule of law 

The ongoing reception crisis for applicants of international protection remains one of the direst challenges to the rule of law in Belgium. In its 2024 Rule of Law Report on Belgium, the European Commission recommended to “[t]ake measures to ensure compliance by public authorities with final rulings of national courts and the European Court of Human Rights.”, singling out in particular the lack of compliance with “a number of judgments and court orders” regarding the rights of asylum seekers. Unfortunately, few efforts appear to have been made to ensure compliance. Judicial decisions continue not to be executed, and state authorities have so far not openly reacted to this growing rule of law crisis, despite numerous alarms from independent actors. 

Belgian responsibility for historical crimes against humanity 

On 2 December 2024, the Brussels Court of Appeal ruled that the Belgian State had committed a crime against humanity by systematically locating and kidnapping children born of a black mother and a white father in the former Belgian Congo. This decision is historic: by acknowledging that these reprehensible acts constitute crimes against humanity, the Court rejected the argument that statutory limitations would prevent the trial, thus ending a decades-long search for justice. These facts, being ruled to constitute a crime against humanity, mean that no statute of limitations on civil actions can be invoked, allowing victims to claim compensation decades later. This decision constitutes a major consecration of the principle of legality and the binding force of law, including with regard to historical violations of fundamental rights by States. Hence, it also constitutes a major step forward for the rule of law. 

Artificial intelligence

The opacity regarding the uses of artificial intelligence by public authorities remains an ongoing concern. Authorities are steadily adopting more AI tools in order to perform a number of public duties related to healthcare, police or social programs. However, the authorities do not have an obligation to divulge the use of those systems, their functioning and how they are used. This creates an accountability gap which prevents the assessment of potential human rights violations. FIRM-IFDH and Unia have both recommended the creation a public register of authorities' uses of artificial intelligence.  In December 2024, the Belgian Data Protection Authority published a summary of the links between data protection and artificial intelligence systems. Unia’s 2024 annual report points out multiple risks associated with AI, including discrimination, exclusion and profiling. The report advocates for the creation of a supervisory body to ensure the transparent and controlled use of AI in accordance with human rights. The report reiterates the recommendations made in the Belgian chapter to ENNHRI 2024 Report on the Rule of Law: to adopt a register of the use of AI by public authorities; to systematically inform individuals when public authorities use AI; and to support equality bodies and human rights institutions in their AI-related tasks.

The Institution of Human Rights Ombudsman of Bosnia and Herzegovina was last reaccredited with A-status in May 2024. During this reaccreditation, the SCA acknowledged the amendments made to the enabling law of the NHRI, in line with several previous recommendations of the SCA.   

While the IHROBH reported that in practice, it does address human rights violations by private actors, the SCA encouraged the NHRI to further develop its work in addressing private entities and recommended that it advocate for a mandate that explicitly includes the ability to address all human rights violations resulting from the acts and omissions of private entities.  

Recognising that the NHRI’s enabling law now mandates it to hold regular consultation with civil society, the SCA noted that the extent of this cooperation could be further improved to include more proactive outreach to a broad range of civil society organisations. The SCA encouraged the IHROBH to continue and strengthen its cooperation with a wide range of civil society organizations and human rights defenders.  

The SCA noted that there have been inadequate responses by relevant state authorities to the IHROBH’s recommendations. The SCA recommends that the IHROBH continue to conduct follow-up activities to monitor the extent to which their recommendations have been implemented, including through its Special Report on the Implementation of IHROBH Recommendations.  

Further, the SCA recommended that the IHROBH continue to advocate for an appropriate level of funding to effectively carry out the breadth of its mandate including its anti-discrimination mandate and newly established NPM mandate. In addition, it recommended that the IHROBH advocates for sufficient funding to ensure an accessible office space, and to enable the recruitment and retention of staff with salaries and benefits comparable to civil servants discharging similar functions.  

Finally, the SCA reiterated its recommendation that the NHRI continue to advocate for amendment to its enabling law to provide that the term of office be limited to one re-appointment.  

The GANHRI Subcommittee on Accreditation (SCA) has reaccredited the Institution of Human Rights Ombudsman of Bosnia and Herzegovina (hereinafter: IHROBiH), granting it status "A". The Ombudspersons have held a series of meetings with competent authorities and non-governmental organizations, and pointed out that the implementation of the recommendations from the SCA Report would contribute to strengthening the independence, efficiency and capacity of IHROBiH pursuant to the UN Paris Principles, which is also included in a separate chapter of the 2024 Annual Report on the Results of the Activities of the Institution of Human Rights Ombudsman of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  

In 2023, Bosnia and Herzegovina adopted the Law on Amendments to the Law on Human Rights Ombudsman of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) and provided funds for the establishment of a preventive mechanism. The preventive mechanism (PM) within the Institution of Human Rights Ombudsman of Bosnia and Herzegovina will be carrying out the function of PM in accordance with the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. The preventive mechanism began its operations and visits are being made to the institutions the mechanism is competent for, and internal documents are being drafted. 

NHRI’s actions and continued cooperation with the European stakeholders 

In 2024, successful cooperation with European stakeholders in certain (mostly project) activities continued with the Delegation of the European Union to Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Office of the Council of Europe in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina. In particular, the EU4Inclusion project - Improving the Capacity to Monitor and Report on the Needs of Vulnerable Groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina is being implemented, which is a continuation of the previous EU for Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination project and is designed and funded by the Delegation of the European Union to Bosnia and Herzegovina and aims to ensure the continuity of activities initiated within the framework of the previous project. The project focuses on strengthening institutional capacities and the efficient implementation of the Prohibition of Discrimination Act and the Gender Equality Act, with a view to improving the rights and position of vulnerable groups in BiH. IHROBiH participated in a number of activities, in cooperation with the Office of the Council of Europe in Bosnia and Herzegovina (CoE in BiH), namely: 

• Marking the 75th anniversary of the founding of the Council of Europe and the 22nd anniversary of BiH's membership at the conference on the Role of Transitional Justice on BiH's Path Towards the EU in Sarajevo.
• Continued participation in joint projects with the Council of Europe, namely:  Enhancing Institutional Capacities on Freedom of Expression and Information - EFEx (with a view to improving institutional capacities for the protection of freedom of expression and media rights through training, improving policies and creating a favourable environment for journalists and the media in the country), Protecting Freedom of Expression and of the Media in the Western Balkans - PRO-FREX (continued support to institutions in priorities in the field of freedom of expression in accordance with European standards), Horizontal Facility for the Western Balkans and Turkiye (contributing to strengthening the rule of law, protection of human rights and democracy and a joint EU project) and the Council of Europe’s Towards an Equal, Inclusive and Tolerant Bosnia and Herzegovina (supporting the development of social inclusion and mutual respect).
• Successful cooperation continued within the framework of activities of the European Network of Equality Bodies (Equinet). In addition to active participation in the work of this Network, when it comes to future activities in cooperation with the European Commission, other ways of strengthening equality bodies in the future were also discussed.
• The Ombudspersons of BiH also participated in activities organized by the European Union's Technical Assistance and Information Exchange Instrument (TAIEX) in cooperation with EQUINET, which had to do with a workshop on standards for equality bodies (Tirana, 14-15 May 2024. The main objective of the workshop was to present new EU legislative initiatives and stimulate discussion on their importance for the participating countries.  

Acting under two directives: Council Directive on standards for equality bodies in the field of equal treatment in matters of social security and in the access to and supply of goods and services (COUNCIL DIRECTIVE (EU) 2024/1499) and the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on standards for equality bodies in the field of equal treatment and equal opportunities between women and men in matters of employment and occupation (DIRECTIVE (EU) 2024/1500), IHROBiH hosted the Regional Conference of Equality Bodies in Sarajevo (26-28 November 2024). The activity was supported by the OSCE Mission to BiH, the UNFP Mission to BiH.  

The Monitoring and Implementation of the Action Plan for the Promotion of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of LGBTI People in Bosnia and Herzegovina (2021 - 2024) is also issued.  

Moreover, between September 2021 and April 2024, IHROBiH participated in the European Union project entitled EU for Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Cooperation on this project continued in September 2024, and IHROBiH was involved in the European Union project entitled EU4 INCLUSION - Improving Capacity for Monitoring and Reporting on the Needs of Vulnerable Groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina.  

Additionally, IHROBiH also participated in the ENNHRI – UNFPA webinar on the topic of Integrating Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights into Human Rights Monitoring and Reporting. 

The national regulatory framework applicable to the IHROBiH has changed since January 2024. With a view to implementing the obligations under the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT), Bosnia and Herzegovina adopted the Law on Amendments to the Law on the Human Rights Ombudsman of BiH, which gave IHROBiH the mandate of an independent preventive mechanism in accordance with the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT). 

Moreover, the mandate of the IHROBiH in terms of carrying out the mandate of NPM and conducting relevant activities has been strengthened since 2022, including complaints handling:, strategic litigation before courts, providing legal assistance to individuals and awareness-raising. 

However, the NHRI regulatory framework should be further strengthened. 

IHROBiH has special competencies established by the Prohibition of Discrimination Act (equality body), the Freedom of Information Act at the level of the institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Freedom of Information Act of the Federation of BiH, the Freedom of Information Act of the Republika Srpska, the Act on Ministerial Appointments, Appointments to the Council of Ministers and Other Appointments of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Act on Governmental, Ministerial and Other Appointments of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Act on Governmental, Ministerial and Other Appointments of the Republika Srpska. Taking into account IHROBiH’s separate mandates and competencies, as well as its importance, the former should be strengthened in terms of ensuring material resources and funds, namely through amendments to applicable legislation. Moreover, it is particularly important to point out the unclear definition of access to justice, including the issue of mediation as an alternative method of resolving disputes, prescribed by the Prohibition of Discrimination Act.  IHROBiH can, if the competent body, initiate a minor offence procedure for failure to implement discrimination-related recommendations, and the court can, in a minor offence procedure, impose a penalty. These are very important competencies enshrined in the 2024 EU Directive on Strengthening Equality Bodies. Additionally, it is also necessary to review the existing mechanisms for ensuring the implementation of IHROBiH recommendations. 

State authorities’ awareness of the NHRI’s mandate, independence and role 

State bodies demonstrate a high level of awareness of the mandate of the independence of IHROBiH and its role. However, the implementation of IHROBiH recommendations remains insufficient.  

Access to information and policymakers 

Given the relationship between IHROBiH and policymakers, and in connection to drafting of legislation and policies with implications for human rights, it is important to emphasize that this relationship cannot be assessed as systematic but can be qualified as occasional and ad hoc. However, it is necessary for the executive and legislative authorities to undertake additional efforts aimed at enhancing IHROBiH as the central mechanism for the protection and promotion of human rights. In 2024, IHROBiH also hosted a SIGMA expert team, and the topics of discussion included monitoring the implementation of IHROBiH recommendations and the application of the Freedom of Information Act, including compliance inspections and sanctions for non-compliance. The meeting was part of the measurement of the state of the public administration of Bosnia and Herzegovina, conducted by SIGMA within the framework of the revised Principles of Public Administration, with a view to assessing progress in the public administration reform. 

Access to resources to carry out the mandate 

In the relevant time period from 2022, IHROBiH has continued to face limitations in terms of capacity building, which is reflected in insufficient funds, and in particular spatial capacities. By way of reminder, there are three separate mandates carried out within IHROBiH whose importance is not adequately recognized, and the lack of material resources and funds negatively affects the further development of IHROBiH. IHROBiH currently employs 62 staff members and three Ombudspersons. Out of this number, 38 staff members have LLB’s (including the three Ombudspersons) and 27 are administrative and technical staff, while the Rulebook on Internal Organization and Classification of Positions approves 85 positions (more precisely 85 positions and three Ombudspersons). It is particularly important to point out that IHROBiH has the authority to act in terms of judicial institutions, particularly, to carry out investigations on all complaints regarding poor functioning of the court system or misprocessing of individual cases and to recommend adequate individual or general measures, without discussing the merits of the case.  This in turn warrants the employment of a number of lawyers who meet the requirements for the election of judges; and for the Assistant Ombudsperson position they should have five years of work experience and should have passed the bar exam. Also, the functioning of IHROBiH is in the constant focus of different organizations and bodies, because the functionality of this institution, both in the protection and promotion segments, is a guarantee of the protection of citizens' rights, but above all, it is an indicator of the achieved level of rule of law, according to which the level of democracy of a society is measured. All of the above sets a serious and demanding task for IHROBiH and the authorities to create the prerequisites for enhancing IHROBiH as the central mechanism for the protection and promotion of human rights through coordinated and synchronized action. In short, special and human resources are a priority. 

Lack of effective implementation of NHRI recommendations 

State authorities demonstrate a higher level of awareness of the independence mandate and the role of IHROBiH. Still, the implementation levels for the NHRI recommendations remain insufficient. However, the implementation of IHROBiH recommendations is not at a satisfactory level, which is why IHROBiH, for the first time since its establishment in 1996, decided to draft a Special Report on the Implementation of IHROBiH Recommendations that analyses the reasons for the lack of cooperation by public bodies and identifies public bodies that fail to implement IHROBiH recommendations, which was publicly presented to legislative bodies at all government levels in 2024. Implementation levels for IHROBiH recommendations increased in the course of drafting the Report and after it was presented to the competent stakeholders and the public. 

The implementation of IHROBiH recommendations is not at a satisfactory level, which is why IHROBiH, for the first time since its establishment in 1996, decided to prepare a Special Report on the Implementation of Recommendations of IHROBiH, which analyzes the reasons for the lack of cooperation by public bodies, identifies public bodies that fail to implement IHROBiH recommendations, and which was publicly presented to legislative bodies at all levels of government during 2024. 

On the positive note, a number of laws were adopted in BiH as a result of IHROBiH recommendations and initiatives and these include: FBiH Act on Financial Support to Families with Children BiH, regulating the grounds for granting financial support to families with children in the Federation of BiH; Amendments to the FBiH Enforcement Procedure Act, with a view to exempting social welfare from enforcement. 

IHROBiH also acted on the requests received from all social welfare centres in the Federation of BiH requesting urgent resolution and ensuring accommodation capacities for children in the social protection system. According to the latest data from the Government of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a working group was appointed to address the issue of accommodation of people with disorders and mild mental disorders in institutions and this way they started addressing this issue.  

Furthermore, IHROBiH considered the issue of social housing in the Republika Srpska, and a recommendation was issued to the Government of the Republika Srpska, instructing it to analyze the issue of sustainability of social housing in the Republika Srpska by the end of 2024 in cooperation with local self-governance units that, are granted certain types of assistance/subsidies for electricity, water and utilities or financial assistance for the purchase of fuel through extended rights. 

Additionally, the initiative to amend Article 147, paragraph 1 of the Pension and Disability Insurance Act of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, referring to the coverage of funeral expenses in the case where the insured person lives in BiH but outside the territory of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, resulted in the elimination of the discriminatory provision. 

Functional immunity of Ombudspersons in accordance with the national legislation  

IHROBiH enjoys privileges and protection in accordance with the legislation and international standards relating to human rights. Articles 15 and 16 of the Law on the Human Rights Ombudsman of BiH guarantee the autonomy and independence of the Ombudspersons in their work, as well as immunity from criminal prosecution for providing rulings and decisions they issue in the exercise of IHROBiH powers that are in accordance with his duties. 

Lack of implementation of measures of protection against threats faced by the heads of NHRI 

As for the measures of protection against threats, they are not always sufficiently implemented in BiH. Although there are laws and international treaties that guarantee the security and independence of IHROBiH, in practice, there are challenges related to threats against the heads of these institutions and staff, especially in the context of political or social pressures. There are also cases where the Ombudspersons are summoned by prosecutors and courts to present their opinions in cases, which goes to show that there is insufficient awareness of the mandate and obligation to protect the Ombudspersons. Therefore, although the Ombudspersons in BiH enjoy certain immunity within the scope of their work, protection measures need to be enhanced further in order to provide greater security and support for institutions dealing with human rights. 

Threats against the heads and staff of NHRI 

In their work, the Ombudspersons and lawyers in IHROBiH often face dissatisfaction from complainants, as well as from the responsible persons in bodies against which complaints are filed or to which IHROBiH activities pertain. Sometimes, this can take the form of threats or intimidation and sometimes they file criminal charges and initiate court proceedings against the Ombudspersons that prosecutor's offices and courts act on in some cases. 

The IHROBiH recommends: 

1. Establishment of cooperation with the legislature in order to systematically improve the number of recommendations that are complied with. Establishment of cooperation with competent inspectorates at all levels of government in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
2. Ensuring financial independence of the Institution of Human Rights Ombudsman of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
3. Establishment of a system of continuous human rights training for state and police officers, which is to include the module on the role of the national human rights institution and equality body in the protection of human rights. 

The IHROBiH’s human rights monitoring and reporting found evidence of laws, policies and/or state measures that negatively impact on freedom of assembly, negatively impact on freedom of expression, create barriers in access to information as well as possibly criminalise human rights defenders’ work, including journalists. 

Freedom of assembly 

In the context of public assembly, in its Special Report on the Right to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, IHROBiH pointed to the issue of differences between legal solutions in BiH. These issues have to do with the fact that most laws in BiH contain a rather complex definition of public assembly; that the laws fail to state that they ensure, protect and regulate the right to peaceful assembly; that there are differences in how public assemblies are registered; that there are differences in the deadlines, spaces and how legal remedies are exercised; and that they are not compliant with international standards. Some laws in BiH fail to provide for public gatherings where people move. 

Freedom of expression and freedom of access to information 

When it comes to freedom of expression, IHROBiH pointed out that legislation on freedom of access to information (FoA) is not harmonised at all levels of government in BiH. Freedom of access to information in Bosnia and Herzegovina is governed by state and entity-level laws. The Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina adopted the Act on Freedom of Information at the Level of the Institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2023. The name of the Act defined restricting its application only to the institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina, thus leaving the Brčko District of BiH without a legal basis to ensure exercising freedom of access to information. As for the Act on Freedom of Information at the Level of Institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina, IHROBiH raised concerns regarding different competencies granted to new institutions, which calls into question the efficiency of the implementation of the Act. Public consultation was launched in March 2021, on the Preliminary Draft of the BIH Freedom of Information Act. Taking into account the IHROBiH mandate in terms of the aforementioned Act, the Preliminary Draft Act was reviewed and comments were sent to the Ministry of Justice of Bosnia and Herzegovina, with a view to adopting a new freedom of access to information legislation, which should be harmonized with international documents and recommendations of the TAIEX expert mission and the Sigma Joint Initiative. 

In its comments, IHROBiH recalled the findings and recommendations of the Special Report on Experiences in the Implementation of the BiH Freedom of Information Act from December 2019[2], the Taiex - IPA Expert Report, ENI -Taiex Expert Mission on the topic "Improving the Right to Access to Information in Bosnia and Herzegovina" and the activities of the Joint Initiative of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the European Union (SIGMA) - Support for Improved Governance and Management. Both documents represent an important starting point in the adoption of new FOA legislation. 

Also, concerns were raised through the 2023 and 2024 IHROBiH Annual Reports. National authorities did not react to the indicated concerns regarding IHROBiH competence and failed to apply the previously taken IHROBiH position regarding the role that this institution could play in accordance with the new Freedom of access to information legislation. 

Concerns were also raised regarding the competencies of IHROBiH itself. IHROBiH is currently drafting comments to the Draft Freedom of Information Act of the Brčko District of BiH, which are to be sent to the competent bodies of the Brčko District of BIH.  

Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Republic Srpska 

The Act on Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Republika Srpska was adopted in 2023, introducing the criminalization of defamation in the Republika Srpska. Part of the public believes that the criminalization of defamation could lead to the prosecution of certain categories, primarily journalists.  

Action Plan for the Protection of the Rights of LGBTQ+ Persons 

In 2023, the Institution of Human Rights Ombudsman of Bosnia and Herzegovina was involved in monitoring the implementation of the 2021-2024 Action Plan for the Protection of the Rights of LGBTQ+ Persons as it had taken part in its development, adoption and promotion. The BiH Ombudspersons participated in different activities aimed at providing support to LGBTQ+ persons, such as holding a pride parade and adopting the Action Plan. 

Attacks on NGOs, journalists, members of LGBTQ+ communities and citizens 

IHROBiH has observed different phenomena and practices that could have a negative impact on the activities of civil society and human rights defenders. This was primarily evident in cases of organizing public gatherings, where representatives of organizations complained about the approval and holding of public gatherings, excessive and unauthorized use of means of coercion, inadequate action by police authorities in cases of attacks against civil society representatives, treatment of journalists by competent authorities, etc. 

After the attacks on activists of non-governmental organizations, journalists, members of the LGBTQ+ community and citizens, IHROBiH called on all competent institutions, primarily criminal prosecution authorities, to take measures within their jurisdiction as a priority in order to ensure security, the right to work and the exercise of fundamental human rights of all citizens, as guaranteed by the Constitution and international conventions that are directly applied in the domestic legal system. While upholding the principle of the independence of the judiciary, IHROBiH expressed the hope that judicial institutions would adequately assess the element of hatred as a qualifying circumstance when establishing the criminal responsibility of any participant in the aforementioned events. 

Moreover, IHROBIH has received complaints related to the media, namely: attacks on journalists, damaging journalists' property, actions that journalists consider to be pressure on their work, and difficulties that journalists face when collecting relevant information. IHROBiH reminds of the conclusions, opinions and recommendations in the Special Report on the Position of Journalists and Cases of Threats Made against Journalists in Bosnia and Herzegovina given that no significant progress has been observed despite the time passed. The competent authorities/bodies have been advised that attacks against journalists have to be defined in criminal codes as a separate criminal offence or as a severe form of the criminal offence of attacks against an official in the performance of official duties. 

Specific threats against and harassment of female journalists 

In its work, IHROBiH has highlighted the issue of threats against and harassment of female journalists and has stated that the issue of harassment of female journalists must be viewed in the context of achieving women's equality and combating stereotypes that women have faced for many years. Threats and online harassment of female journalists are just some of the problems that women face when working in public. In this context, IHROBiH has noted the lack of public debate, retracts, refutations, or any attempt to discuss information or positions. 

Nature of threats and attacks against human rights defenders, especially journalists 

IHROBiH points to different natures of cases of threats and attacks. Thus, attacks against journalists are characterized by cases of both verbal threats and physical attacks. IHROBiH has also drawn attention to worrying trends, namely harassment via social networks. The increase in the number of online media outlets and the spread of social networks have led to an increase in the number of online attacks carried out by hacking or blocking of media websites. It is particularly worrying that compared to their male colleagues, female journalists are more often exposed to this type of attack. 

The most important gaps in the protection of human rights defenders 

The lack of laws and mechanisms for the protection of human rights defenders and the lack of LGBTIQ shelters, the issue of free legal aid, the capacity of law enforcement structures to act, the lack of a criminal offence stipulating the penalisation of attacks against journalists and human rights defenders all stand out as the most important shortcomings in this area. Also, there is a lack of a prescribed criminal offence penalising attacks against journalists and human rights defenders and insufficient activities to train law enforcement officers.  

In addition, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights has broadened the right to free legal aid to include the obligation of the state to ensure its provision to citizens in criminal, civil and other disputes, which is often non-existent in practice, as there are different definitions for the requirements to access free legal aid, which are restrictive.  

There were several initiatives taken by IHROBiH in 2024 to promote civil society space and human rights defenders, particularly in the form of promotion campaigns and joint meetings and roundtables. 

By reviewing the cooperation IHROBiH has achieved with the non-governmental sector and civil society, what can be concluded is that it is continuous and on a partnership basis and that it takes place in several main segments/thematic blocks that were at the centre of the interests of these organizations. As for raising awareness about the prohibition of all forms of discrimination, IHROBIH has taken a significant number of activities to inform non-governmental organizations about its mandate as the central institution for protection against discrimination and about the activities carried out in this regard. For instance, IHROBiH representatives held several consultative meetings with civil society organizations in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The meetings were held in Sarajevo, Mostar and Banja Luka. The topic of the meeting was the role and position of IHROBiH and civil society organizations in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The conclusion was that we should work together to promote and protect human rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina through even greater cooperation with civil society organizations, the media and through raising public awareness, which will enhance the visibility, recognition and importance of the Institution in society.

As part of its continuous cooperation with universities in BiH, in the course of 2024, IHROBiH intensively worked to strengthen partnerships with the law schools in East Sarajevo, Sarajevo, Banja Luka, Mostar and with other higher education institutions. This cooperation has included the organization of professional seminars, lectures, participation in the jury of law student competitions, exchange of experiences and promotion of human rights standards to strengthen awareness of the importance of human rights within the academic community.  

During 2024, the Ombudspersons of BiH participated in numerous expert meetings, conferences on the rights of marginalized groups, seminars on strengthening the rule of law, and workshops dedicated to the analysis and improvement of the work of public administration. 

Initiatives to protect civil society space and HRDs 

Moreover, IHROBiH has also taken specific initiatives in 2024 to protect civil society space and human rights defenders (HRDs), such as monitoring, complaints handling, legal assistance, recommendations & opinions, and capacity building. 

IHROBiH’s support to CSOs dealing with the protection of human rights and freedoms 

IHROBiH has in recent years intensified its activities on establishing and providing assistance, especially to civil society organizations that deal with the protection of human rights and freedoms. The most important activities to promote human rights are certainly some educational contents, conferences, thematic meetings, workshops, media addresses, etc. cooperation with the academic community, human rights defenders, the media and other entities dealing with human rights is key for achieving this activity.  

The basic activities by which IHROBiH protects the space for human rights defenders to act are also reflected in receiving and handling complaints from human rights defenders; advocacy for a favourable working environment for human rights defenders; interaction with international and regional mechanisms for human rights and providing information about the position of human rights defenders in their country to those mechanisms; through public support in cases of human rights violations of human rights defenders; monitoring the condition of human rights defenders in prisons or detention centers and providing legal assistance or engaging in mediation in disputes between human rights defenders and the authorities or other parts of society. 

Meetings with NGOs and participation in promotional activities in the field of human rights protection and promotion of social inclusion 

In 2024, the Ombudspersons of BiH held a series of meetings with representatives of non-governmental organizations, including: Association Zajedno from Banja Luka, Fund Ujedinjene žene from Banja Luka, SOS Dječje selo in Sarajevo, the Helsinki Citizens' Assembly from Banja Luka, BIRN BiH, Igman Education Forum, BH Journalists, Women Rights Centre Zenica, Association Center for Integrative Inclusion of Roma Otaharin from Bijeljina and others. These meetings aimed to strengthen cooperation, exchange experiences and coordinate efforts in the field of human rights protection and promotion of social inclusion. 

IHROBiH also engaged in promotional activities in various thematic areas such as violence against women, torture, national minorities, climate change, position of human rights defenders, Freedom of Information Act, rights of migrants and many others. For example, an activity that IHROBiH responds to and actively participates in every year is the state competition "Ius verus Iusitiam" which brought together law students from all over the country. As part of the cooperation between the Sarajevo Law School and IHROBiH, in the academic year 2023/2024, a workshop was held on the topic: "How and when to write a complaint to IHROBiH?", at which the role of IHROBIH was presented. IHROBiH also held a consultation for lawyers as part of the October Lawyers' Days in Teslić and participated as jury members at the Kikinda High School Debate Championship for 2024. IHROBiH also held a consultation for lawyers as part of the October Lawyers' Days in Teslić and participated as jury members at the Kikinda High School Debate Championship for 2024. 

In addition, IHROBiH also strives to respond to all requests and invitations from non-governmental organizations in BiH during the organization of various round tables and conferences. At the conference on gender equality and women's rights in the labour market in Bosnia and Herzegovina, IHROBiH took part in the session Who and How Protects Women in the Labour Market and are They Protected? The conference provided an opportunity to raise awareness about women's human rights in the workplace and presented mechanisms for protecting women's rights and anti-discrimination practices. 

The basic activities used by IHROBiH to protect the space for human rights defenders include also receiving and reviewing complaints received from human rights defenders; advocacy for a favourable working environment for human rights defenders; interaction with international and regional human rights mechanisms and providing these mechanisms with information about the position of human rights defenders in the country; providing public support in cases of violations of human rights of HRDs; monitoring the position of HRDs in prisons or detention units; and providing legal aid or engaging in mediation in disputes between HRDs and the authorities or other parts of society. 

Engagement with international and regional mechanisms to strengthen human rights as a social priority of a democratic society 

The year 2024 saw the continuation of cooperation at international level, as well as with international organizations that are active and operate in BiH. The focus remains on strengthening human rights in any concept as a social priority of a democratic society. This cooperation includes participation in activism, education and promotions related to violence against women, victims of torture, it includes the position of Roma in society, environmental protection issues, climate change, situation in social welfare institutions, FoA legislation, status of migrants and migration in Bosnia and Herzegovina, situation regarding human rights defenders, situation in prisons and detention units, protection of personal data, freedom of assembly, gender-based violence, hate speech and all other forms of discrimination. 

The cooperation that was particularly important was cooperation with certain (mostly project) activities involving the Delegation of the European Union to BiH, Office of the Council of Europe in BiH, OSCE Mission to BiH, Office of the UN Resident Coordinator in BiH and UN agencies (UNDP, UNICEF, UNFPA, UNHCR, IOM, UN Women) as well as other international organizations operating in BiH and dealing with the protection of human rights. 

Consultative meetings as part of the preparation of the 4th Universal Periodic Review and independent evaluation of the 2021-2025 Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework  

During 2024, IHROBiH contributed to the consultative meetings organized by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) for the purpose of preparing the 4th Universal Periodic Review (UPR). It provided information about the state of human rights in BiH. It also contributed to meetings with the UN Evaluation Team in BiH conducting an independent evaluation of the 2021-2025 Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework (UNSDCF). Improvement of monitoring and reporting on the implementation of human rights conventions in BiH was also discussed with the aforementioned international partners, focusing on the needs of vulnerable groups.

The IHROBiH recommends to national authorities to: 

1. Engage civil society and human rights defenders in reform processes and legislation development;
2. Ensure full respect, protection and promotion of freedom of assembly, association and expression;
3. Transparently and openly provide information of public importance as per FoA legislation. 

The IHROBiH recommends to European actors to: 

1. Intensify international cooperation and enhance human rights protection mechanisms;
2. Strengthen the role of national HR protection mechanisms. 

Based on the human rights monitoring and reporting, the IHROBiH identified significant challenges affecting access to justice and/or effective judicial protection, in the areas including independence and impartiality of judiciary, delays in court proceedings, access to legal aid, professionalism, specialisation and training of judges, timely and effective execution of national courts’ judgments as well as delay in and/or a lack of publication of judgments. 

Delays in court proceedings 

The length of court proceedings remains a key problem in the work of some courts in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The right to a fair trial, encompassing the right to a trial within a reasonable time, continues to include a large number of cases that have been reviewed by IHROBiH in the past period. Based on monitoring and working on complaints concerning the field of justice, IHROBiH has identified some major challenges, especially in the field of ​​the length of court proceedings, which affect access to justice and effective judicial protection. 

Lack of a uniform system of providing legal aid 

A functional and effective legal aid system is a guarantee for equal access to court for vulnerable categories of the population and protection of their rights and interests. Despite the existent Legal Aid Act of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnia and Herzegovina does not have a uniform system of providing legal aid. IHROBiH sent recommendations to Central Bosnia Canton and Herzegovina-Neretva Canton, instructing them to establish cantonal legal aid institutes. 

Lack of timely and effective execution of national court judgments 

Timely and efficient execution of national court judgments, along with the length of proceedings, represents the greatest obstacle to strengthening citizens' trust in the independent judiciary, and thus affects effective judicial protection in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In 2024, IHROBiH had a number of cases opened because of the failure to execute court judgments, it issued recommendations to the competent authorities to enforce final judgments. 

Follow-up and implementation by state authorities of the European Courts’ judgments 

There are no developments and no new activities regarding the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights compared to last year's report. Certain steps are being taken, e.g. the procedure for passing the new FBiH Family Proceedings Act and the FBiH Extra-Judicial Procedure Act in order to implement certain judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Constitutional amendments are needed to ensure the equality of political rights for all citizens. 

Initiatives to support implementation of the European Courts’ judgments 

The IHROBiH has undertaken several initiatives to support implementation of the European Courts’ judgments nationally, including through Rule 9 submissions to the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers, referring to the judgments of European Courts’ in the reports and recommendations to state authorities, awareness raising of the general public as well as human rights education. 

Being proactive, IHROBiH strives to point to the importance of compliance with and implementation of ECtHR recommendations and to advocate for their implementation. In its work, in particular, in its recommendations and special reports, IHROBiH regularly refers to judgments of European courts, depending on the area of ​​law covered by the complaint or the report. 

Measures taken to follow up on the recommendations concerning justice systems issued by European actors 

The European Commission's 2024 Report on BiH states that BiH records a certain level of readiness for the implementation of the acquis and European standards in the field of justice and fundamental rights, and that limited progress was made during the reporting period. 

In early 2024, the Act on the Prevention of Conflict of Interest in the Institutions at the Level of BiH and the Act on the Prevention of Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism in BiH were adopted, which represents the fulfilment of some of the recommendations related to the judiciary. 

The recommendations of the European Commission that have not yet been implemented concern the functioning of the judiciary are: finalizing and adopting new laws on the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council of BiH and the courts of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in line with the recommendations of the Venice Commission; adopting a new justice sector reform strategy; entering judgments of international criminal courts into domestic criminal records; effectively implementing the revised national Strategy for the Processing of War Crimes Cases, in particular by strengthening regional cooperation; appointing judges of the Constitutional Court to vacant positions, and consistently appointing judges based on expertise, and evaluating the work of judges based on quality criteria. 

The IHROBiH recommends to national authorities:  

1. Establishing a mechanism to implement legal provisions prescribing deadlines for proceedings before courts and reducing unreasonable length of proceedings, which includes reasonable implementation of backlog resolution plan;
2. Specifically to legislative, judicial and executive bodies at all levels of government in BiH and public office holders, to take specific steps to raise awareness of the importance of complying with IHROBiH recommendations by holding regular thematic sessions on the state of human rights and the level of implementation of IHROBiH recommendations, by holding institutions and authorized persons accountable in case recommendations are not implemented, by prescribing and implementing special forms of accountability for bodies and individuals who fail to cooperate with IHROBiH, by conducting information and awareness raising activities about the need to cooperate with IHROBiH, and by working proactive work of the authorities and civil society to prevent human rights violations;
3. Strengthening the institute of alternative dispute resolution by informing the public about these possibilities, but also by conducting continuous training of judges and prosecutors on the issue in question. 

Based on its human rights monitoring and reporting, the IHROBiH identified significant challenges affecting media freedom, particularly in the form of decline in media independence, decline in media pluralism, harassment, threats and attacks against journalists and media outlets (including legal harassment, SLAPPs), misinformation and/ or disinformation as well as access to public interest information/documents. 

Challenges affecting media freedom  

Regardless of the fact that the normative framework governing the status of the media in Bosnia and Herzegovina and its entities is, to a certain extent, in line with international standards (high level of constitutional and legal guarantees for freedom of expression, legally regulated freedom of access to information), persons who are in any way connected with the media, as well as the general public, often express the view that this does not represent the actual situation and that there is still room for improving the legislative framework in this area. 

Bosnia and Herzegovina is characterized by an unregulated media sector, a lack of transparency in the media market, unregulated system of opening and operating the media, and especially media responsibilities in the public discourse. Although certain initiatives have been launched to enact legislation, there is no law on transparency of media ownership at the level of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Also, in practice, there is no public register containing information on the transparency of media operating in BiH. 

Challenges regarding online media, spread of disinformation and the lack of regulation of hate speech 

A special problem arises in relation to online media, which contributes most to the creation and spread of disinformation on the Internet. Also, hate speech in Bosnia and Herzegovina is not consistently regulated due to the lack of an online media register, with only a small number of portals registered with the Press and Online Media Council, and the limited jurisdiction of the Communications Regulatory Agency of Bosnia and Herzegovina over audiovisual media and video sharing services. CRA maintains a public register of users of licences for audiovisual media services and radio media services. 

Journalists as a target of threats and political pressure 

Despite the existence of a number of laws, journalists in Bosnia and Herzegovina are often the target of threats and political pressure and statistics show that the situation in the media is generally worse off, which indicates the problem of inadequate implementation of media legislation. 

The need to ensure the independence of the Communications Regulatory Agency 

IHROBiH believes that ensuring and further developing the independence of the Communications Regulatory Agency of Bosnia and Herzegovina is a strategic milestone needed in this area. The existing legal framework should be strengthened with formal procedures and adequate means for their implementation, which will serve the purpose of deterring and preventing all inappropriate political influence on the media and rights related to freedom of expression and freedom of the press. 

Harassment of female journalists 

In 2017, IHROBiH produced a Special Report on the Position and Cases of Threats Made against Journalists in Bosnia and Herzegovina to understand the problems and issues related to the position of journalists in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as one of the prerequisites for ensuring the right to freedom of expression and contributing to the general improvement of the right to freedom of expression, human rights and freedoms in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The report emphasized that the issue of harassment of female journalists must be viewed in the context of achieving women's equality and combating stereotypes that women have been facing for years, especially given the phenomenon that certain attitudes and behaviours, which were pushed to the margins through social media with great efforts, are returning to the public space. 

The European Commission's 2024 Rule of Law Report on BiH indicated that political pressure, intimidation and threats against journalists persisted in BiH, including constant verbal attacks and nationalist rhetoric, creating a hostile environment for media freedom, and high-level politicians continued to publicly attack and disparage journalists, analysts and media workers, particularly targeting women. The Commission recommends that for the next year, BiH should ensure the protection of journalists and systemic institutional monitoring of threats and violence against them; ensure financial sustainablitiy and political independence of public broadcasters, and harmonise entity-level legislation with the state-level Act on the Public Broadcasting System of BiH; adopt the legislation on the transparency of media ownership and criteria for public advertising, and ensure decriminalisation of defamation across the country 

Lack of follow-up on the recommendations concerning media freedom issued by European actors 

IHROBiH, in the Special Report on the Position and Cases of Threats Made against Journalists in Bosnia and Herzegovina, pointed out that a large number of media outlets are currently operating in Bosnia and Herzegovina, starting with public broadcasters, numerous television and radio stations owned by cantons or local self-government units, commercial television and radio stations, print media and portals, and local branches of global media networks. However, the significant increase in the number of media outlets has not been accompanied by an improvement in the position of journalists in them. On the contrary, journalists, as an important profession in every society, find themselves in an unstable labour market, which results in an environment in which their position is increasingly difficult. 

Although the criminal codes of Bosnia and Herzegovina do not specifically classify attacks and threats against journalists as a separate criminal offense, journalists are nevertheless protected through the incrimination of other offenses within the main chapters of the law, such as crimes against life and limb, human freedom and rights, property, public order and legal transactions, and electronic data processing systems. 

IHROBiH, through a Special Report, proposed to the Ministry of Justice of Republika Srpska, the Ministry of Justice of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Judicial Commission of the Brčko District to consider defining an attack on journalists in criminal legislation as a separate criminal offense or as a more serious form of the criminal offense of attacking an official in the performance of official duty, as well as defining an attack on journalists in the laws on public order and peace as a separate violation of public order and peace. 

Moreover, there is no law on transparency of media ownership at the level of BiH. The Ministry of Communications and Transport of BiH has launched an initiative to adopt a law at the level of BiH. The Communications Regulatory Agency of BiH has been identified as one of the members of the future Working Group, but the decision to form a Working Group to draft this Law has not yet been made. In BiH, there is a certain regulatory framework for the supervision of media ownership. The Communications Regulatory Agency of BiH has prescribed the obligation for applicants for licenses for audiovisual media services and radio broadcasting services to submit an extract from the court register (natural or legal person) no older than 60 days when issuing a license, and after the license is issued, any change in the original ownership of the licensee greater than 5% of the share in it constitutes a partial transfer of ownership and requires prior written consent from the Communications Regulatory Agency of BiH.

The IHROBiH recommends to national authorities that: 

1. Recommendation that attacks on journalists be defined in criminal codes as a separate criminal offence or as a severe form of the criminal offence of attacking an official in the performance of official duty;
2. Centres for the education of judges and prosecutors, within their training programmes, organize professional training of judges and prosecutors in the field of freedom and protection of the media, especially in relation to the importance of prosecuting criminal offenses and misdemeanours committed against journalists,
3. Competent authorities establish a system in which the economic and social position of journalists in society will be strengthened, complete transparency of media ownership will be enabled, and activities to combat self-censorship will be implemented. 

The need to depoliticize the public administration 

One of the key requirements in the process of combating corruption, establishing the rule of law and European integration is the depoliticization of the public administration. For years, IHROBiH has been emphasizing in its reports that the quality of public services and the work of public administration bodies for citizens represents a concrete indicator of the functionality of a given state. Also, IHROBiH has emphasized in its reports the requirements that all public appointments be carried out transparently, legally, in accordance with applicable rules, regulations and laws, and that they be carried out according to the principle of selection based on quality. IHROBiH has been pointing out to the competent public enterprises/institutions that it is necessary to work on depoliticizing the employment process. IHROBiH emphasizes that it is necessary to review the existing legislative framework that regulates the issue of government, ministerial and other appointments, to determine clear criteria that must be respected in the procedures for the appointment and dismissal of appointed persons, and which will not leave room for any form of abuse. IHROBiH has also emphasized the importance of public administration reform and the education of civil servants. 

Measures taken to follow up on the recommendations concerning corruption issued by European actors 

Bosnia and Herzegovina continues to face problems of corruption in public bodies and institutions at all levels of government, but certain activities are still being carried out in the field of combating corruption. In March 2024, the Act on Prevention of Conflict of Interest at the Level of Bosnia and Herzegovina was adopted in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and it represents a significant step forward, although it is still not fully aligned with European standards. This Act regulates the specific obligations of public office holders in the institutions at the level of Bosnia and Herzegovina in performing public office. 

Also, in 2024, Bosnia and Herzegovina adopted the 2024-2028 Anti-Corruption Strategy and Action Plan for the Implementation of the Anti-Corruption Strategy. The Strategy has a mission to support the development, adoption, promotion and implementation of anti-corruption activities and the coordination of institutions and bodies for the prevention of corruption, the detection and prosecution of corruption crimes, and the application of good practices and international standards. 

Challenges regarding migration impacting the national rule of law environment 

IHROBiH, acting within its jurisdiction and based on the Foreign Nationals Act of BiH (Foreign Nationals Act of BiH (The Official Gazette of BiH, no 88/15, 34/21), the Asylum Act (The Official Gazette of BiH, no 11/16, Corrigendum of Asylum Act, (The Official Gazette of BiH, no 16/16) and the Prohibition of Discrimination Act of BiH (The Official Gazette of BiH, no 59/05, 66/16),  as well as international standards for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms that are applied in the legal system of BiH, draws attention to the current issue of migration in BiH. In particular, it should be pointed out the responsibilities of the institutional mechanisms responsible for carrying out procedures according to requests and ensuring status and other rights guaranteed by BiH legislation and ratified international standards. The main problems that require IHROBiH intervention relate to the untimely decision-making regarding the asylum application, as well as the other problems listed. 

Foreign nationals in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina demand intervention from IHROBiH in order to provide them with the opportunity to express their intent to seek asylum, due to the failure of competent authorities to make a decision regarding the request for asylum, the appointment of a guardian for an unaccompanied minor, the illegal actions of the competent services in the procedure for the request for asylum - expressing the intent to seek asylum in Bosnia and Herzegovina. IHROBiH maintains continuous activities in the field of migration, which include attending meetings with competent domestic and international institutions, organizations and associations and representatives of the Immigration Centre in order to determine the situation there. 

The fight against migrant smuggling has been one of the priorities for judicial institutions and law enforcement agencies in BiH since the very beginning of the increased pressure of illegal migration through the territory of BiH (Adopted by Council of Ministers on 28 December 2023). 

IHROBiH highlights the issue of minors who are on the move on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, unaccompanied by parents or guardians. The issue of appointing guardians ex officio, protection and accommodation of children, especially outside the regular working hours of social welfare centres, has not been systematically resolved. Namely, most social welfare centres have regular working hours until 16.00 hrs, which has significant implications in cases of need for protection of rights, after the close of business. In cases of this type, IHROBiH acts in a way that requests urgent action by the authorities in order to appoint a guardian for the children as soon as possible and thus protect the best interests of the child (Ž-BL-01-412/22). 

It is necessary to strengthen the Institution of Human Rights Ombudsman for Human Rights of BiH, as the umbrella institution for the protection of human rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Ombudspersons of BiH remind that IHROBiH represents a communication channel between the authorities, citizens and civil society.  

Therefore, the IHROBiH recommends: 

1. Strengthening and further developing institutional cooperation with government institutions in the process of exercising the human rights of citizens. Special focus should be on government institutions that have not expressed willingness to cooperate with IHROBiH in order to determine the causes and take actions to eliminate them; 
2. To prescribe and implement special forms of responsibility for bodies and individuals that do not cooperate with IHROBiH, such as political or budgetary responsibility, denial of trust, limitation of mandate or conditioning of further performance of public duties. 

The Ombudsman of the Republic of Bulgaria was re-accredited with A-status in March 2019. Among its recommendations, the SCA took the view that the selection process outlined in the enabling law would be strengthened by explicitly requiring the advertisement of vacancies, and by describing how a broad consultation and participation of civil society is to be achieved. The SCA encouraged the Bulgarian National Human Rights Institution (NHRI) to advocate for the formalisation and application of a broad and transparent process. 

The Bulgarian NHRI also reported that, while its budget had improved, it would benefit from additional funding to carry out its functions (including as a National Preventive Mechanism - NPM and the National Monitoring Mechanism - NMM), to establish regional offices and to ensure that its communications are accessible to all. The SCA encouraged the NHRI to continue to advocate for the funding necessary to ensure it can effectively carry out the full extent of its mandate. 

Finally, the Bulgarian NHRI reported that there had been inadequate responses by state authorities, including relating to the NHRI’s recommendations on the issue of domestic violence and the ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence. The SCA encouraged the Bulgarian NHRI to continue to conduct follow-up activities to monitor the extent to which their recommendations have been implemented. 

The SCA will consider the reaccreditation of the Bulgarian NHRI in its second session of 2025.

The term of the previous ombudsperson ended in April 2024. During much of 2024, the  institution was working in absence of a head of institution. In April 2025, the selection and appointment process are still ongoing at the National Assembly, with a new Ombudsperson expected to be appointed in mid-April.

The Ombudsman of the Republic of Croatia (ORC) was last re-accredited with A-status in March 2019 . Among the recommendations, the SCA encouraged the Croatian NHRI to advocate for broad consultation and participation of civil society in the selection process for the position of the Ombudsperson.  

The SCA also noted that the Croatian NHRI had recently been mandated with additional responsibilities under the whistle-blower legislation, but that no new funding had been allocated to allow it to carry out these new responsibilities. Therefore, the SCA encouraged the Croatian NHRI to continue to advocate for the funding necessary to ensure that it can effectively carry out the full extent of its mandate, including its newly-mandated responsibilities.  

Additionally, the SCA noted that the term of office of the Ombudsperson is of 8 years and that the enabling law does not limit the number of reappointments. The SCA took the view that it would be preferable for this to be limited to one reappointment.  

Finally, the SCA acknowledged that the regional offices in Rijeka were not accessible to persons with disabilities at the time. It encouraged the NHRI to continue to seek a solution of this situation, including by advocating for additional funds to ensure that all its offices are accessible. 

The SCA will consider the reaccreditation of the Croatian NHRI in its second session in October 2025. 

Since its last re-accreditation in 2019, the institution has taken a number of concrete steps to address SCA’s recommendations issued to it. These have been elaborated in detail in ORC’s inputs to ENNHRI’s 2023 and 2022 Rule of Law Report as well as in the 2024 Annual report of the Ombudswoman to the Croatian Parliament.  

In addition to these, an additional Deputy was elected in July 2024. This is especially important taking into account the increase in the number of ORC’s mandates and the related tasks over the years, as well as the rise in the number of complaints and, more generally, demands and expectations from the public, CSOs, and the media who have come to rely on it as an expert independent institution in relation to numerous human rights issues, necessitating the strengthening of the institutional capacities also at the managing levels. 

Furthermore, for reasons of increased workload in the entire institution, but also with a view of fulfilling the recommendations by the UN’s Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture (SPT) communicated to the state and the Ombudswoman at the end of 2024 following its 2023 visit to Croatia on the strengthening of the capacities of Croatia’s National Preventive Mechanism, which in the Republic of Croatia is a mandate carried out by the institution of the Ombudswoman, the ORC has requested and received the funds for three (3) more staff members in the 2025 state budget, which was approved.  

In addition to this and in the future, the increase in the institutional capacities in terms of staff will also be necessary in order to meet the recommendations issued to the Republic of Croatia by the OECD with regard to the strengthening of the ORC’s whistle-blowers protection related mandate (OECD Working Group on Bribery‘s Report adopted in December 2024 issued a recommendation “to ensure that the ombudsperson has sufficient resources for its whistleblowing function). Also, there are new tasks related to the implementation of the EU Artificial Intelligence Act. Namely, most recently, the ORC was named as one of the national public authorities authorized to supervise or enforce the respect of obligations under EU law protecting fundamental rights, including the right to non-discrimination, in relation to certain high-risk uses of AI systems in line with the EU AI Act). 

Since the earthquake in 2020 that rendered the ORC’s offices unusable, the institution has been using temporary offices, which are now quite limiting in terms of the institution’s needs. Taking the current situation into account, and especially in line with the recommendations of the international mechanisms and new mandates which are to be accommodated in terms of the strengthening of the human capacities of the institution, new, more fitting working space would be needed to enable optimal working processes.  

Follow-up on NHRI recommendations 

When it comes to the recommendation stemming from the 2024 EU Rule of Law Report, namely for the Republic of Croatia to further improve the follow-up to recommendations and ensure a more systematic response to information requests of the Ombudsperson, the ORC would like to highlight the following points. 

Firstly, the Government Office for Human Rights and the Rights of National Minorities (GOHRRNM) has continued with its annual tracking of the implementation of the ORC’s recommendations, which, after a long pause, it had resumed in 2023. Namely, the Government Office prepares the Report that should inform on the implementation of the recommendations of the ORC (which is being done only and exclusively for ORC’s recommendations). The first year of its application experienced certain deficiencies – namely, it only included a summary of numerical self-assessment of the responsible bodies on the level of implementation without any explanation. Hence, the explanations of the competent authorities were not visible, so it is not clear what they considered an implemented recommendation.  

Consequently, and based on the recommendation from the Commission’s Rule of Law Report, the methodology was revised in the dialogue between the GOHRRNM and the ORC. As a result, the GOHRRNM has provided the ORC in March 2025 with a draft Report on the implementation of the Ombudswoman’s recommendations, which includes statistical data on implementation, but more importantly, explanations of relevant bodies on what they have done/are planning to do.  

At the same, substantively, based on our work (casework, information gathered in the preparation of the drafting of the 2024 annual report), we can see progress in certain areas (e.g. a significant number of ORC’s recommendations were taken up in the processes of the drafting of the legislation regulating housing); whereas certain others are stalling (thus, for instance, the ORC has encountered difficulties acquiring the information in the area of health care, which, at the same time, is the area with the highest number of complaints). 

Timely discussion of the Annual Report 

The trend of stalling with the discussions on the ORC’s reports in the plenary session of the Croatian Parliament has continued; thus, neither the institution’s 2023 annual report, nor the 2022 annual report (despite the opinion issued by the Government of the Republic of Croatia) and the Special Report on the Impact of COVID-19 on Human Rights and Equality have been discussed in the plenary session of the Parliament as yet.  

Additionally, at the time of this reporting, the Government of the Republic of Croatia has still not issued its opinion on the ORC’s 2023 Annual Report, which is a prerequisite for the plenary parliamentary debate on it.  

The ORC has continually flagged this issue in the Parliament (e.g. during the discussions on draft legislation) and through media. As the Ombudswoman has stressed previously, timely discussion of the institution’s reports is crucial for the debate to be relevant and for the ORC to be able to receive timely feedback from the Parliament on them and be able to utilize it in her work. 

Limited salary reform in the state and public administration concerning Ombudswoman’s advisors 

Despite the initial announcements during the preparation of the salary reform in the state and public administration, according to which the salaries of the Ombudswoman's advisors were to be increased only cosmetically (instead of the existing coefficient of 2.425, it was to be rounded to 2.5), the final proposal for the regulation on coefficients increased it to 2.70. However, we believe that this increase should have been higher.  

Access to information by the NHRI 

Since 2018, the ORC had faced barriers when it comes to its NPM officers accessing the data related to irregular migration stored in the Ministry of Interior’s (MoI) information system and had, thus, in her annual reports repeatedly issued recommendations to the MoI. The EC had been flagging the issue since the inception of its rule of law reporting, issuing recommendations to the Republic of Croatia.  

In 2024, an improvement in this area was recorded. During the NPM visit to the Registration Centre for Applicants for International Protection, we were not granted access to relevant data. The first reason was that there were no police officers authorized to provide such data present during the visit, which is why we received the information via telephone. The second reason was that the Centre, which had been established only a few months before the NPM visit, according to information provided to us, did not maintain relevant records. During the NPM visit to the border police station conducted later in the year, we were granted access to all requested data, both those kept in physical form and those maintained in electronic form (Information System of the Ministry of Interior). 

The national regulatory framework applicable to the ORC has not changed since January 2024. However, the Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial Intelligence Act) was adopted in June 2024.  Article 77(2) thereof requires Member States to designate and publish the list of public authorities or bodies competent for the supervision and enforcement of obligations relating to the protection of fundamental rights when using high-risk AI systems. In line with this obligation. In December 2024 the Ministry of Justice, Public Administration and Digital Transformation notified the European Commission of the competent authorities in accordance with the Act, which, among several other institution, include the institution of the Ombudswoman of the Republic of Croatia, following the meeting with ORC.  

The Law on the Implementation of the AIA is planned for adoption by the Government of the Republic of Croatia in the first quarter of 2025. The Ombudswoman received an invitation to participate in the working group that will work on the development of the implementing legislative framework, however, at the time of writing this report, no meetings of the aforementioned working group was held. In the meantime, the working group was set up (the ORC is a member) and the first meeting took place in April 2025. 

As regards the mandate to contribute to the access of justice for individuals, there have been no normative changes in the period of 2022-2024. However, certain progress in terms of the resources available and in terms of ORC’s own activities contributed to the strengthening of the mandate.  

Complaints handling 

When it comes to complaints, the ORC worked on a total of 6,404 cases in 2024 . Of the total number of cases, 4,942 were opened in 2024 (so-called newly opened cases), which is 2.81 % more than the previous year, while 1,462 were transferred from previous years. Among the newly opened cases, the majority were opened upon citizen complaints or on our own initiative (3,716), there were 1,011 general initiatives, and 215 cases were opened for office operations. 

As in the last five years, in 2024, the most cases were opened in relation to discrimination (420), the right to health (394) and labour rights (327).  

Ombudswoman’s request to the Constitutional Court to abolish a provision in the amended Law on Mandatory Health Insurance and further intervention in court proceedings 

In 2023, the Ombudswoman submitted a request to the Constitutional Court proposing to the Court to abolish one of the provisions of the amended Law on Mandatory Health Insurance. With this provision newly introduced in 2023, the obligation is introduced for a certain category of insured citizens (the ones that are unemployed but are not officially registered as such at the Croatian Employment Service) to periodically personally approach the Croatian Health Insurance Fund (CHIF) or otherwise they will lose their health insurance covered by the State Budget. The Ombudswoman finds this obligation discriminatory on the grounds of disability and health status since not all persons will be able to personally approach CHIF and on the ground of property status, since not all persons will be able to cover the transport costs to the locations of the CHIF. Besides this, the Ombudswoman warned that introducing this obligation will have a more negative and severe impact on those groups that are generally deprived of information and live segregated, as the Roma do. The Constitutional Court’s decision on the request is still pending. 

The institution also joined anti-discrimination court proceedings on the plaintiff's side as an intervener in a case of suspected discrimination in employment. The case, initiated in 2023, was still ongoing in 2024 (in the final judgment, the court did not find discrimination in this instance).  

Awareness-raising activities as part of the projects implemented by the ORC 

Furthermore, during the reporting period, the ORC participated in several projects with various partners. The activities contributed or will contribute to the implementation of the mandate. In the period July 2022-February 2024, the ORC was one of the seven NHRIs participating in the FRA/ENNHRI project “Support to National Human Rights Institutions in the Monitoring of Human Rights and the Rule of Law” and its national activities included both training for the ORC’s staff as well as educational activities provided by it to civil servants and NGOs.  

Two EU-funded projects are currently being implemented with civil society partners. As part of the first, focused on combating racism and discrimination, the ORC organized a conference on the 15th anniversary of the adoption of the Antidiscrimination Act in Croatia (ADA), gathering relevant stakeholders in a discussion on the progress achieved and the way forward, published a handbook on the application of the ADA, and is planning to provide training sessions on combatting discrimination to faculty students set to enter the teaching profession. Furthermore, research relating to discrimination based on race/ethnicity in housing is being conducted. 

As part of the second project aimed at developing the skills of civil society actors, civil servants and lawyers for the implementation of EU law, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and for engaging in strategic litigation, the ORC is collecting data on discrimination in relation to social housing and will hold workshops on litigation strategies and collecting evidence in discrimination cases.  

Ongoing strengthening of the framework 

In relation to NHRI regulatory framework, as the ORC is a multi-mandated body and one of its mandates is that of the central equality body. On 7 May 2024, the Council of the European Union adopted two new Directives, which establish a set of minimum standards for Equality Bodies (Directive 2024/1500 and Directive 2024/1499). Together, they require States to take specific and concrete measures to guarantee the independence of Equality Bodies and ensure their effectiveness in combatting discrimination and promoting equality. Currently, there is an ongoing review of whether, due to the obligation to transpose these Directives, some legislative changes are needed and of which laws (as there are also other equality bodies and several pieces of legislation that could potentially be changed). In her 2024 Annual Report the ORC recommended that transposition of these Directives should be done in cooperation with equality bodies. 

The relevant state authorities generally have a good awareness of the NHRI’s mandate, independence and role. The ORC is regularly present in the media, at various events and regularly participates in the relevant sessions of the parliamentary committees, thus, raising the institution’s visibility and raising the awareness of its work. The ORC maintains regular dialogue with all of the relevant authorities in various forms, such as meetings, participation in the public consultations, inviting their representatives to participate in the events it organizes, debates and round tables organized in the Parliament, etc. and continues to emphasise the importance of cooperation and of the responsiveness to its work and recommendations.  

Access to information and to policy makers 

The ORC has adequate access to information with regard to legislative and policy initiatives and procedures. It has access to the various stages of the legislation and policy-making processes. In line with the law, it can indicate the need for the adoption and amendments of acts and other regulations to the Croatian Parliament as well as the need for the harmonization of laws and bylaws with the international standards and the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia. 

In practice, the representatives of the institution, on certain occasions and on its own free choosing, also take part in the working groups set up to draft legislation (particularly when the changes relate to ORC’s recommendations). ORC regularly and frequently participates in public consultations in the processes of adopting policy documents and legislation (in 2024 it took part in 49 public consultations). Furthermore, ORC participates in the discussions in the parliamentary committees when these pieces of legislations are being discussed and can do so in all parliamentary committees and without invitation. The ORC has also organized events with the aim of bringing together the relevant stakeholders and facilitate further discussion on particular legislative proposals. 

Access to resources to carry out the mandate 

Since 2022, the institution has been strengthened when it comes to staff and the managing structure. However, further strengthening of the human resources will be necessary to accommodate among other needs, the SPT’s recommendations to the Republic of Croatia regarding the strengthening of the NPM mandate (funds already received, staff yet to be employed), OECD’s recommendations regarding further strengthening of the whistleblower protection mandate and the requirements brought about by being designated as one of the public authorities competent for the supervision and enforcement of obligations relating to the protection of fundamental rights when using high-risk AI systems in line with the EU’s AI Act (Article 77/2 AI Act body).  

As mentioned earlier, since the earthquake in 2020 that rendered the ORC’s offices unusable, the institution has been using temporary offices, which are now limiting in terms of the institution’s needs. Taking the current situation into account, and especially should the recommendations of the international mechanisms and new mandates be accommodated in terms of the strengthening of the human capacities of the institution, new, more fitting working space would be needed to enable optimal working processes. 

Functional immunity of the leadership of the ORC 

In line with the Ombudsman Act, the Ombudsman and his/her deputies enjoy immunity as do members of the Croatian Parliament and the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia on immunity in the Croatian Parliament are applied appropriately. Under these provisions, they cannot be held criminally liable, detained or sentenced for an opinion expressed.  

The ORC’s staff have the status of civil servants. Pursuant to the Civil Service Act, civil servants have the right to the protection of their physical and moral integrity in the performance of their duties. They are also obliged to refuse to execute an order that is illegal or whose execution would be contrary to the rules of the profession and the code of ethics, or whose execution could cause greater damage, or the execution of an order whose execution would constitute a criminal offense or misdemeanour.  

Furthermore, any complaints by a civil servant due to justified suspicion of corruption or the filing of a report on such suspicion to responsible persons or competent state bodies do not constitute a justified reason for the termination of civil service, and the protection of anonymity, protection from denial or restriction of rights and protection from any form of abuse in the event of filing a report are guaranteed.  

Threats faced by the ORC 

There are several challenges that the ORC encountered during the reporting period: premises of ORC, salaries of ORC staff, timely discussion of Annual Reports as well as threats received by the Ombudswoman. 

The Office of the Ombudswoman has been located at a temporary address for the past 4 years because the former office building was severely damaged in the 2020 earthquake. However, the reconstruction process has not started to this date, while at the same time the number of employees has increased in the past 4 years and temporary premises are not adequate. The office is located in a space the ORC rents at commercial price and pays high reserve costs. Finally, security wise, these premises are less secure than the ones previously occupied (there is no security staff or metal detectors in the entrance to the building/premises of the ORC). These are all reasons why the existing space is inadequate for the needs of the office and that it would be needed to find new space in the coming period, suitable for the accommodation of all employees and officials but also to be accessible to citizens. 

Over the years, the Ombudswoman has received various derogatory remarks and insults etc., both in emails sent to her/the institution and in publicly made comments (comments on online media articles, on social media etc.). She also received two anonymous written letters with threats, which she reported to the police. So far, from the information we have, the perpetrator(s) have not been found.  

The ORC recommends to national authorities to: 

1. discuss annual reports of the Ombudswoman in a timely manner (in the year they were submitted) in the Croatian Parliament,
2. ensure more systematic response to information requests of the ORC to competent bodies relating to complaints handled by the ORC,
3. provide the institution of the Ombudswoman with the additional human resources in line with the international mechanisms’ recommendations and new mandates assigned to it. 

The ORC’s human rights monitoring and reporting found evidence of state measures that negatively impact on freedom of association, freedom of expression, create barriers in access to information and law and policymaking processes, or criminalise human rights defenders’ work. While there are no national policies or laws directly aimed at creating barriers for the activities of human rights defenders, instances were recorded of state action negatively impacting them and/or aiming to block them. 

Pressure on civic environmental initiatives 

Croatia does not have policies or laws directly aimed at creating barriers for the activities of human rights defenders. However, instances were recorded of actions taken by various state bodies that negatively impacted them. For example, in one of the cases, a HRD complained that state inspections were being used as a tool to cause pressure on a civic environmental initiative.  

Access to law and policy making processes by CSOs and HRDs 

As regards the access to policy/law making processes, generally CSO are pointing to the fact that their inputs are not considered and that public consultations are only of formalistic nature. Additionally, CSOs point that it is not clear how CSOs are included in Working Groups responsible for drafting legislation and policies.  

Lack of adequate funding for CSOs and heavy administrative burden in the project-management cycles 

CSOs continue flagging the lack of adequate funding for organizations focused on the protection and promotion of human rights, combatting discrimination, advocacy, anticorruption and transparency, watchdog activities, environmental protection and report on the excessive administrative burden placed on them in the project-management cycles, as well as public calls and the payments being late, which puts a strain on their activities.  

Lack of access to the reception centres for asylum seekers for CSOs working with international protection seekers and migrants 

Most of the CSOs working with international protection seekers and migrants still do not have the access to the reception centres for asylum seekers and to the reception centre for foreigners since the beginning of the COVID pandemic, despite their being a need for their services, such as free legal aid provision.  

Lack of adoption of the new National Plan for the Creation of Favourable Conditions for the Civil Society 

The previous document having expired in 2016, Croatia has still not adopted the new National Plan for the Creation of Favourable Conditions for the Civil Society, thus lacking the policy framework for further improving the legal, financial and institutional support system for the activities of civil society organisations. Moreover, CSOs have continuously been flagging the decline in the functioning of the institutional infrastructure set up for the state cooperation with the civil society prior to Croatia’s EU accession.  

ORC’s support to women human rights defenders and LGBTQ+ human rights defenders 

Monitoring human rights and the conditions for work of human rights defenders, the ORC pays special attention to HRDs groups known to be targeted more often, including groups working on women’s and reproductive rights and those working on LGBTIQ+ rights and flags the fact that they face extra pressures and challenges in her annual reports. Several CSOs working in the areas of women’s human rights, gender equality, reproductive rights and gender-based violence are members of the ORC’s network of antidiscrimination contact points, which the ORC consults and discusses with them the current developments and challenges in the areas the cover. Several CSOs working on women’s and LGBTQ+ rights are regular contributors to the annual report, thus providing a direct insight into the barriers they are facing. 

The ORC’s human rights monitoring and reporting found evidence of practices that could negatively impact on civil society space and/or reduce human rights defenders’ activities, such as verbal or physical attacks on civil society organisations and/or human rights defenders, their work and environment, negative attitudes/campaigns towards/perceptions of civil society and/or human rights defenders by public authorities and the general public, online and/or offline threats or harassment, intimidation, harassment or violence before, during or after protests, harassment in the form of excessive administrative controls or audits, or surveillance by state actors, strategic lawsuits against public participation – SLAPPs. 

Excessive administrative burden and pressure on CSOs 

CSOs continue to report on the excessive administrative burden placed on them in the project-management cycles, as well as public calls and the payments being late, which puts a strain on their activities, whereas human rights defenders dealing with women’s human rights, reproductive rights, LGBTQ+’ rights, transitional justice and environmental matters continue to be more intensely targeted by pressures, attacks and harassment.  

SLAPP lawsuits against journalists, media professionals and environmental CSOs 

SLAPP lawsuits continue to have a major impact on media freedom, which act as a deterrent to journalists and media professionals. The situation could be improved by the ongoing efforts (including the establishment of a working group for the transposition of EU directive, the work of National Coordinating Committee for the Implementation of measures of the Action plan for the development of culture and media and the campaign of the Council of Europe and the OSCE for the safety of journalists) to  transpose the Anti-SLAPP Directive, which applies to civil and commercial cases (representatives of the ORC are taking part in the work of this Working group).  

In addition, physical attacks and threats against journalists are still present. In its 2024 Annual Report the ORC highlighted that the legal mechanisms are still unevenly applied for the protection of journalists. For example, municipal state attorney office concluded that there is no criminal liability for the attacker in Nadine, who physically attacked a journalist on a work assignment in public space and who identified herself as such to the attacker and who was accompanied by a cameraman. Although the attacker stated that he attacked a journalist because she recorded his real estate from public space area, a misdemeanour order and a ban on approaching, establishing and maintaining a connection to each other at a distance of not less than 50m was issued against the attacker as well as the victim. This shows that journalists continue to suffer from the uncertainty of whether they will receive adequate criminal-legal protection while performing their work tasks if they are physically attacked. 

Along with journalists, environmental CSOs are being targeted with SLAPP lawsuits and report the use of inspections with the aim of intimidation and of blocking their activities (Kardov, K., Represija nad okolišnim inicijativama i organizacijama civilnog društva u Hrvatskoj, Zagreb, September 2024).  

Continuous physical attacks and threats against journalists, environmental initiatives and CSOs working on particular topics 

Physical attacks and threats against journalists are still present. Although the Protocol on the conduct of the police, journalists and other media professionals at public gatherings of public interest and the Protocol on the conduct of the police when learning of a criminal offence committed against journalists and other media professionals in the performance of their duties have been adopted, adequate implementation of these protocols is lacking.  

Moreover, according to Kardov in 2024, environmental initiatives seem to have been the groups most exposed to physical attacks and harassment during protests. For example, environmental defenders were subjected to the breaking of peaceful resistance by a private security company securing a building site. In another case, the media reported about the violence committed by the police and the security against climate activists protesting against fossil fuels.   

HRDs are also faced with online threats and harassment.  In 2024, the ORC also recorded incidents of threats and attacks aimed at those CSOs dealing with transitional justice and environmental matters. For example, having conducted a public campaign, a CSO dealing with transitional justice received a series of threats by post and via social media, issued by private individuals.  

HRDs dealing with women’s rights, reproductive rights and LGBTQ+ rights being targetted  

Human rights defenders dealing with women’s rights, reproductive rights and LGBTQ+ topics are continuously among the most commonly and intensely targeted groups.   

For example, prayer gatherings have been held every first Saturday of the month in the main square in Zagreb and in several cities across Croatia since October 2022 have particularly attracted attention, as well as public controversy, due to some of the ‘prayer intentions’ of the participants: to become spiritual authorities in the family, for a life of premarital purity, for chastity in dress and behaviour, and for the renewal of Catholic marriages, for an end to abortion and openness to life for married couples.   

Protests, or counter-protests, were held at the same time as the prayer gatherings, highlighting women's rights and gender equality.  

In relation to securing those gatherings, the police officers have, at some occasions, treated unequally (counter)protestors defending women’ rights and those taking part in the prayer gatherings, whereas these have also been issues of potentially conflicting rights (e.g. religious freedom/freedom of assembly/freedom of expression of those gathering in public prayer versus  freedom of expression, including artistic expressions and freedom of assembly of protestors).  

Additionally, the current legal framework regarding the maintenance of public order and peace at public gatherings sometimes leads to different understandings of ‘organizers’ duties’ and the duties of police authorities for protecting security and public order when securing public gatherings.  

Transnational repression of human rights defenders:  

In the midst of the student protests in Serbia beginning in November 2024, in December 2024, according to Croatian media reports, personal information of a Croatian journalist was published and his ID card shown in live program by a Serbian TV station, with the journalist being accused of “aiding and abetting” the protestors. Additionally, in January 2025 Croatian media reported on several Croatian CSO members attending a workshop in Belgrade being questioned by the police, expelled from the country and being served with a one-year entry ban due to, ostensibly, “presenting a security risk”, prompting the reaction by both the Croatian Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs as well as of the European Commission.   

Strategies and initiatives to protect human rights defenders at the national level 

There are no specific laws or mechanisms for the protection of civil society and human rights defenders at the national level. 

Moreover, Croatia has not adopted for years the strategic policy document aimed at the creation of favourable conditions for civil society. Creating a policy framework to guide normative, institutional and financial measures as well as rendering the institutional framework for the cooperation between the civil society and the state again would be a welcomed step in making the conditions for the work of human rights defenders more conducive.  

When it comes to journalists and environmental human rights defenders (but also possibly others in the future), normative solutions aimed at early recognition and dismissal of SLAPP lawsuits are key, and currently there is a Working Group working on transposing the Directive.  

In 2024, the ORC has taken initiatives to promote civil society space and human rights defenders, such as the organization of joint meetings and/or roundtables or including a specific chapter in the ORC’s annual report on the situation of human rights defenders. This also serves as an awareness raising tool aimed at both the relevant state actors as well as the general public, informing them about the importance of the human rights defenders’ work and of the creation of the favourable environment for it, of their contributions but also about the obstacles they face, including recommendations on the possible ways to remove those obstacles. 

Additionally, the ORC has set up a network of anti-discrimination contact points, CSOs with whom it regularly shares information relating to their work as HRDs. 

Moreover, in 2024, the ORC has also taken actions to protect civil society space and human rights defenders (HRDs), such as monitoring, complaints handling, issuing recommendations & opinions, capacity building, or through NHRI’s specific/additional mandates. 

The ORC is a multi-mandated institution with the mandates of the ombudsman, an NHRI, a national equality body, the NPM, and whistle-blowers’ protection and engages in the protection of the civil society space and, more broadly, of human rights defenders through its various mandates. 

It monitors the situation and reports annually to the Croatian Parliament as well as internationally. ORC receives complaints submitted by the HRDs and issues recommendations, addressing both the perpetrators of individual violations as well as pointing to systemic issues and suggesting possible solutions.  

From the Adoption of the Act on the Protection of the Persons Reporting Irregularities, the ORC is the body responsible for the external reporting of irregularities, which also monitors the implementation of the protection of whistleblowers. 

Finally, the ORC regularly provides capacity building to the civil society actors. Thus, for instance, one of the activities in the FRA/ENNHRI project “Support to National Human Rights Institutions in the Monitoring of Human Rights and the Rule of Law” was an educational session on the Charter of Fundamental Rights for civil society actors. We are also currently conducting 2 EU-funded projects with CSO partners, also including various capacity-building activities (FRED - Fostering Racial Equality and Diversity and SURE - Strategies for Using Rights and Achieving Equality, both are CERV funded). 

Engagement of the ORC with international and regional mechanisms in support of human rights defenders and civil society 

In its Rule of Law Reports, the European Commission regularly assesses the situation of civil society actors at the national level. Via its own recommendations, the ORC supports the rectification of the identified barriers in this area. Additionally, in its alternative report to the UN Committee on Human Rights, the ORC reported on challenges faced by CSOs.  

The ORC recommends to the Government of Croatia to: 

1. adopt the National Plan for the Creation of the Enabling Environment for the Civil Society;
2. provide consistent and multiannual funding for the organizations focused on the protection and promotion of human rights and combatting discrimination;
3. By law, regulate the right of citizens to participate in decision-making.  

The ORC recommends to the European Commission to: 

1. adopt the EU civil society strategy,
2. make funding more flexible and speedy, especially in relation to quickly changing needs and human rights priorities.   

Based on the human rights monitoring and reporting, the ORC identified significant challenges affecting access to justice and/or effective judicial protection in the areas including independence and impartiality of judiciary, delays in court proceedings, access to legal aid, professionalism, specialisation and training of judges, timely and effective execution of national courts’ judgments. 

Amendment of legislation on the functioning of the judiciary 

During 2024, several laws significant for improving the functioning of the judiciary were amended and supplemented, namely the Courts Act, the Criminal Code, the Criminal Procedure Act, the Protection from Domestic Violence Act and the Land Registry Act, and the Delivery of Court Documents Act and the new Administrative Disputes Act were adopted. 

White strike of judges and state attorneys 

Poor working conditions and the problem of salaries resulted in open expressions of dissatisfaction among judges and state attorneys, and a so-called “white strike” was held from 22 January to 2 February 2024, because salaries and other material rights of judicial officials had not been regulated by the end of 2023, in accordance with the Government's promise. 

At a meeting held on 23 February 2024 in the Government of the Republic of Croatia, an agreement was reached with representatives of the Association of Croatian Judges and the Association of State Attorneys on increasing the base for calculating the salaries of judicial officials, coefficients for county court judges and presidents of first and second instance judges, as well as on the material rights of judges and state attorneys. 

After the end of the strike and after the agreement was reached, the Act on Amendments to the Act on Salaries and Other Material Rights of Judicial Officials was adopted (Official Gazette 35/24 of 22 March 2024, which entered into force on 1 April 2024). 

Independence and impartiality of the judiciary 

Regarding the independence and impartiality of judiciary and according to the results of the Eurobarometer from February 2024, 37% of surveyed citizens in the Republic of Croatia assessed the independence of courts and judges as poor, and 32% of them as very poor, and despite a slight improvement compared to 2023, the Republic of Croatia is still facing a negative perception of the independence of courts and judges. 

According to data from the State Judicial Council, in 2024, 60 judges were resolved/relieved of duty (of which 38 at their own request, while 17 due to reaching the age of 70, three judges died, one judge due to taking up office in another judicial body, and one due to permanent loss of ability to perform judicial duties).  

According to data from the State Judicial Council, in 2024, nine disciplinary proceedings were initiated against judges, and 15 decisions were made in which one reprimand, three fines, three dismissals from the exercise of judicial office were issued, while in two cases the judges were acquitted of committing disciplinary offences, and in six cases a decision was made to suspend the disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary proceedings were conducted due to improper performance of judicial office, failure to comply with a decision made in the procedure for the protection of the right to a trial within a reasonable time, and causing damage to the reputation of the court or judicial office in another way. Due to the disciplinary offence of improper performance of judicial office, three judges were suspended from exercising judicial office during the disciplinary proceedings, until the disciplinary penalty of dismissal was imposed.  

Furthermore, in 47 cases, the State Judicial Council was requested to initiate criminal proceedings against judges, and 37 requests were rejected, while 10 procedures are ongoing. All requests were received from parties to court proceedings who were dissatisfied with the course and outcome of the court proceedings and are requesting authorization to initiate criminal proceedings against judges. In all these proceedings, the competent state attorney's office previously dismissed the criminal charges against the judges, and the parties were instructed to take over the criminal prosecution. 

Digitalization of the judiciary 

The digitalization of the judiciary should be seen as the important factor that contributes to reducing the number of unresolved court cases and shortening court proceedings, and its goal is transparent and efficient management of the judicial system.  

Public e-services (e-Communication, e-Case, e-Notice Board, e-Certificate that no criminal proceedings are being conducted, etc.) should accelerate the efficiency of administrative systems, optimize administrative business processes and thus improve the quality of the judicial system, and for users of e-services this means a faster, more efficient way of obtaining information and solving problems, without physically going to the counter. 

Since 1 January 2025, anonymized court decisions of Croatian courts have been publicly available, which should make it easier for citizens to represent their legal interests before the court and improve judicial accountability, transparency, legitimacy and representativeness. 

Territorial fragmentation of the activities of primary legal aid providers and low compensation  

Citizens are still not sufficiently familiar with the possibility of directly addressing authorized primary legal aid providers and with the conditions for realizing the right to legal representation and exemption from court costs and court fees. Therefore, the ORC recommended that the Ministry of Justice, Public Administration and Digital Transformation continuously implement activities to inform the public about the free legal aid system, for example, through promotional activities using the media. 

There is a problem of significant territorial fragmentation of the activities of primary legal aid providers, which leads to insufficient availability of free legal aid, because most providers operate in the capital and larger urban centres, while free legal aid is mostly unavailable in rural and isolated areas. 

Also, in some parts of Croatia there is a lack of lawyers providing free legal aid. One of the reasons for the reduced interest of lawyers is the low point value on the basis of which the compensation for the free legal aid provided is determined. Therefore, the Ombudsman continuously points out to the Ministry the need to increase the point value of the lawyer's tariff for representation within the free legal aid system. 

Need to improve the follow-up and implementation by state authorities of European Courts’ judgments 

In ORC’s view, there is room for involving other stakeholders in the process of enforcing judgments and decisions of the ECtHR, for example, the Croatian Parliament through the work of the competent Committees, in order to prevent potential systemic violations of the Convention. Furthermore, the ORC considers that it would be useful to ensure the active and continuous participation of civil society and the academic community in the process of the drafting of action plans and action reports, through the work of the Expert Council for the Enforcement of Judgments and Decisions of the ECtHR. The ORC, however, is a member of the Expert Council and contributes to its work.  

Actions taken by the ORC to support the implementation of the European Courts’ judgments 

The ORC has undertaken actions to support implementation of the European Courts’ judgments, such as previous Rule 9 submissions to the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers, referring to the judgments of European Courts’ in the reports and recommendations to state authorities, engagement with a national coordinator of the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as awareness raising of the general public. 

ORC’s systematic monitoring of the compliance of the national legislation and actions of public law bodies with the ECtHR’s case law 

The ORC systematically monitors the compliance of the national legislation and the actions of the public law bodies with ECtHR’s case-law. In accordance with the observed shortcomings, whether through non-compliance or inadequate application by the competent bodies of the national legislation in a large number of individual cases, we identify priority areas/cases. These are the areas in which systemic problems have been observed, either through the content of complaints the ORC receives and in which it has previously acted, or through the issues detected through the activities of the National Preventive Mechanism (for example, the situation in prisons).  

In accordance with the identified priorities, the institution is involved in monitoring the execution of individual ECtHR judgments from the initial stage of the drafting of the action plans. As members of the Expert Council for the Execution of the Judgments and the Decisions of the ECtHR, the ORC points out specific issues related to the execution of judgments in a specific legal area.  

Participation in the procedure for the execution of the judgments of the ECtHR 

Regarding the participation of the ORC in the procedure for the execution of the judgment in the case of M. H. et al. v. Croatia (App. no. 15670/18), which is under enhanced enforcement supervision, and in which the ORC submitted a Rule 9 communication in 2023, in June 2024 the institution submitted comments on the revised action plan to the Office of the Representative of the Republic of Croatia before the ECtHR. 

Dedicated chapter in the ORC’s annual report on the ECtHR’s case law 

One of the chapters of the ORC’s annual report is dedicated to the ECtHR’s case-law in relation to Croatia. In this section, the ORC addresses  developments related to the proceedings of the ECtHR, for example, the adoption of new rules of procedure regarding the submission of applications, etc., and provides a concise overview of the content of the judgments and decisions issued by the ECtHR in relation to Croatia, explaining which violation of Convention took place and what it consists of, taking into account the factual and legal context of the case. 

A statistical overview of the number of cases in enforcement and those for which the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers’ supervision procedure has been completed is included as well, as are the amounts of the pecuniary damages paid from the state budget. 

According to the ORC, there are several current challenges that affect media freedom, including SLAPP lawsuits, the introduction of the new Article 307.a. of the Criminal Code "Unauthorized disclosure of the contents of investigative or evidentiary proceedings", physical attacks and threats against journalists, and the non-application of the police Protocols on the conduct of journalists when they are attacked, and the lack of application of Article 315.b. of the Criminal Code "Coercion against a person performing tasks of public interest or in public service", as well as the issue of transparency of media ownership. 

SLAPP lawsuits  

Although we do not have exact data on the number of SLAPP proceedings, the transposition of the Anti-SLAPP Directive should support its decrease. With its implementation, relevant stakeholders will be obliged to adequately collect data on the number of SLAPP proceedings, and mechanisms for the early recognition and rejection of such malicious lawsuits should also be designed. 

Amendments to the Criminal Code 

A challenge to media freedom has been brought by the amendments to the Criminal Code. On the one hand, Article 307.a. punishes persons who, during the first stages of proceedings (which are secret), disclose the content without authorization. Although this article excludes illegality for a journalist and someone who acts to protect the victim of a criminal offense, in the interest of the defense in criminal proceedings or in another predominantly public interest, there is a fear that journalistic sources could still suffer certain inconveniences during the conduct of investigative actions.  

Attacks and threats against journalists and media workers 

The performance of journalistic work is also negatively affected by attacks and threats to which journalists and media workers are exposed. In order to prevent this, Article 315.b. of the Criminal Code and the Protocol on Police Conduct upon Learning of a Criminal Offense Committed to the Detriment of Journalists and Other Media Workers in the Performance of Their Work Tasks were introduced. However, according to our knowledge, the Protocol is inconsistently and inadequately applied, which may also affect the smaller number of criminal proceedings under Article 315.b. committed to the detriment of a journalist as a person performing tasks in the public interest. 

The issue of real and hidden ownership of the media 

In addition to all of the above, the issue of real and hidden ownership of the media has a negative impact on media freedom. Although covert ownership of the media is prohibited due to the protection of media pluralism, in reality there are some doubts about the adequate application of the norms that prescribe it. The aforementioned problems related to the transparency of ownership which could be influenced by adequate supervision over the application of the Law on Electronic Media. 

Measures taken to follow-up on the recommendations concerning media freedom issued by European actors 

In order to implement the EC Recommendation of 16 September 2021 on ensuring the protection, safety and strengthening of the position of journalists and other media workers in the EU, two police protocols related to the safety of journalists have been adopted: the Protocol on the conduct of police, journalists and other media workers at public gatherings of public interest and the Protocol on the conduct of police when learning of a criminal offence committed against journalists and other media workers in the performance of their duties. 

The ORC recommends to national authorities to: 

1. increase the safety of journalists. This refers to the prevention and prosecution of attacks and threats against journalists and the adequate implementation of all related procedures (police and public prosecutors),
2. increase efforts to remove other factors that act as a deterrent to the journalism profession. This primarily refers to the reduction of SLAPP lawsuits, but also malicious and unfounded criminal proceedings aimed at deterring journalists from reporting on topics of public interest,
3. increase media transparency. Regulatory bodies that monitor the implementation of relevant laws related to this topic play a significant role.  

Introduction of a new criminal offence 

Amendments to the Criminal Code, which entered into force on March 14, 2024, introduced a new criminal offence in its Art. 307.a. - unauthorised disclosure of the contents of an investigative report or evidentiary actions in criminal proceedings. 

Although the new paragraph 3 of Art. 307.a. provides for grounds for excluding the illegality of this act if it was committed in the “predominantly public interest”, which would, presumably, also relate to the disclosure of certain information to the public in the context of reporting irregularities in accordance with the Act on Protection of Persons Reporting Irregularities, we consider that the wording is still not entirely satisfactory in the context of the application of the Act on Protection of Persons Reporting Irregularities: 

• primarily – it is unclear what exactly will be the criteria for the assessment of whether the public interest prevails in a particular case, 
• possible non-compliance with the Act on Protection of Persons Reporting Irregularities – in accordance with Art. 10 par. 1, if persons report information about irregularities or disclose it publicly in accordance with the Act, they shall not be considered to have violated any restriction regarding the disclosure of information and shall in no way be held responsible for such a report or public disclosure, provided that they had a justified reason to believe that the report or public disclosure of that information was necessary for the purpose of exposing irregularities based on this Act. 
• all irregularities relating to the provisions of national law may be reported under the Act on Protection of Persons Reporting Irregularities, if such irregularities also undermine the public interest (not predominantly) - accordingly, the Act does not seek for the public interest to prevail when reporting, but it is essential only that the reported irregularities undermine, irrespective of the extent to which, the public interest 
• consequences of non-compliance - legal uncertainty of reporting persons who should be protected by the Act on Protection of Persons Reporting Irregularities because they act primarily in the public interest; the fear of criminal sanctions due to the possibility that the State Attorney's Office or the court, based on currently insufficiently clear criteria, will subsequently assess that the public interest did not prevail when reporting irregularities according to Act on Protection of Persons Reporting Irregularities (although the public interest as such clearly existed), will act as a deterrent to potential reporting persons. 

The Cypriot NHRI received its first-time accreditation with A-status by the Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA) in October 2022, after being deferred in June 2021.  

During its last review, the Cypriot NHRI informed the SCA of several steps it had taken to implement previous SCA recommendations, including the establishment of a Human Rights Advisory Committee aimed at promoting stronger and formal cooperation with civil society and enhancing the institution’s visibility. At the time, it was in the process of appointing members to the Committee, which would include civil society organizations working on the promotion and protection of the rights of the LGBTI community, persons with disabilities, women, and other groups. In light of this, the SCA recommended the Cypriot NHRI to ensure the Committee was functional and urged it to continue to enhance and formalize its working relationships with a wide range of civil society organizations and human rights defenders.  

The SCA also called for strengthened adequate funding of the NHRI. It noted that, while the institution has management and control over its budget and has effectively undertaken activities within its existing budget, it requires additional funding to allow for recruitment of staff at senior level, particularly in view of its expanded mandates of National Preventive Mechanism under OPCAT and National Monitoring Mechanism under CRPD. 

The SCA recommendations concerning the NHRI regarded the necessity for additional funding regarding the recruitment of staff at senior level, as well as on the need to ensure that the Human Rights Advisory Committee is functional and to continue to enhance and formalise its working relationships and cooperation with a wide range of civil society organisations and human rights defenders, including those working on the rights of various groups.  

Concerning funding and staff recruitment, it is noted that seven (7) staff members have been recruited in 2023. Previously and, in particular, during the period 2020-2021 five (5) Officers were also recruited, bringing the total number of new recruits to 12 Officers. At the same time, in 2022 two NHRI Officers were promoted to higher rank positions (Officer A). 

The NHRI has also increased its support/secretarial staff with the recruitment of three new secretarial staff members and one hourly employee.  

As a result, human resources have been significantly strengthened. However, given that the NHRI’s powers and responsibilities have also increased, particularly in view of the new role it has been entrusted with to monitor compliance of the implementation of EU funded programmes with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, it has already contacted the Minister of Finance and sought approval for additional Senior Officer posts.  

Furthermore, it is noted that at the moment, there is one vacant post for an Officer, one vacant post for an Officer A and one vacant post for a Senior Officer in the organisation chart. When the latter two posts are undertaken - via the promotion of existing staff members - the total number of vacant Officer posts will rise to three. The NHRI will attempt to ensure that in next year's budget additional posts will be approved and included, so that the total number of vacant posts of Officers will be additionally increased, in order to proceed with the recruitment of new Officers. 

Concerning the Human Rights Advisory Committee, it is noted that is composed by representatives of NGOs related to the protection of human rights of all vulnerable groups of the population (such as persons with disabilities, refugees, LGBTI people, prisoners, protection of women from any form of violence, etc.), it is completely functional and it meets regularly. During the meetings,  issues of concern related to the groups of the population each NGO represents are discussed and solutions are sought together.  

Furthermore, it is noted that the Commissioner presides over the Consultative Committee for the Monitoring of the UNCRPD, in which persons with disabilities and representatives of their representative organizations and the Cyprus Confederation of Organizations of the Disabled (CCOD) participate. Therefore, during the meetings all issues concerning persons with disabilities are discussed and addressed and solutions are jointly sought. 

Also, at a more general level, NGOs submit complaints to the NHRI on behalf of specific persons or in relation to issues that come to their attention, and it immediately proceeds to their investigation. 

NHRI follow-up on the recommendations concerning their institution, issued by European actors   

In 2024 EU Rule of Law Report, it was noted that the NHRI’s role of monitoring compliance of the implementation of EU funded programmes with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in the framework of the ‘Horizontal Enabling Condition on the Charter, “is considered challenging as it impacts on the already heavy workload of the Office and could require reinforcement in terms of resources. While the recruitment of seven additional staff members in 2023 increased its capacity, the need for further staff at senior level remains”. As mentioned, efforts have been made to further reinforce staff capacity. 

Concerning the NHRI’s, and in relation to the provision of legal assistance to individuals, it is noted that the Commissioner may participate in court proceedings as amicus curiae. Specifically and, in spite of the lack of specific procedural rules, dealing with amicus curiae issue, the Supreme Court established guidelines upon its jurisprudence on how a person/Institution, acting as an expert for a specific subject matter, such as the Attorney General of the Republic, or the Commissioner for Administration and Protection of Human Rights, as Equality Body can be a part of the trial, after the submission of a relevant application before the Competent Court. Furthermore, in cases where the Commissioner, in its capacity as an Equality Body, issues a binding decision, this decision can be challenged before the court by private individuals and private bodies, against the Equality Body. In such a case, the Commissioner is entitled to be heard in the judicial proceedings.is entitled to be heard in the judicial proceedings. 

In relation to the obligation of the authorities to respond to the NHRI’s questions/enquiries, in a timely manner and with reasoned and analytical responses, it should be noted that during the last years the NHRI have witnessed that the involved services are responding in a more timely manner when it reaches out to them. This is obviously due to the visibility the NHRI has achieved over the years. 

The relevant state authorities have good awareness of the NHRI’s mandate, independence and role and the NHRI has adequate access to information and to policy makers and is involved in all stages of legislation and policy making with human rights implications. 

Adequate resources  

Regarding the NHRI’s budget, the Commissioner’s budget is prepared every year by the NHRI upon its needs and upon its strategic plan. The proposed budget is approved as a whole by the Parliament via its submission by the Ministry of Finance. This way, the Commissioner is provided with the necessary financial, technical and human resources to fulfil his/her broad mandate. Following the approval of its budget, the Institution has absolute management and control of the appropriate funds. 

The amount included in the budget meets the needs of the Institution, since it is prepared by the Institution upon its needs and the strategic plan. 

Indicatively, the Commissioner’s Institution’s operating budget for 2023 amounted to €2.440.626, compared to €2.132.010 in 2022 and €1.823.357 in 2016. 

Functional immunity / Measures to protect NHRI staff 

The NHRI’s leadership and staff enjoy functional immunity and sufficient measures necessary to protect and support the NHRI, heads of institution and staff against threats and harassment and any other forms of intimidation are in place. According to Article 3(2) of the Commissioner for Administration Laws, the Commissioner may not be dismissed or withdrawn from Office during his/her term of office, except for the same reasons and in the same way that judges of the Supreme Court may be dismissed or withdrawn from Office. 

Furthermore, no legal proceedings may be brought against the Commissioner in relation to any act done by him/her or any opinion expressed by him/her or report submitted by him/her in the exercise of his/her functions. And finally, the Commissioner or any other member of the staff of his/her Office may not be called to testify before a Court or in any proceedings of a legal nature in respect of any matter that has come to his knowledge in the exercise of his/her duties. 

Threats faced by NHRIs 

As noted in last year’s report, in 2023 “the Auditor General, as he did in previous years, acting as a threat to the independence of the Ombudsman Institution, in 2023  attempted to intervene in the procedure, regarding the selection and appointment procedure of the new Ombudsman. This time, his interventions were in the form of substituting and influencing the decisions of the Legislative and Executive Powers. More specifically, the Auditor General attempted to interfere without having any jurisdiction in the process of selection and appointment of the new Commissioner in April 2023, when he tried to substitute the decision of the Legislative and Executive Powers in both ways, by a letter addressed to the President of the Republic and by distributing the same letter to the members of the House of Representatives. In particular, after the Council of Ministers decision, following a transparent and open call for applications, to recommend to the President of the Republic the reappointment of the current Commissioner, the Auditor General attempted to substitute his decision and to pre-empt the decision of the House of Representatives by providing false and defamatory information in a letter, without the Commissioner knowing its content (she found it out later), and without having the right to answer, even though the accusations were directed against her personally. It was clearly an attempt to shape the opinion of the Members of Parliament against the head of the Cypriot NHRI without having any competence to interfere in any way, as an action against the Rule of Law, in democratic societies. Finally, the House of Representatives approved the reappointment of the Commissioner for another term by an overwhelming majority”. 

It should be noted that in September 2024, the Supreme Constitutional Court in a unanimous decision, dismissed the Auditor General from his position, due to inappropriate conduct, noting, among others, that his behaviour failed to meet “the bare minimum” standards expected of his office, showed “complete disrespect and a complete lack of self-restraint. After the Court’s decision, the President of the Republic appointed a new Auditor General (Relevant decision of the Supreme Constitutional Court dated 18/09/2024). 

The enhancement of the effectiveness of the Institute can be achieved by further strengthening its human resources. In particular, in view of the scope of its competences, the reinforcement of its staff, both in senior positions specifically but also in simple Officer positions, will allow the NHRI to carry out its mandates more efficiently.

The Cypriot NHRI reports on the issues related to the closure of civil society organisations (CSOs) which have not registered in the official register in line with the national law. This has also affected the perceptions of the wider public on the work of CSOs operating within the legal framework.

With a Council of Ministers Decision in June 2022, an Advisory Committee of Human Rights was established, which is presided by the acting Commissioner, comprised by various human rights stakeholders (including representatives of the civil society representing the rights of persons with disabilities, the elderly, the LGBTQI community, prisoners, refugees, and others). The said Committee operates effectively and is in constant contact with its members through meetings and other communication channels. Through the dialogue conducted, we maintain working relationships and cooperation with a wide range of civil society organisations and human rights defenders. 

In terms of NHRI initiatives in 2024 to promote civil society space and human rights defenders, the NHRI reports having organised joint meetings and/or roundtables. 

Within the framework of the functioning of Advisory Committee of Human Rights and of the Consultative Committee for the Monitoring of the UNCRPD, but also through the NHRI’s collaboration with various civil society actors, relevant have taken place and issues related to civil society were discussed.  have taken place and issues related to civil society were discussed.  

NHRI actions to protect civil society space and human rights defenders (HRDs) 

In order to protect civil society space and human rights defenders (HRDs, the NHRI reports to have handled complaints and issued recommendations and opinion.  

More, specifically, the Cypriot NHRI continued to receive complaints by NGOs on behalf of specific persons or in relation to issues that come to their attention, and we immediately proceeded to their investigation. 

To national authorities: 

To better protect and support civil society and HRDs in Cyprus, national authorities could consider the following key recommendations: 

1. Strengthen Legal Protection for HRDs: Adopt and enforce national legislation recognizing and protecting HRDs, in line with international standards.
2. Provide security and legal aid when necessary
3. Address hates and stigmatization:
   1. Take concrete steps to counter misinformation and hate speech targeting HRDs and CSOs,
   2. Ensure that government officials and media outlets do not engage in smear campaigns against HRDs. 

To European actors: 

Enforce stronger human rights accountability measures:  

• Ensure that EU member states comply with international and European human rights obligations.
• Further strengthen monitoring mechanisms, to track and respond to shrinking civic space in Europe. 

The NHRI’s human rights monitoring and reporting has identified delays in court proceedings; professionalism, specialisation and training of judges, timely and effective execution of national courts’ judgments as significant challenges affecting access to justice and/or effective judicial protection. 

Disproportionate impact on women or marginalised gender groups 

The NHRI has not been made aware of any such challenges in 2024. Nevertheless, it should be noted that, through its work, the NHRI has identified that women and marginalized gender groups can encounter challenges in accessing justice, primarily due to systemic discrimination, legal barriers, and social stigma. For example, 

• With respect to Gender-Based Violence (GBV), women seeking protection having experienced sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV), have faced difficulties in reception services that failed to meet the specific needs of SGBV survivors, leading to underreporting and insufficient support.
• Regarding Economic and Social Barriers, it can be said that economic hardships disproportionately affect women and marginalized groups, making legal representation unaffordable. Additionally, a scarcity of gender-sensitive training among law enforcement and judiciary personnel, leading to dismissive attitudes toward victims, has been observed on occasions.
• As regards LGBTQ+ individuals, and even though Cyprus has made strides in LGBTQ+ rights, such as decriminalizing same-sex relations and recognizing civil unions, discrimination has been observed to persist.   

Actions Taken: Further to the anti-discrimination legislation the government has developed National Action Plans aiming to promote gender equality and combat discrimination.  

NHRI actions to support implementation of the European Courts’ judgments   

The NHRI has supported the implementation of European Courts’ judgements through referring to the judgments of European Courts in the reports and recommendations to state authorities, awareness raising of the general public, support to the general public and human rights education. 

Human rights education was targeted towards the Police Department and public authorities in general. In the framework of implementing a Regional Project, funded by the EEA and Norway Grants, that aimed to provide support to National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) of member states of the European Union in monitoring fundamental rights and the fundamental rights aspects of the rule of law,  the NHRI submitted capacity building seminars/training to the NHRI’s Officers, to selected Officers of Public Authorities, to practising private Lawyers (the seminar/training was co-organised with the Cyprus Bar Association)  and to Cypriot Judges (the seminar/training was co-organised with the Cyprus School of Judges).   

In December 2024, the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the ECtHR visited Cyprus and had a meeting with relevant stakeholders, including the NHRI, to discuss the implementation of the ECtHR. The NHRI’s meeting with the Department for the Execution of Judgments, was focused on the execution of DANILCZUK v. CYPRUS case (Application No. 21318/12, Final judgment of 03/07/2018) and, specifically, the preparation, in cooperation with the Attorney General’s Office , and the Ministry of Justice and Prisons Department, of an Action Plan concerning effective remedies for detainees at Nicosia Central Prisons. The final Action Plan will be submitted to the Department for the Execution of Judgments in mid-March. 

1. Modernize and digitize the justice system through the full implementation of e-justice reforms to reduce case backlogs and improve efficiency in case management and through improving public access to legal information through online platforms, ensuring better understanding of legal rights and processes.
2. Strengthen legal aid and judicial training:
    
   1. Expand state-funded legal aid to ensure equal access to justice, especially for vulnerable groups such as migrants, women, and marginalized communities.
   2. Introduce mandatory human rights and anti-discrimination training for judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement to ensure fair and unbiased rulings.
   3. Improve case management training for judicial staff to reduce delays and increase procedural efficiency. 

Measures to follow up on the recommendations concerning media freedom, issued by European actors   

As far as the NHRI knows, Cyprus has undertaken several measures to address recommendations from European entities concerning media freedom, such as legislative reforms and policy initiatives to better protect journalistic expression, access to information and to promote media pluralism and independence. 

• Safeguard public interest journalism and pluralism.
• Enhance EU-Wide Monitoring and Accountability to provide stronger oversight and sanctions against member states that restrict press freedom.
• Improve EU mechanisms for protecting at-risk journalists, including relocation programs for those facing serious threats. 

Persisting structural human rights issues impacting on the national rule of law environment 

Cyprus continues to face several structural human rights challenges that impact its national rule of law environment with respect to: 

• Stranded asylum seekers in the United Nations Buffer Zone: Dozens of asylum seekers from countries like Sudan, Afghanistan, and Cameroon have been stranded in the buffer zone, which is under the effective control of the UN. The issue has been resolved, and the asylum seekers were transferred to accommodation centres.
• Discrimination and violence against women and marginalized groups.  

• Combat discrimination and protect vulnerable groups and strengthen legal frameworks and enforcement mechanisms to combat gender-based violence, discrimination, and hate crimes against marginalized groups. 
• Implement specialized training for law enforcement and judicial authorities on handling cases involving women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and other vulnerable populations and expand public awareness and education programs to promote human rights, inclusion, and equality across society. 

The Public Defender of Rights is a non-accredited associate member of ENNHRI. As such, under the ENNHRI Statute, it commits to take active steps towards compliance with the UN Paris Principles and A-status accreditation. 

The Defender can handle complaints, write legislative recommendations, and conduct independent inquiries. Moreover, the Public Defender of Rights has received the mandate of Equality Body, National Monitoring Mechanism (NMM) under the UN CRPD, the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) under the UN CAT, monitor of forced returns (under the EU Return Directive), and body promoting equal treatment and supporting workers in the European Union and their family members (under the Directive 2014/54/EU). 

ENNHRI has supported the steps taken by the Public Defender of Rights to strengthen its mandate in compliance with the UN Paris Principles and stands ready to assist the institution in applying for international accreditation. In 2022, the Minister for Legislation started preparing a legislative proposal concerning steps for a Czech NHRI in a reasonable future. In 2023, the Public Defender was closely involved in the suggestions for possible legislative amendments to the Act on the Public Defender of Rights, which have the potential to further align the mandate of the institution to that of a fully-fledged NHRI. 

There has been significant progress concerning the establishment of an NHRI in the Czech Republic in 2024. The draft law that envisages entrusting the Public Defender of Rights with the mandate of an NHRI, alongside with establishing a new position of the Children’s Ombudsman who would share the Office of the current Defender (for details see the 2024 ENNHRI report chapter on Czechia) was approved by the Government on 10 April 2024. The Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament approved the draft law on 22 January 2025 with minor changes made by the Deputies. The Senate has approved the law on the 26th February 2025. The law should enter into force on 1 July 2025, once it is signed by the President.

The pending amendments could also pave the way for the future accreditation of the Public Defender as an NHRI.

Given the nature of the changes in the work of the Public Defender of Rights and his Office, which will probably be the most extensive in its 25-year history, preparatory works have already started within the institution in 2024. The Defender’s Office has been mapping the scope of the new tasks, examining the practice of similar foreign institutions, preparing a proposal for the division of duties between the Defender and the Children’s Ombudsman, and looking for the most appropriate organisational and technical support for the new tasks.

The draft law on the establishment of the NHRI has been adopted by the the Parliament of the Czech Republic only in early 2025, upon signature by the President, the expected changes in the regulatory framework would enter into force on 1 July 2025.

The Public Defender of Rights supports the strengthening of the institution’s mandate towards becoming an NHRI and the establishment of Children’s Ombudsman Institution. The Defender also stresses that adequate funding increase is necessary for the meaningful exercise of these new competences.

The Public Defender of Rights notes that relevant state authorities have good awareness of its mandate, independence and role. The Defender also notes that he has adequate access to information and to policy makers in all stages of legislation and policy making in matters where he has competence. 

However, the Defender also that it does not have adequate resources to carry out the full breath of its mandate. According to the Defender, state authorities generally continue to ensure an enabling environment to the Public Defender of Rights. However, in previous reports (see the ENNHRI 2023 and 2024 Rule of Law reports), the Defender has pointed out the ongoing trend of restricting financial resources of his Office. This trend continued in 2024. For the annual budget in 2025 the Defender’s Office has received an increase of about 4.6% for salary expenditures. However, given the previous budgetary restrictions and inflation, this will only amount to bringing the salaries back to the levels prior to 2022.

The Defender also points to the fact that the Government has so far not approved a specific amount of funding for the new competences in 2025. This complicates the process of preparation of the institution for its new duties.

As regards the recommendations issued by the Defender, the Defender notes that there have been no changes in legislation, state measures or practices since 2022 to ensure timely and reasoned responses to NHRI recommendations.

As regards the question of immunities and sufficient measures necessary to protect and support the NHRI, the Defender and the Deputy Defender may not be criminally prosecuted without the consent of the Chamber of Deputies, and if the Chamber of Deputies denies consent, criminal prosecution of the Defender shall be impossible during the term of exercise of the Defender’s competence.

Given the current state of the draft legislation strengthening his mandate, the Defender reiterates that the Government should ensure that the establishment of the NHRI and the Children’s Ombudsman will be accompanied by adequate additional resources that would allow a meaningful exercise of both the existing and new duties.

While the Public Defender of Rights does not conduct broad human rights monitoring and reporting, as a National Equality Body, he is, however, aware of some measures negatively impacting civil society and Human Rights Defenders, particularly in the form of limiting access to funding. In this regard, he has noted that the Government Committee for Institutional Assurance of Gender Equality has been critical of the inadequate allocation of resources for the implementation of the Gender Equality Strategy for 2021–2030, especially with regard to the promotion of systemic changes and support of non-state sector (see the English summary of the Government Strategy, p. 54).

The Defender generally cooperates and consults civil society organizations in all areas of his competence, when relevant. 

Civil society organizations are part of the advisory committee in relation to the functioning of the CRPD monitoring mechanism. The Defender also cooperates with an NGO that provides pro bono legal representation to the victims of discrimination.

In other areas, the cooperation with civil society organisations mainly consists of inviting its representatives to roundtables or seminars, consulting them with regards to specific topics and resolving the complaints they file either on their own behalf or on behalf of individuals they represent.

The Public Defender or Rights has also taken specific initiatives in 2024 to protect civil society space and human rights defenders (HRDs), such as complaints handling, issuing of recommendations & opinions and capacity building. In particular, in 2024 the Defender has organized a roundtable with NGOs that specialise in helping the victims of discrimination to exchange experience, good practice and to adjust the legal assistance provided to the victims of discrimination by the Defender.

Based on activities concerning protection against maladministration, the Public Defender of Rights has identified significant challenges affecting access to justice and/or effective judicial protection in the areas of delays in court proceedings and delay in and/or a lack of publication of judgments.

The Defender only has competence with regard to the state administration of courts. In this capacity, he is tasked to inquire about the way the presidents of the courts resolve complaints on the delays in court proceedings. In 2024, the Deputy Defender concluded an inquiry in which he has considered delays in a twelve-year-long criminal court proceedings concerning a rail accident. He has found that the inflexible judicial system had a major impact on the length and continuity of the proceedings. He has especially pointed out that the district courts are not adequately staffed to deal with complex criminal proceedings of this nature and that the state judicial system does not allow the presidents of the court to take adequate personnel management measures to prevent excessive length of such proceedings. The full inquiry report (in Czech) is available in the Defender’s Opinions Register.

The Defender has also been pointing out the lack of publication of court decisions to the Ministry of Justice since 2015. Although improvements have gradually been made (a new database has been created, courts are obliged to publish decisions by law), the situation is still not satisfactory. Only certain types of lower court decisions from specified areas are published – judgements concerning some of the civil law litigations (guardianship, child custody and child protection judgements are excluded) and criminal law judgements concerning corruption. In the opinion of the Defender, the courts should publish all their decisions in principle, apart from specified exceptions. The method of pseudonymisation also needs to be addressed as the current practice is too extensive (including any kind of information that can potentially lead to the identification of a specific person), which often leads to incomprehensibility of decisions. The defender also points out the need for a more user-friendly search in the database. In 2024 the Defender has published a research report on this issue, which is available (in Czech) in the Defender’s Opinions Register.

Ombudsman’s actions to support the implementation by state authorities of European Courts’ judgments

The Public Defender of Rights also supports the implementation of the European Courts’ judgments, mainly through referring to the judgments of European Courts’ in the reports and recommendations to state authorities, as well as through engagement with a national coordinator of the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. 

The Defender is a member of the Committee of experts for the execution of the ECtHR’s judgments run by the Government Agent. He can thus influence the course of the execution. ECtHR’s judgments are currently referred to also in the inquiry reports issued by the Defender.

In addition, the Defender has also previously submitted a Rule 9 submission to the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers.

The Danish Institute for Human Rights (DIHR) was last reaccredited with A-status in October 2024. 

The SCA noted the efforts undertaken by the DIHR to address gender-based violence, rights of migrants, stateless persons and refugees, and the efforts undertaken with the Human Rights Council of Greenland to remove the territorial exclusion of Greenland to the Istanbul Convention. It encouraged DIHR to continue to implement long term and proactive strategies to counter retrogressive national policies and encouraged the DIHR to continue to advocate and follow up with relevant authorities to make explicit its mandate to encourage ratification or accession to international human rights instruments. 

In addition, the SCA encouraged the DIHR to develop further binding guidance on what constitutes a conflict of interest and the process by which a determination would be made about the existence of such a conflict for Board members, to complement the existing general provisions.  

While the SCA acknowledged that functional immunity may exist by virtue of the specific legal context in which the NHRI operates, it encouraged the DIHR to advocate for legal protections for its Board members and staff from legal liability for actions taken in their official capacity. 

Further, acknowledging that the DIHR By Laws are clear on the grounds for dismissal of Board members, the SCA recommended that DIHR advocate for amendments to its By Laws that would outline an independent and objective procedure for the removal of its Board members. 

Finally, noting that the DIHR had indicated a need for adequate funding to service its additional mandate in Greenland, the SCA highlighted that, in order to function effectively and fulfil its mandate, an NHRI must be provided with an appropriate level of funding to freely determine its priorities and activities.

The Danish Institute for Human Rights received recommendations from the SCA in the October session in 2024 and is currently deciding how to best follow-up to the recommendations received.  

Follow-up on the recommendations issued by European actors 

In the national baseline report regarding the situation in Denmark, page 2, it follows that improvement is needed in the following key areas:  

“CM Principle 13 on measures to protect and support NHRIs: There are no specific, formal measures established in order to protect and support the NHRI, heads of institution and staff against threats and harassment and any other forms of intimidation (including SLAPP actions). The Danish Institute for Human Rights reports though that Rules of immunity are uncommon in Danish legal tradition. Thus, save for the royal and diplomatic immunity no other individuals are subject to special rules of immunity, including the judiciary and the ombudsman.” 

Regarding CM principle 13, the Danish Institute for Human Rights maintains the position that rules of immunity are uncommon in the Danish legal tradition. Thus, save for the royal and diplomatic immunity no other individuals are subject to special rules of immunity, including the judiciary and the ombudsman. The matter of functional immunity has never been raised in a Danish context and therefore cannot be regarded as a matter affecting the public confidence in the NHRI. Similarly, it cannot be regarded in any way as hampering the ability to engage in critical analysis or impinging on the independence of senior leadership. 

“CM Principle 15 to facilitate cooperation with various levels of administration in Member States and other human rights actors: the National Mechanism for Reporting and Follow-up is an Inter-Ministerial Human Rights Committee (IHRC) consisting of all ministries that deal with human rights issues. While the IHRC meets on occasion with civil society organisations and the NHRI, the Danish Institute for Human Rights notes that this can be strengthened.” 

Regarding CM principle 15, the Danish Institute for Human Rights assesses that there has been no progress as the Inter-Ministerial Human Rights Committee still meets on occasion with civil society organisations and the NHRI. Despite the fact that the Inter-Ministerial Human Rights Committee is an organ that coordinates between relevant ministries and as such doesn’t engage in policy making, the Institute assess that it is relevant for civil society organisations and the NHRI to participate in all meetings in the Committee.   

Follow-up to recommendations on gender-specific issues  

In the SCA report from October 2024, the SCA notes the efforts undertaken by the Danish Institute for Human Rights to address gender-based violence including through conduct of consultations, issuance of reports and recommendations to parliament and government, and highlighting human rights implications of government policies.  

The SCA further notes the intersectional work of the Danish Institute for Human Rights on gender-based violence including its report on foreign women stranded in violent marriages, efforts in addressing sexual harassment, and the efforts undertaken with the Human Rights Council of Greenland to remove the territorial exclusion of Greenland to the Istanbul Convention.  

The SCA encourages the Danish Institute for Human Rights to continue to implement long term and proactive strategies to counter retrogressive national policies. 

As mentioned, the Danish Institute for Human Rights is currently deciding how to best follow up to the recommendations received. 

The national regulatory framework applicable to the NHRI has changed since January 2024. 

The Danish Institute for Human Rights’ mandate has been extended in the area of on equal treatment. Pursuant to Article 13 in the Danish Gender Balance Act, the Danish Institute is now also tasked with promoting, analysing, monitoring and supporting gender balance in corporate bodies of listed companies. The additional mandate applies from 1 January 2025. 

The NHRI believes its regulatory framework should be strengthened. As a follow-up to the SCA report from October 2024, the Danish Institute for Human Rights has identified a need for updating the statutes of the Danish Institute for Human Rights to clarify the process for deciding what constitutes a conflict of interest. 

NHRI’s mandate, independence and role 

Relevant state authorities have a good awareness of the NHRI’s mandate, independence and role. However, the Danish Institute for Human Rights experiences that the awareness of the institute as an NHRI varies between different state authorities. Consequently, it was added to the institute’s strategy for 2030 as a core strategic goal to make the identity of the institute clear to all stakeholders. The mixed awareness of the institute’s role as an NHRI was underlined in a stakeholder analysis that was produced for the institute in connection with the preparation of the new strategy.    

Access to information and involvement in policy-making processes 

The NHRI has adequate access to information and to policy makers and it is involved in all stages of legislation and policy making with human rights implications.  

The Institute notes that in general consultations on the human rights implications of draft legislation and policy strategies are timely. In general, the Institute also has access to information from policy makers.  

State authorities’ follow up to the Danish NHRI recommendations 

Since 2022, there have been no changes in relation to the legislation, state measures or practices to ensure timely and reasoned responses to NHRI recommendations. The addressees of the Danish NHRI’s recommendations are not legally obliged to provide a reply. The Danish Institute for Human Rights found, however, that state actors tend to take recommendations from the Institute into thorough consideration. 

Adequate resources 

The NHRI has adequate resources to carry out the full breath of its mandate.  

However, in 2014, the Danish Institute for Human Rights was appointed as the NHRI in Greenland. Although the mandate of the Danish Institute for Human Rights was extended the appointment did not come with an increase in budget in the Danish Institute for Human Rights’ core funding on the Danish Finance Act. However, in addition to the core funding in 2021-2024, the Danish Institute for Human Rights did receive a special allocation of funds on the Danish Finance Act for promoting human rights in Greenland.  

Since 2014, it has become increasingly more resourceful to fulfil the mandate as NHRI in Greenland. Nonetheless, the special allocation of funds for promoting human rights in Greenland has not been extended after 2024. The need for adequate funding was raised towards the SCA in relation to the SCA’s re-accreditation of the Danish Institute for Human Rights in 2024. In SCA’s review of the Danish Institute for Human Rights the SCA highlighted that where an NHRI has been mandated with additional responsibilities, it must be provided with adequate funding to effectively fulfil these duties.  

Functional immunity of NHRI staff and leadership 

The NHRI’s leadership and staff do not enjoy functional immunity and in view of the Institute notes that there is no need for any additional measures to protect and support the NHRI, heads of institution and staff against threats and harassment and any other forms of intimidation.  

There are no specific, formal measures established in order to protect and support the NHRI, heads of institution and staff against threats and harassment and any other forms of intimidation (including SLAPP actions). Rules of immunity are uncommon in Danish legal tradition and only apply to members of Parliament and of the royal family. No other individuals are subject to special rules of immunity, including the judiciary and the ombudsman. The matter of functional immunity has never been raised in a Danish context and therefore cannot be regarded as a matter affecting the public confidence in the NHRI. Similarly, it cannot be regarded in any way as hampering the ability to engage in critical analysis or impinging on the independence of senior leadership.

The Danish Institute for Human Rights recommends to national authorities that the core funding for the Danish Institute for Human Rights on the Danish Finance Act is increased appropriately to ensure adequate funding to fulfil the mandate as NHRI in Greenland. 

The NHRI’s human rights monitoring and reporting found evidence of laws, policies and/or state measures that create barriers in access to information and law and policymaking processes. 

Barriers in access to information and law and policymaking processes 

Since the Public Access to Information Act was amended in 2013, there has been ongoing criticism of the so-called ministerial-service-rule and the so-called parliamentary-politician-rule in the Act. The rules exempt the public from access to a wide range of documents.  

The ministerial-service-rule exempts the public from access to documents that are exchanged with a subordinate authority or with another ministry at a time when a minister has or will need advice and assistance from the civil service.  

The parliamentary-politician-rule applies to documents prepared and exchanged between ministers and members of parliament in connection with legislative matters or other similar political processes.  

Both rules allow for an absolute exemption from access to documents even after a legislative process or process related to another political initiative has been finalised. 

In 2023, both the European Commission and Djøf's independent expert committee, the so-called Dybvad Committee, recommended that the two rules be reduced. In early 2024, a majority in the Danish Parliament agreed to set up a preparatory committee to amend the Public Access to Information Act with a special focus on broader access to information in political decision-making processes, including professional assessments. 

The Danish Institute for Human Rights has previously emphasised that the so-called parliamentary-politician-rule should be abolished and that the ministerial-service-rule - at the very least - should be restricted so that it can only be used in narrowly political discussions and never in relation to professional matters and assessments.   

Support to women human rights defenders (WHRDs) or LGBTQ+ human rights defenders 

The Danish Institute for Human Rights has established a helpline called the Discrimination Helpline. The Discrimination Helpline is a legal helpline for people who have experienced discrimination due to their handicap, gender, sexuality, gender expression, gender characteristics, gender identity, age, religion, race or ethnic origin. The helpline can give legal counselling and assistance in discrimination cases. Thus, the NRHI provides legal support and assistance in cases of discrimination due to gender and LGBTQ+. Besides being involved in concrete cases, the NHRI is continuously in dialogue with civil society organisations on how to best promote equal treatment and protect against discrimination.

The NHRI’s human rights monitoring and reporting found evidence of practices that could negatively impact on civil society space and/or reduce human rights defenders’ activities, namely verbal or physical attacks on civil society organisations and/or human rights defenders, their work and environment, online and/or offline threats or harassment and intimidation, harassment or violence before, during or after protests. 

The NHRI finds it very concerning that a third of Danish citizens has avoided expressing their opinion on social media and ten percent has avoided expressing their opinion in public due to a fear of negative consequences, according to a report from the Danish Institute for Human Rights. The report looks at the broad public and shows that the fear of negative consequences in the form of violence, harassment, surveillance etc. have a significant impact on the individual’s willingness to participate in the public debate online and in the public space.. 

The report published looks into experiences with self-censorship for the general public. It concludes that people who have avoided expressing their opinions on social media and/or in public due to a fear of negative consequences mostly do so due to a fear of negative reactions (threats, violence, harassment, or offensive comments) from other private individuals. Some also fear that their data will be misused by social media or other corporations, that their expressions will lead to consequences from their employer, or that they are under surveillance from the public authorities. Only a few avoid expressing their opinion due to a fear that their expression is illegal. 

Gender aspect 

No specific gendered aspect has been identified in the report. However, in a coming report to be published in the first half of 2025, the Danish Institute for Human Rights concludes that sexual minorities are more likely to avoid expressing their opinion than heterosexuals (47 % of persons identifying as a sexual minority have avoided expression their opinion due to a fear of negative consequences the past 12 months compared to 30 % of persons identifying as heterosexuals).

To promote civil society space and human rights defenders, the NHRI has awarded prizes, organised promotion and campaigns as well as joint meetings and roundtables. 

Award of prizes 

The Danish Institute for Human Rights awards the Danish Human Rights Prize (Menneskerettighedsprisen) yearly. 

In February 2024, the Danish Institute for Human Rights awarded the Danish Human Rights Prize (Menneskerettighedsprisen) to Ms. Naja Lyberth and the so-called Spiral Case Working Group. The prize was awarded for shedding light on the abuse of thousands of Greenlandic women and girls who have had their human rights violated by the Danish state by having a spiral (IUD) inserted without their consent. In the podcast The Spiral Campaign (Spiralkampagnen), made by the Danish news media DR, it was reported that from 1966 to the 1970s, 4,500 spirals were placed on almost half of the 9,000 fertile girls and women in Greenland. The Spiral Campaign was carried out as part of the Danish authorities' strategy to reduce population growth in Greenland.   

In December 2024, the Danish Institute for Human Rights awarded the Danish Human Rights Prize to the organisation Repatriate the Children. The prize was awarded for rescuing Danish children and their mothers from prison camps in Syria after the Danish government had refused to evacuate them. Behind Repatriate the Children are journalist Natascha Rée Mikkelsen and lawyer Knud Foldschack, who founded the organisation in September 2020 after visiting the Syrian prison camps, al-Hol and Roj. On 29 August, the Danish Supreme Court ruled that the Danish government was obligated to offer assistance to evacuate the last Danish child with her mother from Roj camp in Syria.  

In 2024, the Danish Institute for Human Rights collaborated with the documentary film festival CPH:DOX to establish a new award: the HUMAN:RIGHTS AWARD. The award honours films that vividly deepen understanding of the human rights challenges we face today. As part of the partnership, several of the Danish Institute for Human Rights’ experts and researchers participated in debates on various human rights topics during the film festival. The debates took place in both Danish and English.  

Promotion Campaigns 

In collaboration with Astralis (esports organization) and the Center for Digital Pedagogy, the Danish Institute for Human Rights launched a https://menneskeret.dk/arrangementer/gaming-digital-respektfocus on unwanted sexual attention in gaming. The campaign featured video interviews with gamers from Astralis' women's team and talent team and was promoted through Astralis' channels. focusing on unwanted sexual attention in gaming. The campaign featured video interviews with gamers from Astralis' women's team and talent team and was promoted through Astralis' channels. 

Additionally, the Danish Institute for Human Rights developed an educational initiative to equip esports organizations with the tools to prevent and address unwanted sexual attention and harassment in gaming. 

Joint meetings and/or roundtables 

The Danish Institute for Human Rights, among other things, hosted two debate events. 

The first one was titled Can Your Chatbot Learn Not to Discriminate? The Danish tech experts behind DR's podcast Prompt, Henrik Moltke and Marcel Mirzaei-Fard, discussed how artificial intelligence challenges human rights. 

The second was called How Do We Create a Sexism-Free Environment in Vocational Schools? The debate focused on sexually charged comments and gender-stereotypical prejudices as part of everyday life for many women in Denmark’s vocational schools. Three female students shared how they stand up against sexism and work towards greater equality and better well-being in their schools. The event was held in collaboration with Divérs. 

As in previous years, the Danish Institute for Human Rights in July 2024 co-hosted the initiative RE:Act on Roskilde Festival, Denmark’s largest music festival. Over the course of three days, the Danish Institute for Human Rights, Rapolitics and Roskilde Festival gathered people for various artistic events and debates to shed light on human rights issues, such as freedom of expression and the right to one's own body and other human rights relevant to the festival's guests in different ways. From the Danish Institute for Human Rights, Senior Researcher Steven Jensen gave a talk on the history of human rights and their connection to the Global South, while Ole Reitov, founder and former director of Freemuse, gave a speech on the state of artistic freedom worldwide. 

Awareness-raising 

On 10 December 2024 (UN Human Rights Days), the Danish Institute for Human Rights co-hosted an event with Talerskolen Røst (non-profit organisation that educates young people in performing speeches) and The Royal Danish Theatre (Det Kongelige Teater) where 10 young people gave speeches on various human rights topics in the foyer of the Royal Danish Opera. The event was the result of training sessions in four workshops that had prepared the participants for the speeches.    

In terms of actions taken by the NHRI to protect civil society space and human rights defenders, the NHRI highlights monitoring, legal assistance and the issuing of recommendations and opinions.  

Legal assistance 

In 2024, the Danish Institute for Human Rights intervened before courts and provided support to lawyers in a number of human rights cases. For instance, the institute made a third-party intervention in a case before the Danish Supreme concerning the governments' obligation to bring home a Danish child and his mother from the Roj Camp in Syria. The case was brought by Repatriate the Children - Denmark which is a non-profit children's rights organisation established by a lawyer and a journalist. 

Recommendations and opinions 

In June 2024, the Danish Institute for Human Rights published a report on the right to freedom of speech and chilling effect (Ytingsfrihed og selvcensur). The report shows, inter alia, that one in 10 Danes (10 %) have refrained from participating in public debate in the physical public space through demonstrations, public meetings, etc. in the past year because of fear of negative reactions. Fear of violence and threats is the reason for self-censorship for one in three (31 %) of those who have refrained from participating in public debate in a physical space in the past year. 

Capacity building 

The Institute has not conducted capacity building activities directed at HRDs. Please note, that in 2024, the Danish Institute for Human Rights has adopted a new 2030 Strategy that commits the Danish Institute for Human Rights to provide training that empowers civil society and relevant professionals to work with human rights. 

The most important needs to advance the protection of HRDs nationally 

The Danish Institute for Human Rights considers it to be most important to ensure a civic space, where everybody enjoys real freedom of speech without the fear of negative reactions.  

Examples of NHRI engagement in this area with international and regional mechanisms in support of human rights defenders and civil society 

The Danish Institute for Human Rights contributed in 2024 to OHCHR’s thematic report to the UN Human Rights Council on best practices and challenges for assessing civic space trends. (See A/HRC/57/31). The Danish Institute for Human Rights’ key recommendations included that civic space assessments should be anchored in human rights indicators, that concepts and methodologies used in these assessments should be based on human rights, and that civic space monitoring should be built on a greater interaction between human rights defenders themselves and national human rights institutions, where the context allows.   

The Institute also contributed in 2024 to the thematic report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders to the UN General Assembly on the contribution of human rights defenders to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The Institute highlighted the importance of human rights data and the ways in which human rights-based monitoring of civic space can facilitate the availability of more disaggregated data on violations against human rights defenders and to a human rights-based implementation and monitoring of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. (See A/79/123).

It is important that the Danish Police and the Public Prosecutor’s office ensure an effective investigation and prosecution of illegal social media content.    

Sources of information from the Danish Institute for Human Rights, the Ministry of Justice and the Attorney General’s Office indicate that there is a significant number of unreported cases and a deficient legal practice. This is problematic because the state has a human rights obligation to remove illegal content online. Furthermore, it is problematic because hate speech and other digital offences can have a chilling effect on freedom of expression.  

Both investigations and prosecutions should be strengthened, while it should also be investigated whether social media is partly responsible in some cases. 

Recommendations to European actors on protection and promotion of CSOs and HRDs  

• Strengthen the monitoring of civic space in Europe, anchoring these assessments, including their indicators and methodologies, in international and European human rights standards.
• Support and strengthen the mandate of the UN SR on Environmental Defenders under the Aarhus Convention to address increasing attacks against human rights defenders in environmental matters in Europe, including against their right to peaceful protest as, among others, a legitimate exercise of the public’s right to participate in decision-making and other human rights.  

Based on the NHRI’s human rights monitoring and reporting, significant challenges affecting access to justice and/or effective judicial protection can be identified in terms of delays in court proceedings and access to legal aid.  

Delays in court proceedings  

In 2023, the Danish courts received a substantial financial boost to tackle the problem of long case-processing time. Furthermore, reforms have been made in 2024 to simplify and shorten the procedures at the courts.  

However, in November 2024 the Danish Bar and Law Society (Advokatsamfundet) published a Rule of Law Analysis (Retssikkerhedsanalysen 2024) that shows that only 18 % of the Danes are confident that the courts while give a ruling within reasonable time. 40 % of the Danes have low trust or no trust at all that the courts while give a ruling w within reasonable time. Moreover, 76 % of Danish lawyers believe that long case-processing time has impaired the rule of law for Danish citizens. Thus, the lawyers in general (still) believe that long case-processing time is the largest challenge for upholding rule of law in Denmark.   

Access to legal aid 

In 2020, the Danish Ministry of Justice set up a Committee on Legal Aid and Free Process to review the rules on legal aid and free process at the courts. The purpose of the committee was to review the current legal aid and the framework for free legal aid and make recommendations for changes to the legal framework. The committee's work should have been completed before the summer of 2022 but was postponed.  

In December 2024, the Danish Minister of Justice informed the Legal Affairs Committee (Folketingets Retsudvalg) that he had decided to ask the Danish Council on Public Administration of Justice (Retsplejerådet) to look into the legal framework of legal aid and free process instead of the Committee on Legal Aid and Free Process. The Council is expected to present their final report by the summer of 2026. Thus, the reform of access to legal aid will need further time to be finalised.  

Implementation by state authorities of European Courts’ judgments 

In June 2024, an amendment to the Danish Administration of Justice Act was passed that allows the Danish National Prosecutor or a convicted person to request reopening of a case dealt with in the criminal justice system in order to comply with a final judgement from the European Court of Human Rights.  

Reopening of cases could, for instance, be relevant for issues such as deportation, entry bans, etc., where the European Court of Human Rights rules that Denmark has violated a person’s human rights as a consequence of such deportation or entry bans. However, reopening of cases is not limited to these issues.  

NHRI actions to support implementation of the European Courts’ judgments   

To support implementation of the European Courts’ judgments, the Danish NHRI reports having referred to the judgments of European Courts in the reports and recommendations to state authorities, engagement with a national coordinator of the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, engagement with courts and awareness raising of the general public. 

Engagement with a national coordinator of the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights 

The Danish Institute for Human Rights continuously is in dialogue with the national coordinator of the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.  

Engagement with courts 

As mentioned, the Danish Institute for Human Rights made a third-party intervention in a case before the Danish Supreme concerning the government's obligation to bring home a Danish child and his mother from the Roj Camp in Syria. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the child and his mother.  

The Danish Institute for Human Rights made a third-party intervention in preliminary ruling to the European Court of Justice in the case C-417/23 – Slagelse Almennyttig Boligselskab, Afdeling Schakenborgborgvænge. This is the first time a NHRI has intervened in a case before the European Court of Justice. In the national case the Danish High Court (Landsretten) had asked the European Court of Justice whether the use of the criterion ‘non-Western background’ in the Danish Public Housing Act was covered by the ‘ethnic origin’ in the Danish Ethnical Equal Treatment Act which is based on an EU directive. 

Awareness raising of the general public 

All cases that Denmark is party to are mentioned in a news piece on the Danish Institute for Human Rights’ website. 

Follow-up on the recommendations by European actors on justice systems 

In the Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Denmark in the European Commission’s 2024 EU Rule of Law Report, it is recommended to Denmark to “Complete the review of the legal aid system, taking into account European standards on legal aid.” 

As mentioned, the Danish Minister of Justice has asked the Danish Council on Public Administration of Justice (Retsplejerådet) to look into the legal framework of legal aid and free process instead of the Committee on Legal Aid and Free Process. The Council is expected to present their final report by the summer of 2026.

The Danish Institute for Human Rights recommends that: 

• The government and the Danish Parliament establish an independent and permanent public board with the authority to initiate human rights investigations in cases of alleged systematic violations with a focus on human rights. Based on the investigations carried out, the board should be mandated to pay compensation to victims.
• The Minister of Justice requests the Danish Council on Public Administration of Justice (Retsplejerådet) to include issues of the courts' determination of legal fees in free legal aid cases in their ongoing work on legal aid. 

Based on the NHRI’s human rights monitoring and reporting, the significant challenge affecting media freedom Is reported to be access to public interest information/documents. 

The Danish Access to Public Administrative Documents Act still largely exempts access to documents on most political decisions. The NHRI notes, however, that in 2024 an expert committee has been appointed by the Danish Government and is currently working on recommendations to amend the law to ensure further access to documents related to political decisions. 

Measures to follow-up on the recommendations concerning media freedom, issued by European actors   

The 2024 EU Rule of Law Report recommended further advancement with the process to reform the Access to Public Administrative Documents Act.  This work is still in progress.   

The Danish Government and Parliament should, in the interest of freedom of information, limit the access to exempt information in accordance with the Danish Access to Public Administrative Documents Act to what is strictly necessary. 

In August 2024, a politician from the Social Democratic Party in Denmark (Socialdemokratiet)  published a book in which he proposed that the Danish Parliament (Folketinget) should only selectively comply with judgments from the European Court of Human Rights.  

In the view of the Danish Institute for Human Rights, the proposal would both violate conventions and weaken the international legal order.  

Furthermore, it is the view of the Danish Institute for Human Rights that the statement is part of a very concerning movement in Denmark, Europe and the rest of the world where democratic leaders distance themselves and political decisions from human rights.  

Persisting structural human rights issues impacting on the national rule of law environment 

Data retention 

As further mentioned in the Danish Institute for Human Rights’ contribution to the ENNHRI Rule of Law Report in 2024, the Institute would like to point the attention to persisting issues with data retention.  

Use of coercive measures in psychiatric care 

Despite political ambitions to reduce the use of coercion in psychiatry, the trend is going in the opposite direction. 

In 2020, the European Court of Human Rights convicted Denmark of violating a patient's human rights in a case involving forced immobilisation. The Council of Europe's Committee for the Prevention of Torture and the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Committee against Torture have also criticised the Danish use of coercion.  

Data from the Danish Health and Medicines Authority shows that even in 2023, Denmark did not succeed in reducing the use of coercion in psychiatry.  

According to the latest figures from the period 2022-2023, 5,686 adult patients were subjected to coercion in psychiatry over the course of a year. Over a decade ago, 2011-2013, the number of adult patients was 5,632, and in the intervening period there have been no significant changes. 

At the same time, the total number of incidents involving coercive measures has increased significantly for adult patients over the past three to four years. This means that patients who are subjected to restraint are subjected to more restraint incidents today than ten years ago. 

Long-term restraints over 48 hours have more than halved from 2011-2013 to the latest figures from 2022-2023. During the same period, there has been an increase in the number of other coercive measures, particularly frequent, short-term restraints, restraints and emergency sedation with force.   

The decrease in one form of coercion is replaced by an increase in other forms of coercion. Acute tranquillisers are now being administered coercively more often. In 2022-2023, patients were forcibly administered acute tranquillisers 10,152 times. This number has remained stable for the past three years, but looking back ten years, there has been a significant increase.  

Similarly, patients are more often subjected to restraints. In 2022-2023, the number of patient restraints was 4,695. This number has been decreasing over the last three years, but looking back ten years, there has been a significant increase. 

More children and young people are also being subjected to coercion in psychiatry. In 2023, 342 children were subjected to coercion at least once, compared to 317 children in 2018, according to figures from the Danish Health Authority. Children and young people who are subjected to coercion are also subjected to coercion multiple times. In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the frequency of coercion. In particular, the use of restraints, tranquillisers and the restraint of children is on the rise. 

The Danish Institute for Human Rights recommends, with a view to upholding the rule of law and human rights, that Danish and European politicians and authorities firmly support human rights, inter alia by supporting the European Convention of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. 

The Chancellor of Justice was accredited with A-status in December 2020. The Subcommittee on Accreditation (SCA) welcomed the establishment of the Chancellor of Justice as an NHRI and commended its efforts to promote and protect human rights in Estonia.  

Regarding the selection and appointment of the Chancellor of Justice, the Estonian NHRI clarified that, in practice, the Estonian President consults all political parties represented in the Parliament as well as the legal community before submitting a proposal to the Parliament. However, the SCA took the view that the process enshrined in the NHRI’s enabling legislation was not sufficiently broad and transparent. The SCA encouraged the Chancellor of Justice to advocate for the formalization and application of a process that includes all requirements under the UN Paris Principles and SCA General Observations.  

Further, the SCA noted that the legislation is silent on the number of times the Chancellor can be re-appointed, which leaves open the possibility of unlimited tenure. The Chancellor of Justice reports that, in the past, re-appointment has not occurred. Nevertheless, the SCA encouraged the NHRI to advocate for amendments to the legislative basis of the NHRI to ensure that the term of office be limited to one reappointment.  

Finally, the SCA encouraged the Estonian NHRI to advocate for an appropriate legislative amendment to make explicit its mandate to encourage ratification of and accession to regional and international human rights instruments. However, the SCA acknowledged that the Estonian NHRI interprets its mandate broadly and carries out activities in this regard in practice. 

The SCA will consider the reaccreditation of the Estonian NHRI in its first session in March 2025. 

In relation to the SCA’s recommendation to promote the ratification of regional and international human rights instruments, the Chancellor of Justice continues to promote and reference international recommendations, general comments, and other human rights instruments in her opinions. Regarding the recommendation on selection and appointment, the Chancellor of Justice has thoroughly addressed the issue in the 2024 report. 

In the ENNHRI’s baseline report, a key area noted to need improvement was budgetary independence, which has been fully implemented.  

In June 2024, amendments to the State Budget Act entered into force, guaranteeing the Chancellor of Justice (along other constitutional institutions) greater budgetary independence from the executive power, as provided in the State Budget Act, § 251(3) clause 12 and § 38(21). As of then, the budget of the Chancellor is discussed directly in the Parliament Financial Committee and no longer needs a prior review by the Government.   

The Chancellor of Justice's 2025 budget was prepared for the first time using new principles. Despite the challenging economic situation and the Government of the Republic's plans to reduce the budgets of state institutions, this decision did not impact the budgets of constitutional institutions, including the Chancellor of Justice. 

With regards to changes in the national regulatory framework applicable to the institution of the Chancellor of Justice, the Estonian NHRI reports that the most relevant change affecting the institution is, as mentioned above, the amendment to the State Budget Act. 

The Chancellor of Justice has initiated a database of all the proposals and requests that the Chancellor has made to bring a norm into line with the Constitution. This list makes it easier for those concerned and everyone else to follow up on the implementation. All published opinions, positions, and recommendations of the Chancellor of Justice are readily accessible in the opinions database.  

The Chancellor of Justice is granted strong legal guarantees that require authorities and officials to respond to Chancellor’s inquiries, consider recommendations, and cooperate in proceedings. Additionally, the Chancellor has the right to address the Riigikogu and the Government of the Republic, ensuring direct engagement in legislative and executive discussions. When necessary, the Chancellor also communicates proposals and recommendations publicly through the media to provide clarity and transparency. 

Internally, the Office of the Chancellor of Justice conducts quarterly meetings to assess the progress of ongoing proceedings and the implementation of proposals and recommendations. The Chancellor believes this structured approach has proven to be effective and well-founded. 

In relation to the enjoyment of functional immunity by the leadership and staff of the Estonian NHRI and the presence of sufficient measures necessary to protect and support the NHRI, heads of institution and staff against threats and harassment and any other forms of intimidation (including SLAPP actions), the Chancellor reports that measures are in place. In fact, existence and independence of the institution is enshrined in the Constitution chapter 12 and the Chancellor of Justice Act §§ 8-11. The Chancellor of Justice can be removed from office only by a court judgment (§ 140 subsection 2 of the Constitution). The Chancellor of Justice can be prosecuted under criminal law only on the proposal of the President of the Republic, and with the consent of the majority of all members of the Riigikogu (§ 145 of the Constitution). 

Furthermore, attacks against the Chancellor of Justice are punishable under the Penal Code § 244. Violence, insult and defamation against staff of the Chancellor of Justice (as for any representative of state authority), is punishable under the Penal Code §-s 274, 275, 2751. 

The Chancellor of Justice recommends continuing guaranteeing the office sufficient and stable funds to fulfil all its functions.

The Estonian NHRI notes that there has been evidence of practices creating barriers in access to information and law and policymaking processes. 

In fact, a recent analysis by the Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs reveals that public information is difficult to find in the document registers. There is also malpractice of not issuing public information if it is in the same document with information with restricted access. Based on the analysis, a decision will be made on whether and how the Public Information Act will be modified. In the analysis it is recommended to improve legal clarity, instructions for the information holders and search from document registers. Also, grounds for restricting access to information needs concretizing.  

The Estonian advocacy organizations are usually happy to provide their opinion in the drafting process, if the question is narrow and clear, and there’s a reasonable amount of time to respond. However, the Chancellor of Justice has received complaints about very short deadlines and extensive, confusing materials in the consultation process. This is especially problematic when people fail to differentiate between the legislative proposal and the actual draft act. Then, the process becomes time-consuming, with the materials constantly changing, leaving people frustrated that their perspectives were not considered or understood. 

The Chancellor has expressed the opinion that in cases where it is necessary to correct an error in a law or to solve a problem that has arisen, drawing up a legislative proposal could be replaced by preparing a clearly worded small-scale draft and explanatory memorandum. In this way, those affected by the amendment can be given sufficient time to put forward concrete proposals to improve the draft. This would save time for everyone concerned. 

In relation to the provision of specific support to women human rights defenders (WHRDs) or LGBTQ+ human rights defenders, the Estonian NHRI provides that there are human rights defenders who promote gender equality and LGBTQ+ rights among the members of the Advisory Committee on Human Rights established by the Chancellor of Justice.  

In May 2024, the Advisory Committee addressed the issue of sexual violence and touched upon the so-called consent law, which seeks to change the definition of sexual violence. Unlike the current coercion and violence-based approach, the consent-based definition of rape bases on the assumption that rape is any type of sexual intercourse against person's will. At the meeting, the Praxis report „Seksuaalvägivalla kohtueelne uurimine“ (Pre-trial investigation of sexual violence) was examined, as was the analysis commissioned by the Ministry of Justice, titled „Seksuaalse enesemääramise vastaste süütegude koosseisude vastavusest Euroopa Nõukogu Istanbuli konventsioonile“ (On compliance of the statutory definitions of offences against sexual self-determination with the Istanbul Convention of the Council of Europe). 

See also subchapter on the committee in the 2024 annual report of the Chancellor of Justice. 

The Chancellor of Justice has also received information that civil society organisations face some financing concerns in relation to public funding. Ministries are supporting NGOs of particular policy areas through strategic partnerships that are formed usually for three-year periods. However, due to delayed partnership calls, there may be financing gaps that can jeopardise the functioning of especially smaller organisations.  

Limitations to actions of civil society organisations

Chancellor of Justice reiterates that the provisions regulating prohibited donations to political parties may excessively restrict the freedom of action of non-governmental organisations, as also indicated in the 2024 report (page 12). 

The question arose again in this reporting period in relation to one among the dozens of questions submitted to the Political Parties Financing Surveillance Committee. The case of the Liberal Citizen Foundation (SALK) stood out due to its exceptional nature and the high level of public attention.  

SALK is an organisation that stands for the open society, sustainable environment, minority rights, solidarity and free media to counterbalance anti-rights tendencies in the society. Before 2023 Riigikogu elections, the organisation was offering political parties and candidates data and tools in support of arguments based on human rights, facts and research. 

After the 2023 Riigikogu elections, the attention of the Political Parties Financing Surveillance Committee was drawn to the allegation that SALK had made a prohibited donation to some political parties by allowing them to get acquainted free of charge with the data of studies and analyses conducted by the foundation. 

By July 2024, the Surveillance Committee had calculated the amount of the alleged prohibited donation based on SALK’s financial reports and overviews of the cost of specific surveys and sent a precept to four political parties to refund that amount. Two of the political parties that received the claim for a refund challenged the Surveillance Committee’s decision.  

The Chair of the Surveillance Committee commented on the Committee’s decision: political parties should think more carefully about accepting services from legal persons that can be measured in money. The head of SALK, however, felt that the Political Parties Act should be updated and ways in which the non-governmental sector can have a say in politics should be formulated. 

Inclusion of civil society organisations in consultation mechanisms

The strategic planning framework is derived from §§ 19 and 20 of the State Budget Act, which outline the general principles and types of strategic development documents. This framework is further supplemented by the 2019 Government of the Republic Regulation No. 117, "Procedure for the Preparation, Implementation, Reporting, Evaluation, and Amendment of the Sector Development Plan and Programme." Under this regulation, the responsible minister must establish a steering committee for the sector development plan, which includes, among others, representatives of interest groups (including civil society organisations).  

The requirement for stakeholder inclusion is also outlined in the Government of the Republic Regulation No. 180 of 22.12.2011, "Rules for Good Legislative Practice and Legislative Drafting," as well as in the Riigikogu Rules of Procedure and Internal Rules Act. 

To further support stakeholder inclusion, both the Government Office and civil society representatives have developed best practices for effective engagement. 

Civil society organisations frequently bring applications to the Chancellor of Justice on possible breaches of human rights by public authorities. Consequent recommendations issued by the Chancellor benefit the groups for whose interests the organisations stand for. For example, the Chancellor of Justice has cooperated with organisations representing people with disabilities to promote accessibility and to evaluate need for motor vehicle tax exemptions.  

The Chancellor of Justice sought advice from the members of the Advisory Committee on Human Rights also in relation to equal treatment and data protection, patient and environmental law. 

Together with the child human rights defenders, the Chancellor’s Office translated into Estonian the summary of General Comment No 26 of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. This summary is prepared for children and deals with the impact of climate change on the rights of the child. 

NHRI’s activities to protect civil society space and human rights defenders (HRDs) 

The Chancellor of Justice engages in various activities to protect civil society space and HRDs, these include capacity building, complaints handling, issuing recommendations and opinions, providing institutional protection to human rights defenders and by undertaking additional mandates. 

In relation to the Chancellor’s mandates as NHRI, ombudsman for children and NMM for the CPRD, the Office of the Chancellor of Justice has focal points towards whom defenders of human rights, rights of the child or rights of people with disabilities can turn to.  

The Chancellor works towards capacity building through consultations and meetings with the Advisory Committee on Human Rights and civil society organisations at large. 

Furthermore, the Chancellor of Justice actively participates in the work of international organisations and networks uniting chancellors of justice, ombudspersons and national human rights institutions around the world. For example, the Chancellor met with representatives from the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) to discuss the right to hold peaceful public assemblies. OSCE has prepared a report on the matter which is not yet public. 

• The Chancellor of Justice recommends state and local authorities to engage meaningfully and timely with the civil society organisations in the policy- and law-making process. In this regard, the Chancellor recommends issuing clearly worded small-scale draft and explanatory memorandum for a change in law rather than issuing a full legislative proposal if it is necessary to correct an error in a law or to solve a problem that has arisen. This would allow CSOs to timely engage through concrete proposals.
• The Chancellor suggests guaranteeing that public funding of civil society organisations is organised in a predictable and equitable manner.
• The Chancellor advises to give due attention to the the freedom of action of non-governmental organisations when regulating the supervision of financing of political parties.
• The Chancellor of Justice recommends European Actors to engage meaningfully with civil society organisations and human rights defenders and to consider responsibly the input of the civil society organisations when preparing different international reports and communicating with state governments. 

Access to legal aid 

As a rule, everyone’s right of recourse to the courts in case of violation of their rights and freedoms is indeed guaranteed. However, there is room for improvement on some issues. 

The Estonian Bar Association assesses that the workload of state legal aid providers is excessive and there is a need to widen the pool of attorneys willing to offer quality state legal aid. The Estonian Human Rights Centre is of the opinion that the state's legal aid system requires reform to ensure the right to a fair trial and the right to defence. 

Timely and effective execution of national courts’ judgments 

Courts have awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damage from the Estonian State when despite court judgment a parent could not communicate with their child (see also another case). The Estonian state has concluded in the framework of the European Court of Human Rights proceedings an agreement with the parent, recognizing the violation of the parent's right concerning a custody and contact dispute, and paying compensation to the parent.  

In 2024, the Chancellor of Justice proposed to the Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs, and to the Minister of Social Protection to analyze whether it would be necessary to supplement the Code of Enforcement Procedure in such a way that the duties and responsibilities of the bailiff and child protection worker are clearer. The Chancellor of Justice and the Estonian Chamber of Enforcement Agents and Trustees in Bankruptcy also discussed over the possibilities to accelerate enforcement of court rulings on contact rights between a child and a parent. 

Under the Courts Act, alongside the chairs of the courts and the Supreme Court en banc, the Chancellor of Justice is the only institution outside the court system that may initiate disciplinary proceedings in respect of a judge. If the Chancellor of Justice determines that a disciplinary violation may have occurred, she will submit the case materials to the disciplinary chamber operating under the Supreme Court for consideration. The final decision in the case is made by the disciplinary chamber.  

The Chancellor does not assess substantive issues concerning administration of justice. She can only assess whether a judge has failed to fulfil their official duties or has behaved disreputably.  

Every year there are cases where the Chancellor examines the work of judges more specifically in the information system of the courts in order to decide whether a reason exists to initiate disciplinary proceedings. On some occasions, the Chancellor also asked for an explanation from a judge and/or chair of the court. In 2024, the Chancellor did not find reason to initiate disciplinary proceedings in respect of a judge in any of the cases reviewed. See also subchapter on courts in the annual report about the activities of the Chancellor of Justice.  

Implementation by state authorities of European Courts’ judgments: 

In 2024, the ECtHR issued no judgments that identified violations of the principles outlined in the Convention by Estonia. There were four Committee decisions declaring applications against Estonia inadmissible (Lukk v. Estonia, Oolo and others v. Estonia, Noël v. Estonia and Abo v. Estonia). 

An action plan in the case I.V. v. Estonia was submitted on 16/10/2024. The case concerns the lack of diligence in the adoption proceedings in 2018 leading to an unsuccessful attempt in 2021 by a Latvian national to obtain the annulment of an Estonian court decision by which his biological son was adopted by the husband of the mother (violation of Article 8). 

ECtHR summarises the action plan as follows: 

Individual measures: The just satisfaction awarded by the Court was paid in full and on time. On 3 July 2024, the Supreme Court granted the applicant’s request to review earlier decisions in the domestic proceedings and sent the case to the Circuit Court for a new hearing and gave instructions about how to proceed with examining the case in the light of the Court’s judgment. These proceedings are currently pending. 

General measures: The authorities consider that raising awareness on the problem revealed by this judgment and the direct effect of the Court’s caselaw into Estonian law are sufficient measures to prevent similar violations in the future. Therefore, the judgment was translated into Estonian and published in the official gazette and widely disseminated among to the authorities directly concerned. 

NHRI actions to support implementation of the European Courts’ judgments  

The Chancellor of Justice consistently cites European Courts' rulings in her proposals and recommendations to the authorities, as well as in her opinions to the Supreme Court on matters of constitutional supervision. The Chancellor’s Office notes court cases in the numerous meetings with the wider public (f. ex. older persons, students, pupils) but also in trainings for the specialists (f. ex. child protection workers, judicial clerks, healthcare professionals). The court cases were under discussion also at the seminar that the Chancellor organised for human rights educators on International Human Rights Day 2024.  

For instance, in the reporting year, the Chancellor of Justice referred to the judgments of the European Court in its opinions to the Supreme Court on the right to appeal a refusal of a long-term visa. In the Supreme Court case over language of instruction in public elementary school, the Chancellor of Justice relied in its opinion among other on the ECtHR case of Valiullina and others v. Latvia.  

In the report on the visit to Viru Prison, the Chancellor of Justice referred to the case of Piechowicz v. Poland in relation to the application of a special regime for dangerous detainees. Additionally, the case of Jeret v. Estonia was cited to highlight that security measures, including restraints, must be applied based on an individual risk assessment. 

The Chancellor of Justice has also cited the European Court of Human Rights case law in relation to involuntary psychiatric treatment, observance of religious customs in prison, access to the origin data of adoptees, importance of internet for the older persons, among other things. 

Measures taken to follow-up on the recommendations concerning justice systems, issued by European actors  

In the 2024 EU Rule of Law Report, there was one recommendation related to the justice system in Estonia. It encourages Estonia to continue efforts to reform the Council for the Administration of Courts, taking into account European Standards on councils for the judiciary. 

The draft reforming the Council was submitted to the Government in February 2025. The draft envisages that the Council for the Administration and Development of Courts would be comprised of six judges from all levels, two members of Riigikogu (Parliament), one representative from each the Bar Association, the Chancellor of Justice and Minister of Justice and Digital Affairs. Judges to the council are currently and would according to the draft amendments also be elected by court en banc. The draft is available in the draft law information system. 

The Chancellor of Justice recommends committing in earnest to the implementation the European Courts’ judgments and make the follow-up more easily and timely accessible to the wider society.

With regards to the challenges affecting media freedom, as already mentioned above in the section on practices negatively affecting civil society space, access to public interest information and documents remains the biggest challenge for media outlets. 

The recommendation to Estonia in the previous European Commission Rule of Law report on media freedom focused on advancing with the efforts to ensure consistent and effective implementation of the right of access to information taking into account European standards on access to official documents. 

Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs has been seeking input on potential revisions to the Public Information Act. In 2024, all key stakeholders were included in discussions, including representatives from the media, universities, and various interest groups. A working group has completed an analysis, based on which a decision will be made on whether and how the Act will be modified.  

Riigikogu is currently processing an amendment to the Constitution intending to revoke the right to vote in local government council elections for permanent residents of Estonia who are not citizens of EU or NATO member states. The aim is claimed to be linked to national security.  

The amendment may also affect the stateless persons living in Estonia and deprive them of the right to vote in local elections. There is a considerable number of stateless persons, who are residents in, but not citizens of, Estonia, nor are they citizens of any other country. 

Initially, an attempt was made to suspend the local voting rights of Russian and Belarusian citizens permanently residing in Estonia with the electoral law. The Chancellor of Justice emphasized that § 156(2) of the Estonian Constitution extends the right to participate in local elections to persons permanently residing within the municipality's boundaries, and restricting this right through the electoral law is contrary to the Constitution. Also, the transcripts of the Constitutional Assembly's meetings reveal a clear position that as the local government is meant to solve local matters, all permanent residents should have the right to vote in local elections (see also news brief).  

Hence, as Estonian local government council is meant to solve local problems, it is not part of the executive state power. The right to vote in these elections does not affect national security. The status of the permanent resident is granted only to those persons who have lawfully lived in Estonia for a long time, who are not a threat to public order or security, and have legal income here, and only people of that status have the right to vote in municipal council elections.  

The Chancellor of Justice has also explained that most EU member states allow permanent residents to vote in local government elections or permit dual citizenship to expand and promote human rights. She has also noted that for the sake of social cohesion, it is reasonable to allow people to participate in decision-making rather than exclude them. It is important that as many permanent residents of Estonia as possible feel a sense of belonging to society.  

With regards to persisting structural human rights issues identified which affect the national rule of law environment, the Chancellor of Justice has noticed an increasing tendency to shift significant value-based and content-related decisions - critical to safeguarding fundamental rights - away from the established frameworks of laws and government regulations. Instead, these decisions are being addressed through general administrative orders. These orders fall outside the Chancellor of Justice’s oversight and taking them to administrative court is time-consuming and resource-intensive. Additionally, first-instance administrative court decisions on the same issue or order may vary significantly.  Using administrative acts to regulate broad fundamental rights issues could be a serious problem for protecting fundamental rights effectively. 

Furthermore, the principle of legality is also tested by official guidelines, recommendations and action plans, as well as, for example, by a coalition agreement. Although following these is not mandatory, and formally they should not play any role, at times real life tends to prove otherwise. In practice, guidelines sometimes have greater significance than a legal norm. Such guidelines are not subject to oversight and lack of control creates a risk of human rights violations.  

The Chancellor’s supervision of such guidelines and instructions of a general nature is limited to ombudsman proceedings. For example, the Chancellor of Justice can check whether guidelines comply with the principles of good administration. However, since guidelines are not formally a legislative act, it is not possible to initiate constitutional review proceedings. 

• The Chancellor of Justice recommends to regard responsibly the principle of legality and regulate important human rights issues, including restrictions, obligations and prohibitions, in legislation with effective legal remedies.  
• The Chancellor of Justice recommends avoiding securitisation to endanger the rule of law and protection of human rights.  

The report has been drafted by the Human Rights Centre and the views and observations presented in the report are those of the Human Rights Centre.

The Finnish National Human Rights Institution (FINHRI) is comprised of the Human Rights Centre, its Human Rights Delegation, and the Parliamentary Ombudsman. All the three parts that together form the FINHRI have their own specific legal duties, whereby the role of the Human Rights Centre is to take part and represent the FINHRI in international and European human rights co-operation among its statutory tasks. It needs to be emphasized that despite the three-part structure of FINHRI, there is only one NHRI in Finland.  

The FINHRI was last reaccredited with A-status in October 2019. First, the SCA recommended that adequate funding be made available to the FINHRI to perform its function as a National Preventive Mechanism under the OPCAT (only the Parliamentary Ombudsman) and National Monitoring Mechanism under the CRPD (the FINHRI joint task), and for the Human Rights Centre to work on business and human rights. The SCA encouraged the FINHRI to continue advocating for the necessary funding to ensure that it can effectively carry out its mandate.  

Further, the SCA was of the view that due to the different procedures through which the annual reports of the FINHRI are submitted to the Parliament, the Parliament is not provided with a complete account of the work of the FINHRI. The SCA encouraged the FINHRI to continue to advocate for the Human Rights Centre to have the competence to table reports to the Parliament for discussion to align this procedure with that followed by the Parliamentary Ombudsman.  

Finally, while recognising that the Government Bill establishing the three components of the NHRI is a source of law in Finland, the SCA encouraged FINHRI to advocate for legislative amendments that would clearly stipulate these structures as one NHRI by the Parliamentary Ombudsman Act. 

The SCA considered the reaccreditation of the FINHRI in its first session in March 2025. The outcome of the accreditation will be public at the end of April 2025. 

In August 2024, the Human Rights Centre requested updates from the Ministry of Justice with a view to the SCA recommendations that would require legislative amendments to the Parliamentary Ombudsman Act. These changes include stipulating the structure of the NHRI and adding a mandate to submit Human Rights Centre’s report to the Parliament. The Ministry of Justice confirmed that it continues to be cognisant of the amendments proposed by the FINHRI but clarified that as such they remain too minor to initiate a separate legislative project. The FINHRI carries on discussions on the matter.

There have been no changes in the regulatory framework of the Finnish NHRI since January 2024. 

However, as recommended by the SCA, it should be explicitly stipulated in the Parliamentary Ombudsman Act that FINHRI is composed of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Human Rights Centre and its Human Rights Delegation. In addition, the Human Rights Centre should have a mandate to submit its report to the Parliament.

State authorities’ awareness of the NHRI’s mandate, independence and role 

State authorities’ awareness of the NHRI’s independence and role still needs strengthening. According to the Human Rights Centre’s experience, the authorities have difficulties in understanding the NHRI’s position among other human rights actors, as the NHRI neither belongs to the category of state agencies nor NGOs and has a broad mandate with respect to human rights. This can occasionally be seen during consultations on draft laws that have human rights implications or impact on human rights structures, and in discussions on the roles of the state and the NHRI in monitoring the realisation of human rights. Sometimes, the Human Rights Centre receives invitations to consultations or events in the category of NGOs. 

Access to information 

Moreover, as regards the NHRI’s access to information, the Human Rights Centre notes that this is prescribed by law. Pursuant to section 111 of the Constitution, the Ombudsman has the right to receive from public authorities or others performing public duties the information needed for their supervision of legality. This right of access to information is in no way limited as regards the subject matter and it includes also the right to receive classified information. The Ombudsman cannot, however, supervise individuals outside the Ombudsman’s mandate (e.g. in the private sector or private persons if they are not performing a public task), nor request information from them. As the Ombudsman has the right to request a police investigation to be carried out (also in other cases than suspected offences), there is a possibility for the Ombudsman to circumvent this limitation by proxy, i.e., to have the police hear individuals.  

According to section 19 d (subsection 3) of the Parliamentary Ombudsman Act “In order to perform its tasks, the Human Rights Centre shall have the right to receive the necessary information and reports free of charge from the authorities”. In connection to the national implementation of the EU AI Act, the Human Rights Centre has advocated that its access to documentation on matters related to AI would be easier if the FINHRI (as a whole institution), and not only the Ombudsman, would be included in the list of national authorities protecting fundamental rights under the AI Act article 77. The Parliamentary Ombudsman has stated that the inclusion of the FINHRI to the list could be possible but that this should not be understood as creating separate supervisory duties for the Human Rights Centre. The Human Rights Centre underlines that the division of tasks between the different parts of the FINHRI will, in any case, remain as before, as prescribed specifically by the law. 

In addition, when it comes to the NHRI’s involvement in different stages of legislation and policy making, the Human Rights Centre is of the view that short and sometimes overlapping consultation periods (in which several important draft laws and policies are consulted at the same time with the NHRI) increase the workload of the institution and may hamper meaningful engagement. This concerns also other actors such as the civil society representatives, as explained in the following sections. 

Resources for the Human Rights Centre to carry out its mandate with increasing responsibilities 

Despite additional resources received in the past years, the Human Rights Centre’s resources remain relatively small, considering its broad mandate and increasing responsibilities related to, e.g., monitoring the implementation of regional and international human rights conventions and the use of EU funds. For the years 2025-2027, small cuts are expected for the FINHRI’s budgets but those are in line with the Government’s general aim to produce savings in the State’s economy. The FINHRI is not specifically targeted by these cuts and its functioning is not significantly impacted by them, even though some expenses will need to be cut down. Savings are made mostly from the costs of office IT services and in the Human Rights Centre on the use of external experts.  

Ensuring responses to NHRI’s recommendations 

The follow-up of the Ombudsman’s recommendation is not governed by law. There is no legal obligation for the subjects of the Ombudsman’s oversight to obey the Ombudsman’s recommendations or observations, either. However, in practice, the Ombudsman’s recommendations are respected and well followed. When the Ombudsman finds, e.g., a shortcoming or a violation of human rights, the Ombudsman’s decision normally contains a deadline for the authorities in question to report back to the Ombudsman about possible actions to remedy the situation. In the past few years, follow-up monitoring has been increased and a request to report the measures that the Ombudsman’s opinions and proposals have given reason to has increasingly been added to decisions leading to measures. Based on the notification of the measures taken, it is possible to assess whether the measures have been adequate. In addition, the request alone may speed up and increase the effectiveness of the measures. 

When the Parliamentary Ombudsman has intervened in observed shortcomings, the authorities have, in most cases, taken concrete measures to redress matters. If needed (following a negative response), the Ombudsman may follow-up the situation by undertaking its own initiative investigation about the failure to act upon the Ombudsman’s recommendation, and to use media attention thus gained in order to reach a satisfactory outcome. In the most severe cases also prosecution might come into question as a measure. 

The follow-up to the Human Rights Centre’s recommendations is not governed by law, either. Based on its legislative tasks, the Human Rights Centre may use different means to encourage implementation, such as meetings or roundtable discussions with addressees of the recommendations, public statements, and trainings or other awareness raising activities. 

Measures to protect and support the NHRI 

According to the Constitution, there are no judicial immunities in Finland, except for the President of the Republic under certain conditions and the members of the parliament under certain conditions. However, there are sufficient legislative and policy measures in place to protect and support the NHRI, heads of institution and staff against threats and harassment and any other forms of intimidation. 

Pursuant to section 101, subsection 1 of the Constitution, it would be the High Court of Impeachment that would deal with charges brought against the Parliamentary Ombudsman for unlawful conduct in office. In practice, the Ombudsman or the Deputy-Ombudsmen have never been charged before the High Court of Impeachment. 

Sections 114, 115 and 117 of the Constitution provide for an inquiry into the lawfulness of the official acts of the Ombudsman, the bringing of charges against them for unlawful conduct in office, and the procedure for the hearing of such charges. The process may be initiated only by the parliamentary committees or by a consensus of at least 10 members of the parliament. There exists no other possibility for challenging the lawfulness of the conduct of Ombudsman and it is the FINHRI’s understanding that these provisions fully protect the Ombudsman and the Deputy-Ombudsmen alike from legal liability for acts undertaken in good faith in their official capacity. 

Pursuant to section 118, subsection 1 of the Constitution, a civil servant is responsible for the lawfulness of their official actions. This applies to the civil servants of the Parliament, i.e. to the staff members of the NHRI, including the Director of the Human Rights Centre.  

The FINHRI is content with this position concerning legal liability as it is in accordance with the general legislation regarding legal liability/immunity in Finland. This is also in line with the legal culture prevailing in Finland and the continental Europe. 

In cases of threats and harassment towards the FINHRI representatives, the following offences included in the criminal law could come into question: resistance to a public official, violent resistance to a public official, obstructing a public official, harassing communications (disturbing another person by repeatedly sending messages or calling), dissemination of information violating personal privacy, defamation, illegal threat and stalking. 

As indicated in the 2024 rule of law report concerning Finland, there has been discussion on whether the criminal law should be amended to improve tackling of targeting. Targeting refers to systemic harassment of a person in the form of mass actions on e.g. online platforms because of his or her work or social duties. The question of criminalising targeting divides the opinion of legal experts, and the current Government has decided not to proceed with further exploring this possibility. 

The FINHRI has internal guidelines for dealing with situations of targeting. A working group has also been established in 2022 to plan and implement the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s Office’s continuity management and to ensure preparedness for different types of threats the institution might face.  

The Human Rights Centre recommends to national authorities that: 

1. the three components (Human Rights Centre, its Human Rights Delegation and the Parliamentary Ombudsman) should be explicitly stipulated as the Finnish NHRI in the Parliamentary Ombudsman Act,
2. the Human Rights Centre should have the mandate to table its reports to the Parliament for discussion,
3. the FINHRI (and not only the Parliamentary Ombudsman) should be included in the list of national authorities protecting fundamental rights under the EU AI Act article 77 while taking note of the division of tasks inside the NHRI by virtue of national legislation. 

The Human Rights Centre’s human rights monitoring has found evidence of laws, policies and/or state measures that negatively impact on freedom of association, freedom of assembly, create barriers in access to information and law and policymaking processes as well as limit access to funding. 

Freedom of assembly and association 

In 2024, legislative amendments restricting the right to strike were passed. According to the new law, compensatory fines for violating industrial peace will be increased, solidarity action limited, and the length of political strikes restricted to 24 hours. Previously, compensatory fines could only be ordered for trade unions, but now employees can also be fined 200 euros for participating in illegal strikes. The limit of the fines that can be ordered for trade unions was significantly increased. 

Access to information and law and policymaking processes 

Many civil society actors perceive that it has become more difficult to access law and policy making processes. As reported previously, a concrete example of this is the reducing of deadlines for stakeholders to provide consultative input to government proposals and lacking or inadequate impact assessments. More generally, civil society representatives, including members of the Human Rights Delegation, have in different discussions raised concern for decision-makers being less open to dialogue and stakeholder consultations becoming a box-ticking exercise. 

Access to funding 

In Finland, the Government has traditionally had a significant role in funding civil society organisations (CSO). A central goal of the Finnish Government’s CSO Strategy for 2023-2027 is to change this. The stated objective is to develop a culture of private donations, strengthen self-sufficiency of CSOs and ensure that their funding base is diversified. To achieve this, the Government plans to facilitate fundraising by reducing bureaucracy and loosening tax regulations concerning donations for certain sectors. In parallel, the Government has introduced several austerity measures in 2024, including radical cuts in the funding of CSOs. This has significantly impacted their ability to function, and many will be forced to reduce staff and cut down on activities. 

The budget cuts by the Government for CSOs working in the social and health care sector have received much attention, as many of these organisations provide important services as an extension to the public sector (e.g. support for people struggling with mental health or addictions, victims of domestic violence etc.). If the organisations can no longer provide these services, it remains unclear if and how they will otherwise be covered. 

There has, however, been less discussion about the effects of the cuts in CSO funding for democracy. When resources are reduced and alternative funding sources need to be sought, the ability of CSOs to engage in law and policymaking processes and fulfil their watchdog role is threatened. Also, as competition for funds increase, the independence of CSOs can be negatively affected, as they might focus more on activities favoured by their sponsors-to-be. 

While the Government’s plans to facilitate fundraising are welcome, the sudden and radical budget cuts give insufficient time for organisations to adjust and develop their fundraising practices. A culture of private donations, which is currently lacking in Finland, cannot be developed overnight. The cuts have thereby resulted in many organisations struggling, and no comprehensive assessments have been made of the broader impact on democracy. 

The Human Rights Centre’s human rights monitoring has found evidence of practices that could negatively impact on civil society space and/or reduce human rights defenders’ activities, mainly in the form of negative attitudes/campaigns towards/perceptions of civil society and/or human rights defenders by public authorities and the general public, as well as online and/or offline threats or harassment. 

Negative attitudes towards and perceptions of civil society and/or human rights defenders 

Overall, freedom of assembly is well respected in Finland. However, according to a recent report by Amnesty International, there are certain indications of hardening attitudes towards demonstrations. Stigmatising language about protesters is on the rise, and more restrictive practices and even excessive use of force by the police have been reported, especially concerning environmental protests and in cases of civil disobedience.  

In 2024, Elokapina (Extinction Rebellion Finland) orchestrated a protest act in which red paint was sprayed on the parliament building. The aim was to draw attention to emissions caused by peat extraction. The protest act was provocative and illegal, but peaceful, with the authorities intervening after a few minutes. 

The incident sparked outrage among the public as well as among politicians, with a citizens’ initiative proposing to criminalise the organisation reaching more than 100 000 signatures in just a few days. The minister of interior and minister of justice (representatives of the right-wing populist Finns Party) both also publicly commented that they support investigating whether the organisation should be shut down. These types of comments are unusual and can be seen as problematic, as the case should be handled independently by the competent authorities, without political interference or pressure. Whereas shutting down the organisation is not legally realistic, the ministers’ comments and public response reveal the negative attitudes towards the protesters. 

Online and offline threats and harassment 

Hate speech and harassment online is a growing problem in Finland, increasingly impacting the work of human rights defenders. Different human rights monitoring bodies have called on the Government to take action to tackle this issue (see e.g. recent recommendations by UN Human Rights Committee, incl. the report on follow-up to the concluding observations). Despite this, the Government has failed to include sufficient measures to combat hate speech in legal or policy initiatives, such as its statement on promoting equality, gender equality and non-discrimination (adopted in 2023) and the action plan supporting its implementation (adopted in 2024). The Human Rights Centre raised this issue in its statement submitted during the drafting process of the action plan. 

Public debate concerning the problems of racism and hate speech continued throughout 2024, with media reports on ministers planning to favour quota refugees from Christian-majority nations over Muslim-majority countries, the racist online abuse directed towards the first Black woman elected to represent Saint Lucia for the traditional light festival, and the political storm around the Government’s newly launched anti-racism campaign. 

The Human Rights Centre is concerned that the polarisation and rampant hate speech may have a chilling effect on participation in the public debate, especially for persons belonging to minorities. Hate crimes have also increased in the past years in Finland. 

Frameworks or policies for the protection of human rights defenders exist at the national level, including specific protection mechanisms for foreign human rights defenders, as well as specific strategies to protect human rights defenders and/or inclusion of human rights defenders in human rights action plans. 

Protection mechanisms for foreign human rights defenders (HRDs) 

In 2024, a pilot programme for the temporary protection and support for human rights defenders was established in Finland. The programme aims to provide temporary relocation for foreign HRDs in need of rest and respite. The length of the stay in Finland would be a maximum of three months (90 days as per the Schengen C Visa). The visa can be renewed only in exceptional cases. 

The programme provides an opportunity for HRDs to continue their work for the promotion of human rights, to network, to access training opportunities, and to rest. All costs of the participating HRD (incl. travel costs, accommodation, and monthly stipend) will be covered. 

The pilot programme aims to start with the participation of two HRDs. Preparations for the programme started in 2024 and the participants will arrive in Finland during 2025. The Human Rights Centre has repeatedly advocated for a national protection mechanism for HRDs and will continue to follow how the initiative proceeds. 

Inclusion of foreign HRDs in human rights action plans 

Support for activities of HRDs is one of the priorities in Finland’s Government Report on Human Rights Policy adopted in 2022. In addition, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs updated their guidelines on supporting HRDs the same year. The guidelines are intended especially for Foreign Service employees in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and in Finland’s missions abroad. Moreover, the guidelines on supporting HRDs have a special focus on women human rights defenders.  

The FINHRI has also taken several initiatives in 2024 to promote civil society space and human rights defenders.  

Joint meetings and/or roundtables 

A central task of the Human Rights Centre is to bring different human rights actors in Finland together to discuss and cooperate on human rights matters. This includes convening and chairing the meetings of the Human Rights Delegation consisting of around 40 independent experts representing different fields of human rights. The Human Rights Centre also has a representative in the Advisory Board for International Human Rights (IONK), an independent expert body operating in conjunction with the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. IONK monitors the implementation of Finland's international human rights policy and the support of HRDs is regularly discussed in its meetings. 

Monitoring, recommendations and capacity-building 

The Human Rights Centre continuously monitors the human rights situation in Finland, including the state of civil society space and the situation of HRDs, by gathering information and reporting to international human rights monitoring bodies. The Human Rights Centre also provides consultative input to Government proposals on these issues (in 2024, see e.g. statement on the Government’s programme to promote democracy where concern was raised about the increasing hate speech and funding cuts on CSOs).  

Furthermore, the Human Rights Centre has a statutory task to promote human rights education and training in Finland. Together with the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, it is developing training modules directed to CSO representatives on how to participate in the monitoring cycles of different human rights treaty bodies. 

Engagement with international and regional mechanisms in support of human rights defenders and civil society

The Human Rights Centre has advocated for the establishment of a national protection mechanism for HRDs for years, and this has also been recommended by e.g. the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders. 

The Human Rights Centre has actively provided consultation during the planning process of the pilot programme about to be implemented. This work has included international cooperation, and the Human Rights Centre has mapped existing protection models in Europe to receive input for the advocacy work.

The Human Rights Centre recommends to national authorities to: 

1. move forward with the pilot initiative to establish a protection mechanism for human rights defenders and assess and develop the mechanism so that it serves its function in the best possible way,
2. take action to tackle hate speech and harassment online, inter alia through implementing recommendations received from different human rights monitoring mechanisms,
3. conduct impact assessments of the cumulative effects of cuts in CSO funding and take measures to protect civic space, inter alia by ensuring that meaningful consultations with CSOs are conducted as part of decision-making processes. 

The Human Rights Centre recommends to European actors to: 

1. develop and strengthen protection of HRDs, especially through the European protection mechanism. 

Independence of judiciary in Finland 

The independence of the Finnish judiciary remains an essential question, partly due to the debate that sprung from the process where the Parliament enacted the controversial act on combatting instrumentalised migration (discussed further down, in Section V). Already before the debate, and as pointed out in the FINHRI’s 2024 rule of law report, a separate working group on constitutional guarantees for the independence of the judiciary was set up in connection to the Ministry of Justice’s broader project for the development of the judicial system. The members of the working group include representatives of the Ministry of Justice, courts, national prosecution authority, Finnish Bar Association as well as permanent expert members from the academia. The working group may hear other experts, actors and stakeholders. 

The working group examines the constitutional provisions concerning the number of judges in the highest courts, the right to remain in office, the procedure for appointing judges and offences in office. While the Finnish Constitution does prevail over these issues, a lot is relegated to regular legislation. The same concerns the noticeably wide-encompassing powers of the Prosecutor General. The working group’s examination extends also to the prosecution service.  

The mandate of the working group has been extended to the end of 2026. Also, contrary to the initial plans the working group will prepare its propositions in the form of a memorandum instead of a draft legislative proposal. The presidents of the highest courts had hoped for a swifter process but due to these changes, the final assessment on the need to proceed with strengthening independence of the judiciary will be done by the next government, not the current one. 

Length and costs of proceedings 

A continuous problem in Finland is the length of legal proceedings, both civil and criminal. This includes pre-trial investigations, prosecutions and court proceedings. The problem goes hand in hand with the considerable risks often associated with the costs of legal proceedings. Delays and costs associated with access to justice have repeatedly appeared on the list of ten central fundamental and human rights problems in Finland by the Parliamentary Ombudsman. 

The Ministry of Justice’s Working Group on Rule of Law Guarantees and Development of the Judicial System (Judicial System Working Group) provided, in October 2024, draft proposals for measures to tackle the persistent court delays. Preliminary suggestions include enhancing the scope for summary procedures as well as the use of plea-bargaining. Such measures would require due consideration in terms of human rights impacts, which was also pointed out in stakeholder feedback received on the draft proposals. While procedural reforms could well prove useful, the Human Rights Centre points out that sufficient resourcing remains the primary way to alleviate the persistent problem of lengthy proceedings. 

As considered in an extensive survey by the Institute of Criminology and Legal Policy (Krimo) on the state of the Finnish justice system in 2025, the rising risk for costs of the legal proceedings continue to have an adverse impact especially in civil cases. Losing one’s court case usually makes one liable to pay for the costs of both parties, which acts as a clear deterrent against seeking legal redress even in cases where it would be warranted. In Krimo’s survey, besides the duration of main hearings, the increasing legal counsel’s fees are pointed out as principal reasons for the rise of costs. As one solution to the problem, the Ministry of Justice has started to prepare a proposal for simplified civil proceedings where the risk of costs would be low. It is to be noted that the procedure would be applied only to disputes regarding rent or eviction of a tenant. 

Continuous challenges in processing cases relating to violence against women and domestic violence 

Examination and prosecution of cases relating to violence against women and domestic violence face continuous challenges. There are significant delays in investigation, prosecution and court proceedings.  Additionally, a great number of incidents remain hidden, despite the newly improved legislation on sexual offences. As of 2025, cases of domestic violence are no longer mediated. 

In 2024, the Non-discrimination Ombudsman, in her role as rapporteur on violence against women, published a report examining the decisions made by prosecutors on close relationship violence and intimate partner violence to restrict a pre-trial investigation and waive charges (material from 2022). Usually, these decisions were taken because the prosecutor did not consider prosecuting for the crime as reasonable or appropriate. Out of the 200 decisions under examination 118 concerned limiting the pre-trial investigation and 82 non-prosecution.  

The report shows that in the decision-making practices of the police and the prosecutors, the attempts to bring the perpetrators to justice are not enough in cases of violence in close and intimate relationships. According to the recommendations set out in the report, limiting pre-trial investigations and waiving charges should be considered with caution in the future. The intensification of the criminal process should be continued, and prosecution should be increased in close relationship violence and intimate partner violence. The importance given to the victim’s willingness to continue the process or to reaching an agreement between the parties involved in the offence should also be reduced in the decision-making practices of the police and the prosecutors. 

Follow-up and implementation by state authorities of European Courts’ judgments 

During 2024, one of the six ECtHR decision pending in the execution was closed. The Court had given its judgment on the case, X v. Finland, in 2012 and it concerned insufficient legal remedies in situations of forced medication.  Five decisions from 2014 and 2015 remain pending into 2025, namely those relating to ne bis in idem problematic. In September 2024, the Government submitted its latest detailed action report on the matter.  The Government considers the cases closed, but one of the applicants unsuccessfully continues to demand compensation.  

Furthermore, the implementation is pending in eight decisions of the European Social Rights Committee to collective complaints from 2012 to 2022. The Human Rights Centre will continue to monitor and participate in the implementation processes.   

The NHRI’s initiatives to support the implementation of the European Courts’ judgments 

The Human Rights Centre holds private discussions with the government agent/national coordinator and makes Rule 9 submissions to the Department of Execution of the Council of Europe and Committee of Ministers, when deemed useful. It has also used the possibility to provide its statement to authorities, such as the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, on the legislative amendments needed to implement ECtHR judgments. General information on the judgments and their implementation status is provided for general public and various partners. 

As an example, in January 2023 the Human Rights Centre submitted Rule 9 communication on the case of X v. Finland. In early 2023, the NHRI held discussions with the Department for Execution of Judgments of the ECtHR during their country visit, specifically on the case of X v. Finland.  In May 2023, the Human Rights Centre prepared an extensive brief on the case of X v. Finland for a discussion organised by the International Department of the Parliament. Other participants included members of parliament and representatives of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Social Affairs and Health.   

The Human Rights Centre recommends to national authorities to: 

1. continue the work for the development of the justice system to tackle challenges related to the length and costs of proceedings and to ensure strong constitutional guarantees for the independence of judiciary,
2. concerning the implementation of ECtHR judgments, further strengthen the national mechanisms of overall examination and increase the knowledge of ECtHR judgments within all administration levels, and in particular within the Government. 

Based on its human rights monitoring, the Human Rights Centre has found challenges affecting media freedom, including a decline in media pluralism, harassment and threats against journalists and media outlets, independence and effectiveness of media regulatory bodies, misinformation and/ or disinformation, as well as access to public interest information/documents. 

Media pluralism 

A decline in media pluralism has been a concern in Finland since the beginning of the millennium (see e.g. Media Pluralism Monitor reports on Finland), with the market becoming more concentrated and a few big media groups dominating. This development continued in 2024. The media sector is struggling financially, and job opportunities in the sector are decreasing. This raises concerns that pressure from advertisers on journalism increase.  

A research project concluded in 2024 studied the consequences of media concentration in Finland. The study found that recycling of journalistic content within papers that belong to the same media group is common, leading to less content diversity. On the other hand, ownership concentration can increase resources to produce quality content and ensure the survival of papers struggling to survive. 

Finnish legislation sets no restrictions to media ownership concentration specifically, but with the European Media Freedom Act being adopted in 2024, the Government is now preparing the required amendments to national legislation. These include introducing rules to assess how the media market concentration impacts media pluralism and editorial independence. 

Harassment against journalists and media outlets 

In 2024 court proceedings continued in the case where two journalists were found guilty of disclosing state secrets in an article published by the newspaper Helsingin Sanomat in 2017. The case has received much attention as well as concern for its potential chilling effect on journalists. One of the journalists was in 2023 sentenced to pay fines, but the ruling was appealed, and the prosecutor is still calling for conditional imprisonment. The court of appeal is expected to give its verdict in the spring of 2025.  

Overall, Finland scores well in press freedom rankings and the situation is relatively good. The increase in hate speech and harassment is, however, a growing concern also among journalists. While big media companies often have mechanisms in place to support employees facing harassment, freelancers are in a more vulnerable position. According to a survey study conducted in 2024 (Hiltunen et al., 2025, manuscript in progress), levels of pressure, harassment, and intimidation among Finnish journalists have remained relatively stable or, in some cases, slightly decreased compared to those reported in the 2021 study. However, the impact of these phenomena on journalists' work—and, by extension, on journalism—has somewhat increased. For example, 34% of surveyed journalists reported being reluctant to address certain topics, while 20% admitted to avoiding specific topics altogether due to the threat of pressure, harassment, and intimidation. 

Furthermore, political actors have become increasingly critical towards media, labelling journalists reporting inconveniently as “having a political agenda”. This type of discourse can reduce trust in media and increase polarisation, even if no evidence of politically biased reporting is presented. 

Effectiveness of media regulatory bodies (budget cuts) 

The Government’s austerity measures will also target the Council for Mass Media in Finland (CMM), a self-regulating committee established by publishers and journalists for the purpose of interpreting good professional practice and defending the freedom of speech and publication. The CMM processes complaints regarding breaches of good journalistic practice. Although it does not exercise legal jurisdiction or public authority, its decisions are closely followed and observed and cases regarding media publications rarely go to court. 

In September 2024, the Government announced a 25 percent cut in the funding of the CMM (public funds have constituted one third of their budget). This was a step back from the initial announcement to cut the funding all together, but nevertheless significant, especially considering that the number of complaints submitted to the CMM have steadily increased in the past years. 

Whereas the state of the public economy justifies budget cuts, the short timeframe in which they are implemented give little time to adapt. Furthermore, the need for a regulating body reviewing whether good journalistic practice is respected is increasingly important as misinformation is increasing in the society. 

Funding of public service media 

Politicians have expressed criticism towards the public service media (PSM) company YLE, and some parties, such as the Finns Party have advocated for reducing YLE’s funding. In Finland, there is a long-standing tradition of parliamentary decision-making related to the PSM. Accordingly, in 2023, a parliamentary working group with all the parties represented in the parliament was appointed to draft a proposal for reducing YLE’s funding as part of the Government’s austerity measures. 

Although the funding of YLE regularly becomes a matter of dispute, this time, negotiations were particularly difficult. As an agreement was difficult to reach, representatives of the Finns Party repeatedly proposed to ignore the tradition of parliamentary decision-making, demanding instead that the majority Government be able to decide on the funding alone. This raised the question of whether there are sufficient mechanisms in place to ensure that PSM funding is not subject to discretionary decisions. 

In September 2024, the parliamentary working group finally reached an agreement that resulted in a 66-million-euro budget cut for 2027. YLE has announced that this will require significant restructuring and reduced content production. 

Measures taken by state authorities to follow-up on the recommendations issued by European actors 

The European Commission has recommended in its 2024 Rule of Law Report that Finland reform the Act on the Openness of Government Activities to ensure effective and wider access to documents. Currently, different authorities interpret the act in different ways and access to information is sometimes illegally refused, which has impacted the work of journalists. This problem has been raised in the annual report by the Parliamentary Ombudsman. 

The Government started the process of reforming the law in 2021, and in 2024 the process continued with an open round of consultations. More recently, however, the Ministry of Justice announced that the legislative proposal cannot be finalised during the current government term. According to the Ministry, due to the changed national security environment, the process will now move to an additional assessment of the confidentiality criteria in the law. This will significantly delay the reform. 

The Human Rights Centre recommends to national authorities to: 

1. recognize the crucial role local media outlets play in ensuring democracy and the rule of law, and accordingly to take action to prevent the emergence of news deserts (with limited access to credible and comprehensive news and information),
2. adopt mechanisms or practices to strengthen the protection of journalists, especially freelancers, facing online or offline harassment because of their work. 

Act on Temporary Measures to Combat Instrumentalised Migration (Border Act) 

The securitisation discourse and the consequent juxtaposition of national security and human rights have continued to impact the rule of law environment in Finland. Relying on intelligence reports purportedly maintaining that Russian actors continue to facilitate the arrival of migrants to Finland’s eastern border, the Government decided to introduce stronger legislative measures to counter the phenomenon. In May 2024, it submitted a proposal for an Act on Temporary Measures to Combat Instrumentalised Migration to the Parliament. The act was proposed to be adopted by the Parliament as an exception to the Constitution. This was due to the fact that the act would, as prescribed in the proposal, be in “tension with” rights guaranteed by the Constitution, EU law and international human rights conventions alike, including the principle of non-refoulement and right to legal protection.  

According to the proposed act, the Government could, in cooperation with the President, decide to restrict the reception of asylum applications in a limited area on Finland’s national border under certain situations of instrumentalised migration. (The limited area could, however, cover Finland’s eastern land border of 1300 kilometres in its entirety.) Migrants who, in the assessment of the border authorities, were used as a means of influence by a foreign state, would either be prevented from entering or removed from the country. The border authorities could accept applications in the rare occasion that the applicant was considered to be in a vulnerable position or could face a risk of death penalty, torture or other inhumane treatment in the state from which they had arrived at the Finnish border.  

The government proposal was sent to the Parliament’s Constitutional Law Committee, whose principal function is to review the constitutionality of legislative proposals by recommending, when needed, that constitutional incompatibilities within law proposals be amended into conformity with the Constitution. In its statement, the Committee acknowledged that the contradiction between the proposed act and Finland’s human rights obligations could not be eliminated by adopting the act as an exception to the Constitution. Yet, the Committee stated that the exception could nevertheless be made as the act would not have an impact on “the ensemble” of constitutional rights and as restrictions to individual rights would remain limited. According to the Committee, measures to ensure a state’s sovereignty and national security are justified even if in contradiction with the state’s human rights obligations, where those obligations do not account for new types of threats, such as instrumentalised migration. It is to be noted here that in its proposal for the act, the Government emphasised that the non-derogable principle of non-refoulement could not be ensured in all circumstances. 

While supporting the Government’s objectives for the act, the Committee insisted that there be a separate procedure for the legal protection of persons attempting to enter the country, as the proposal did not allow for the refouled to appeal the border authority’s decision. However, the Committee didn’t require that the procedure would lead to postponing one’s removal from the country. Following the Committee’s observations, the final act was amended so that the border authority may be requested to reassess the decision for removal from the country within 30 days. 

The Parliament subsequently adopted the Border Act that came into force on 22 July 2024. The act will be in effect for one year. From the early drafting phase onwards, the act sparked strong criticism from a great majority of legal experts (see statements by the experts). Contrary to the Constitutional Law Committee, the experts held that an exception to Finland’s human rights obligations could not be deemed “limited” but a violation of the very core of the constitutional system into which these obligations have been integrated. The experts also expressed their concern about the border authorities’ real-life possibilities to conduct adequate assessments of the migrants’ vulnerability at the border. Many of them also pointed to the fact that in the legislative process, EU legislation and the primacy thereof was largely overlooked. 

The Human Rights Centre raised similar concerns as the legal experts during the drafting of the act. It provided a statement to the Ministry of the Interior and was heard by the Administration Committee of the Parliament. The Director of the Human Rights Centre was also interviewed on television and radio, where she highlighted Finland’s human rights obligations based on international and EU law. 

Constitutional review of acts in the Finnish system 

The legislative process leading to the Border Act has raised systemic rule-of-law concerns about constitutional review in Finland (see, e.g., here and here). Members of the Constitutional Law Committee, all elected parliamentarians, have historically and by custom been exempted from party discipline and politically motivated decision-making in conducting constitutional review. Consequently, the Committee has deferred to expert knowledge in its praxis, relying heavily upon statements provided by constitutional law experts. The decision in 2024 to disregard the overwhelming majority of expert statements criticising the act and to rely in their stead on the few statements more favourable to the proposal begs the question whether the apolitical nature of the Committee has now been rendered suspect. 

Considering that the Committee’s role in constitutional review is decidedly more prominent than that of Finnish courts of law, the case sets out a troubling precedent for the interpretation of human rights law in Finland. The Committee’s praxis, while not de jure binding, is extensively relied upon in jurisprudence and legal doctrine. 

A system for ex post constitutional review in courts of law does also exist in Finland, though the review is limited to individual court cases. Furthermore, the Constitution (section 106) limits the courts’ capacity to disregard unconstitutional acts only when an act is in an “evident conflict” with the Constitution. Removing the “evident” prerequisite has been advocated as a way of strengthening the courts’ independence and capacity to interpret the Constitution. Whilst looking into the issue was originally envisioned in the work plan of a Ministry of Justice working group, the Ministry of Justice opted, in 2024, not to advance it. At present, courts seldom invoke section 106 - it is not inconceivable, however, that the Border Act could prompt them to do so in the near future. 

The Human Rights Centre recommends to the Finnish Government to: 

• strive to make the judicial ex post framework for constitutional review more robust in Finland, through a transparent and participatory process, whilst endeavouring to retain the apolitical integrity of the Constitutional Law Committee and its ex-ante review. 

The Human Rights Centre recommends to the EU actors to: 

• strive for better legal clarity in the question of combatting instrumentalised migration, bearing in mind the principle of non-refoulement, human rights law and other relevant EU law. 

The National Consultative Commission on Human Rights (CNCDH) was last reaccredited with A-status by the Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA) in March 2019. The SCA noted with appreciation the continuous efforts by the institution to implement the previous recommendations made by the SCA.   

Regarding the mandate of the CNCDH, the SCA encouraged the NHRI to continue to broaden its activities in relation to its protection mandate and to advocate for amendments to its enabling law to make its broad protection mandate explicit. The SCA also recommended the institution to continue to strengthen its cooperation with the Défenseur des droits and with other national entities with responsibility for the promotion and protection of human rights.   

In addition, the SCA was of the view that, in order to promote institutional independence, it would be preferable for the terms of all members of the CNCDH to be limited to one renewal and encouraged the institution to advocate for amendments to its Decree to address this issue.   

Finally, the SCA reminded that, where an NHRI has been mandated with additional responsibilities, it must be provided with the adequate funding to effectively fulfil these duties. Thus, the SCA encouraged the institution to continue to advocate for adequate funding to effectively carry out the full extent of its mandate, especially in view of its expanding responsibilities.  

The SCA will consider the reaccreditation of the CNCDH in its first session in March 2025.  

The process of re-evaluation is underway. The examination of the CNCDH by the SCA will take place on March 17, 2025. 

The CNCDH does not have a mandate to deal with individual complaints. When it receives some requests, they are analysed and oriented towards the competent services such the French Ombudsman. 

The CNCDH can address, in the form of a third party intervention, observations to the judges, on issues raised by a dispute within the European Convention on Human Rights. With regard to the implementation of the Court's judgments, the CNCDH may also submit observations to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, drawing their attention to the inadequacy of the measures adopted by France.

The relevant state authorities have good awareness of the CNCDH’s mandate, independence and role. However, the CNCDH notes that it is not systematically informed by public authorities on the preparations of legislative and policy makings that are related to human rights and rule of law. The institution is sometimes seized by the government to adopt an opinion on a law in preparation. 

Additionally, despite the increase in the number of employees, the means made available to the CNCDH, taking into account its missions and its mandates as an independent national rapporteur, remain insufficient. In a general context of reduction in public spending, the CNCDH is not spared and it lost 12% of its budget in 2025. 

As concerns the measures to ensure timely and reasoned responses to the recommendations, the CNCDH observes that no legislation, state measures or practices have been put in place since 2022 to ensure timely and reasoned response to its recommendations. 

As regards the functional immunity of the leadership and staff, the CNCDH notes that as functional immunity is being provided only for certain constitutional authorities, it does not cover the members of the CNCDH. The irrevocability of CNCDH members, as provided for by the authorization law, is a guarantee of sufficient independence, in the French legal context.  

The CNCDH notes that functional immunity does not seem necessary, first due to the independence of justice and the principle of opportunity of the proceedings on which the French judicial system rests. Under the principle of opportunity for prosecution, the public prosecutor does not pursue the people who acted in good faith in the context of their functions.  

Then, because the trend in France, for several years, has been that of a questioning of these immunities for the benefit of ordinary law.  

Thus, the immunity of parliamentarians was relaxed by the constitutional reform of August 4, 1995. A draft constitutional revision had aimed to abolish the Court of Justice of the Republic (La Cour de justice de la République!), thus ending this exceptional jurisdiction for the acts that ministers commit in the exercise of their functions. The independence of justice, ensured by serious guarantees (in particular the ban for the Minister of Justice to send the Public Prosecutors instructions in individual affairs), constitutes an effective rampart against possible temptations to destabilize the institutions of defense of rights and freedoms by legal means. In particular, the French legal regime is attached to the guarantee of the freedom of expression of independent institutions in charge of promoting and protecting rights and freedoms, as evidenced by the many public expressions of the members of the CNCDH, particularly critical vis-à-vis the government, including on the most sensitive subjects. 

The French National Consultative Commission on Human Rights recommends to national authorities to: 

1. provide the French CNCDH with the required financial resources so that it can effectively carry out all its missions on the national and international level, as well as its mandates as national independent rapporteur on its five thematic issues.
2. consult the CNCDH in advance, or at least to systematically inform the CNCDH, of the preparation of legislative texts and public policies, in particular those that are related and/or have impacts on human rights, as do climate policies.
3. enable the CNCDH to intervene before national courts by submitting written observations. This could be achieved by the modification of the 2007 decree relating to the composition and functioning of the National Consultative Human Rights Commission 

The CNCDH’s human rights monitoring and reporting found evidence of laws, policies and/or state measures that negatively impact on freedom of association, freedom of assembly as well as freedom of expression. 

Adoption of law on the Republican Commitment Agreement and broadening of the grounds for administrative dissolution of an association 

In its opinions of February and March 2021 on the draft law about “republican principles”, the CNCDH alerted the government to the risks to freedom of association posed by the introduction of the “Republican Commitment Agreement” (Contrat d'engagement républicain) and the broadening of the grounds for administrative dissolution of an association. Nevertheless, the law was adopted in 2021. With regard to the new legislation, associations are obliged to sign a republican commitment agreement when they apply for a public subsidy. This agreement is drafted in imprecise terms (notably “respect the principles of freedom, equality, fraternity and human dignity”; “refrain from any action that undermines public order”) and exposes associations to a risk of arbitrariness. 

Since the law was passed, a number of associations have had their grants withdrawn for this reason. 

With regard to the administrative dissolution of associations, this was originally envisaged for associations that “provoke armed demonstrations in the street”, but the law about “republican principles” has added “or violent acts against persons or property”. Several associations were dissolved on this new ground since the entry into force of this law like La Défense Collective or Le Groupe union défense. 

Finally, it has to be raised that an administrative mission to assess the implementation of the law about “republican principles” has been ordered by the Minister of the Interior. The CNCDH will be heard on 18 February. In the run-up to this hearing, it has asked its member associations for feedback. 

Algorithmic video surveillance 

In its opinion adopted in June 2024, the CNCDH expressed its concerns about the experimentation of algorithmic video surveillance during the Olympic Games. In the past, the CNCDH has already had on many occasions to draw the attention of public authorities to the use of new surveillance technologies (drones, facial recognition, automated video surveillance etc.). Not only is this an invasion of privacy, but it also has a dissuasive impact on the exercise of the freedom to come and go and the freedom to demonstrate.

The CNCDH’s human rights monitoring and reporting found evidence of practices that could negatively impact on civil society space and/or reduce human rights defenders’ activities, in the form of intimidation, harassment or violence before, during or after protests, surveillance by state actors, negative attitudes campaigns towards/perception of civil society and/or human rights defenders, their work and environment, as well as strategic lawsuits against public participation – SLAPPs. 

Abuse of power by the police during demonstrations 

The CNCDH is concerned about a number of police abuses committed in recent years against journalists and independent observers at public demonstrations. 

The national law enforcement plan (SNMO), published in 2023, makes no mention of protections for independent observers at demonstrations, even though the Conseil d'Etat had criticized this absence in the previous edition of the SNMO. In a ruling handed down in 2023, the High Administrative Court once again annulled a passage in the SNMO protecting journalists “insofar as it excludes independent observers from the benefit of its provisions”. While this decision suggests that independent observers, like journalists, can now remain at the scene of a demonstration despite a dispersal order, the lack of reaction from the Ministry of the Interior - either through a reissue of the SNMO or a ministerial instruction - creates legal uncertainty for observers on this point. 

The same applies to the Conseil d'Etat's decision on the practice of encirclement by enforcement officers. While the Conseil d'Etat accepts the exceptional and detailed use of such practices, it specifies that they “may not legally have the effect of enabling the competent authorities to carry out identity checks under conditions not provided for in article 78-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure”. Once again, the Ministry has not amended the SNMO to include this clarification. The CNCDH notes, however, that numerous testimonies indicate that the “nasses” regularly lead to massive identity checks, followed by fines, particularly in the context of demonstrations on the situation in the Middle East, which endanger the freedom to demonstrate. 

Growing climate of violence and repression against environmental defenders 

In February 2024, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Environmental Defenders under the Aarhus Convention, also member of the CNCDH, adopted a declaration on the methods of policing and evicting environmental activists - nicknamed ‘squirrels’ - peacefully occupying trees on a private site during protests against the A69 motorway project. In this declaration, it expressed its deep concerns about the testimonies he received regarding acts of sleep deprivation, burning of materials, lighting of fires and dumping of inflammable products by law enforcement, which may have endangered the lives of the activists installed in the trees. 

Moreover, on 7 April 2023, the CNCDH questioned the French Prime Minister about “a tendency that has become systematic in the rhetoric of the Minister of the Interior to disparage human rights defenders and civil society organisations, and to threaten to cut their grants” referring to the presentation by the Minister of the Interior of defenders “as agitators, delinquents, even terrorists”. Then, in its opinion on human rights defenders adopted on 30 November 2023, the CNCDH observed the existence of stigmatisation and judicial harassment practices, particularly against defenders of migrants’ rights and environmental rights. In this same opinion, the CNCDH noted that several United Nations Special Rapporteurs expressed concern about “a trend towards the stigmatisation and criminalisation of individuals and civil society organisations working to defend human rights and the environment, which seems to be increasing and justifying the excessive, repeated and amplified use of force against them”.  

Since then, the situation does not appear to have evolved favourably. For instance, on 22 March 2024, France Nature Environnement (the French federation of associations for the protection of nature and the environment) submitted two complaints to the UN Special Rapporteur on Environmental Defenders regarding the growing climate of violence and repression against environmental defenders.  

Surveillance by state actors 

As regards the surveillance by state actors, the CNCDH notes with concern in its aforementioned opinion on the surveillance of the public space, that generally, the proliferation of cameras on the public highway over the past twenty years, without sufficient safeguards. 

Strategic lawsuits against public participation 

The CNCDH adopted in February 2025 an opinion on SLAPPs in the context of the transposition of the EU Directive 2024/1069 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 April 2024 on protecting persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded claims or abusive court proceedings. This opinion acknowledges the existence of SLAPPs in France and the various forms these abusive proceedings can take: defamation, disparagement but also business secrecy or stock market offences, in an attempt to circumvent existing protection of freedom of expression. In the absence of any official data available, the CNCDH relies on the work of the non-governmental organisation Coalition against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE), which identified 90 SLAPPs in France from 2010 to 2023. The CNCDH believes this number to be underestimated.  

Moreover, as noted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in its Recommendation CM/Rec(2024)2 to Member States on countering the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation, the CNCDH highlights the differentiated impact SLAPPS can have on “women and persons with diverse sexual orientation, gender identity and expression and sex characteristics”. 

Transnational repression of human rights defenders 

In 2023, the CNCDH highlighted in its Report on Business and Human Rights that several joint communications of UN special procedures were sent to the French firm Total and to the French government regarding the harassment of some human rights defenders in the context of an extractive project on Uganda. In December 2024, several NGOs, including one member of the CNCDH, published a report revealing allegations of new human rights violations in Uganda while exacerbating existing ones. 

Initiatives, frameworks, and policies for the protection of human rights defenders at the national level 

Despite the fact that there is no specific legal framework for human rights defenders in France, Law no. 2016-1321 of 7 October 2016, since amended to transpose the 2019 directive on persons reporting violations of European Union law, has established a protective framework for whistleblowers. Nevertheless, numerous restrictions are also affixed to it (only natural persons are covered, associations and NGOs are excluded from the status; facts covered by “national defense secrecy, medical secrecy, the secrecy of relations between a lawyer and his client” are excluded and a very strict procedure is indicated in Article 8 for revealing the alert under penalty of non-protection). 

Specific protection mechanisms for civil society and/or human rights defenders 

The concept of protecting human rights defenders is present in some foreign affairs policies.  In 2016, French diplomacy developed a booklet of actions to support human rights defenders at embassy and consulate level. Although there is no real institutionalised system for welcoming human rights defenders from abroad, a number of initiatives have been put in place. For instance, the Marianne initiative for human rights defenders is a programme that rewards around fifteen defenders around the world each year. The winners, selected by a committee, receive accommodation in France for six months, a grant (€2,000 per month) and training to enhance their capacity for action.  

This initiative also includes an international component, in collaboration with the French Development Agency (AFD), aimed at supporting human rights defenders in their own countries.  

Although the CNCDH welcomes these initiatives, it regrets that they are not complemented by real political strategy at the government level that would make it possible to respond to all the issues concerning human rights defenders and to achieve positive changes in the long term. In particular, there is currently no infrastructure or system for effectively welcoming defenders in emergency situations.  

Moreover, these initiatives are only approached from the angle of foreign policy and thus no policies are designed to be applied for the protection of national human rights defenders.  

It also has to be mentioned that associations such as the LDH (Ligue des droits de l'Homme) or the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), for example, provide concrete support for human rights defenders. These mechanisms remain ad hoc and depend on the commitment of associations and non-governmental organizations. 

In addition, the CNCDH also notes that gender-based violence and discrimination are central to the dangers faced by women human rights defenders, who are confronted with increased risks of harassment, sexual violence and marginalization. 

The CNCDH has taken several initiatives in 2024 to promote civil society space and human rights defenders, particularly in the form of awards of prizes, organization of joint meetings and/or roundtables, as well as capacity building initiatives. 

Every year, the CNCDH awards a human rights prize French Republic Human Rights Prize (Prix des droits de l’Homme de la République française « Liberté – Égalité – Fraternité ») to women and men, defenders who act daily in the field for the promotion and effective protection of human rights. The 2024 edition (37th), anniversary of the 75th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions adopted in 1949, decided to reward projects on the theme linked to the protection of the rights of civilians in situations of armed conflict. The winners were: Mandela Center International - Cameroon La Société des droits de l’homme Ezgulik (Uzbekistan); L’Organisation des Citoyens pour une Nouvelle Haïti (Haiti), Ludirlena Pérez Carvajal (Colombia) and Cesar (Syria). 

Furthermore, as every year, the CNCDH held meetings with human rights defenders (Mali and Nicaragua) to discuss the situation in their country and the different modalities of action before international human rights protection bodies. 

The CNCDH regularly organizes meetings with civil society in France to familiarize them with the United Nations bodies and the different existing options of interaction with them, particularly when France is examined. This year, the CNCDH held a seminar on Thursday July 11 intended for French NGOs so that they could intervene in the framework of the exam of France by the Human Rights Committee which took place in October 2024. 

Moreover, the CNCDH has also taken specific actions in 2024 to protect civil society space and human rights defenders (HRDs), including monitoring, as well as issuing recommendations & opinions. However, the CNCDH notes that it does not have a mandate to process individual requests such as the ones submitted by whistleblowers. This is the role of the French Ombudsman (Le Défenseur des droits). 

Engagement with the Human Rights Committee 

As part of its written contribution to the Human Rights Committee for France's exam, the CNCDH has devoted developments to the situation of human rights defenders in France. It noted several issues hampering their action: intimidation campaign, judicial harassment, criminalization of their activity or even stigmatization. She furthermore proposed to the experts a series of recommendations. In addition, during the oral intervention in Geneva, the CNCDH mentioned the obstacles against environmental defenders who are prosecuted and qualified as eco-terrorists

The CNCDH recommends to national authorities to: 

1. adopt legislation that guarantees the recognition and legal protection of defenders (definition of the term ‘human rights defender, establishment of a framework ensuring a safe and favourable environment, creation a mechanism to protect defenders),
2. adopt a national action plan to protect human rights defenders at risk be put in place to prioritise the protection and shelter in France of defenders who need it, including in the context of a possible application for asylum,
3. create, as a Member State of the European Union, a specific multiple-entry visa for defenders in the EU Visa Code, while taking care to provide for facilitated procedures, as soon as the applicant has been identified as a human rights defender by relevant NGOs or international or regional mechanisms. 

Based on the human rights monitoring and reporting, the CNCDH has identified significant challenges affecting access to justice and/or effective judicial protection, mainly in the areas concerning independence and impartiality of judiciary, delays in court proceedings, access to legal aid, professionalism, specialisation and training of judges, timely and effective execution of national courts’ judgments. 

A number of cases recently brought before the European Court of Human Rights concern the state authorities’ failure to comply with court rulings. These failures are frequent in certain areas, such as the protection of unaccompanied minors, conditions of detention in places of deprivation of liberty, and the question of emergency housing. 

Moreover, despite reforms aimed at speeding up judicial procedures, delays are still very long in some procedures. 

CNCDH, as the National rapporteur on fight against racism, antisemitism and xenophobia, has also highlighted for several years a lack of training for judges in the area of discrimination and anti-racism litigation. This has an impact on the rate of judicial response, which is still too low given the scale of the problem and the number of victims.  

Challenges in access to justice disproportionately impacting women or marginalised gender groups 

France faces an enormous challenge regarding access to justice of women victims of rape and sexual assault. As justice doesn’t give the proper answer, according to official data, less than 10% of victims denounce the crime and file a complaint. And when they do, only 1% of perpetrators are condemned: 73% are closed without further action.  

The current criminal law doesn’t protect them. There is an urgent need for a paradigm change. A first step would be to change the definition of rape in the criminal code and to refer specifically to consent in the legal definition of rape.  This would place the perpetrator at the centre of the investigation, not the victim. This would bring France in line with its international commitments, such as the 2011 Istanbul Convention. 

Follow-up and implementation by state authorities of European Courts’ judgments  

Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights 

For several years, the CNCDH and the national preventive mechanism have closely followed the action plans/reports of the French government with regard to the execution of the ECtHR’s judgment in the case of JMB v. France, 30 January 2020 (about unworthy detention conditions and lack of effective preventive recourse).  

The measures adopted by France to deal with the problem of prison overpopulation - targeted by the ECtHR in its judgment - are insufficient, as evidenced by the growing incarceration rate in France. Furthermore, the law adopted to respond to the lack of effective remedy is not appropriate. In January 2024, the CNCDH and the CGLPL transmitted their observations to this effect to the Committee of Ministers (it is the third time they intervene about this case within the Rule 9 procedure). 

Other problems targeted by the ECtHR in several judgments remain persistent and are still monitored by the Committee of Ministers. In particular, the lack of care of unaccompanied minors in the Calais region (Khan v. France, 28 February 2019, n° 12267/16) or the expulsion of foreign minors in Mayotte after having been arbitrarily attached to an adult (Moustahi v. France, 25 June 2020, n° 9347/14). 

Judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union 

In a number of rulings handed down on July 12, 2022, the Criminal Division of the Court of cassation (Cour de cassation) has applied the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning the retention of and access to connection data in criminal investigations (CJEU, ruling H.K. /Prokuratuur, C-746/18), declaring articles 60-1, 60-2, 77-1-1 and 77-1-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in their version prior to Law no. 2022-299 of March 2, 2022, to be contrary to Union law in that they do not provide for prior control by a court or independent body before access to connection data. In a decision dated February 27, 2024 (no. 23-81.061), the Court of cassation confirmed this position, ruling that French legislation, which allows the public prosecutor to order the geolocation of a telephone without prior judicial review, is contrary to European law. However, the legislator has not amended these articles to take into account the CJEU ruling. As a result, these processes are still used by law enforcement agencies in the absence of any amendment to the Code, despite the rulings of the Court of cassation. 

In other CJEU rulings, French legislators have not yet taken the trouble to bring national rules into line with the principles laid down by the Court of Justice. This is the case, for example, with article 55-1 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure on the collection of biometric data, which, contrary to CJEU case law (C-205/21 of 26 January 2023), makes no provision for assessing the appropriateness and proportionality of the collection of biometric data in concrete terms. However, the legislators have not undertaken any steps to amend this article. 

The CNCDH’s actions to support the implementation of the European Courts’ judgments 

In 2024, the CNCDH transmitted observations as part of monitoring the execution of the cases M.A. v France (n° 9373/15) and A.S. v. France (46240/15). The subject of these observations was to shed light on the Committee of Ministers on a certain number of declarations and non -performance by France of Court's interim measures in cases of removal of foreigners in a country where they risk torture. 

Moreover, in order to support the implementation of the European Courts’ judgments, whenever it is relevant, the CNCDH refers to these judgments as well as puts under the spotlight and informs about new cases concerning France on social networks. 

The CNCDH recommends to national authorities to: 

1. increase the resources and staffing of the judiciary,
2. improve the quality of justice and to make the courts resolve disputes in a fair manner, by reducing procedural delays and make the law less complex to understand and to apply,
3. bring the national legislation (including the French Criminal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure) in line with the EU law and jurisprudence of the CJEU and ECtHR. 

Based on the human rights monitoring and reporting, the CNCDH has found significant challenges affecting media freedom, mainly in the form of misinformation on the topic of migration, particularly when it comes to data.  

For example, the narrative often represents migrant people mostly as men. Women in migration are not as visible, even if they represent of big part of the migrants. They are rarely mentioned in the political debates related to migration. This lack of consideration can lead to more difficult access to their rights or sometimes to a deprivation of their rights.   

The CNCDH recommends that France should go beyond its obligation to protect human rights, and place these rights at the heart of the elaboration, implementation and monitoring related to public policies at both national and local levels. 

The Office of Public Defender of Georgia (hereinafter: PDO/Ombudsman’s Office/NHRI) was last reaccredited with a A-Status in October 2024. 

The SCA commended the efforts of the PDO in following up on the previous recommendations of the SCA and encouraged the institution to continue these efforts.

The SCA was of the view that the enabling law of the PDO does not envisage an explicit mandate on the promotion of human rights, notwithstanding the wide array of promotion activities the PDO undertakes in relation to key human rights issues in the country. The SCA recommended that the PDO advocate for appropriate amendments to its enabling law to include such a mandate. In issuing such recommendation, the SCA invoked Paris Principles and noted that “…Promotion activities are understood to include those functions which seek to create a society where human rights are more broadly understood and respected.” 

Furthermore, the SCA also assessed the legal regime governing selection of Public Defender (ibid p. 31). It pointed out that the regulatory framework governing that process should promote merit-based selection and ensure pluralism…to ensure the independence of, and public confidence in, the senior leadership of an NHRI” (ibid). 

The SCA noted that it does not require the advertisement of vacancies, it negates establishing clear, uniform criteria upon which all parties assess the merit of eligible applicants and do not promote broad consultation and/or participation in the application, screening, selection, and appointment process. 

The SCA reiterated its previous recommendation and encouraged that the PDO continues to advocate for the formalisation of a clear, transparent and participatory selection and appointment process for the Public Defender in relevant legislation, regulations or binding administrative guidelines to ensure institutional independence.

The SCA issued a recommendation for the re-accreditation of PDO in October 2024. This recommendation became final in mid-November 2024 since the GANHRI Bureau accepted it.   in accordance with the process outlined in Article 12 of the GANHRI Statute. Following this, PDO will develop a strategy for implementing the SCA's recommendations. 

The situation regarding the implementation of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers Recommendation 2021/1 on NHRIs remains similar to previous year. In particular, improvement is needed in the areas covered by CM Principle 3§4 and 8. 

During the reporting year, the PDO had obstacles in accessing places of deprivation of liberty (CM Principle 3§4), in order to fully carry out monitoring powers. Namely, during the massive detentions of protesters throughout 2024, the Office of the Public Defender received numerous calls requesting assistance in determining the whereabouts of detainees. Unfortunately, the officials did not provide the PDO with information about the whereabouts of the detainees before their placement into the temporary detention facilities, which usually takes several hours. During this period the whereabouts of the detainees are unknown, they are either held in different police stations or in police cars in the yards of police stations. 

In general, the PDO has satisfied access to information (CM Principle 8), though throughout the year there have been several hindrances in having adequate access to information from different agencies. 

In addition, the PDO was not involved in all stages of legislation and policy making with human rights implications. Especially by the end of the year, several human rights restrictive draft initiatives were discussed in Parliament in an expedited manner, without the involvement of stakeholders including PDO.

Changes in regulatory framework

The Personal Data Protection Law, adopted in 2023 and assessed in the previous Rule of Law Report, entered into force in March 2024. Concerns identified by the PDO about potential obstacles to proper functioning of the PDO’s mandate in terms of children’s rights protection and exercise of the NPM functions are still theoretically pertinent (Executive Summary of the Regional Report p. 50-51). However, none of those concerns have been put into practice in terms of the PDO’s work so far.  

NHRI regulatory framework should be strengthened 

As noted in many ENNHRI’s Rule of Law Reports over the years, the PDO still underlines the necessity of strengthening its mandate by “…granting access to the case files of ongoing investigations into alleged ill-treatment and/or deprivation of life (individuals who died under state control).” 

Relevant state authorities have good awareness of the NHRI’s mandate, independence and role. However, the NHRI does not have adequate access to information and to policy makers and is not involved in all stages of legislation and policy making with human rights implications. 

In general, all state bodies provide written responses to the PDO’s inquiries, and thus the PDO has access to information. However, there were occasions throughout the year when several letters from the PDO remained unanswered. The following public bodies failed to answer to the PDO’s concrete questions: Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia, the Ministry of Culture, the Ministry of Internally Displaced Persons from Occupied Territories, Labor, Health and Social Affairs of Georgia, the Office of Parliament of Georgia.

When the number of detained persons is high (because of dispersal of demonstrations, etc.), the officials of the Ministry of Internal Affairs do not furnish the PDO with information about the whereabouts of the detainees before their placement into the temporary detention facilities, which usually takes several hours. The whereabouts of the detainees remain unknown to their families and advocates, problematic as detainees are particularly vulnerable to ill-treatment by the police before their placement in temporary detention facilities. This practically renders prompt monitoring of human rights situation impossible for the PDO. 

In practice, the authorities do not always properly ensure the involvement of the PDO in law and policy making. For example, in December 2024, amid the widespread protests across the country, following the parliamentary elections, the Parliament adopted multiple legislative amendments - several of which do not comply with human rights standards. Although those amendments were substantial, the legislative process was expedient and went through without the involvement of the relevant stakeholders, including PDO. This practice harms the legislative process, especially when it pertains to significant human rights issues. (Public Defender’s Statement on Multiple Legislative Amendments).

Adequate resources

The NHRI has adequate resources to carry out the full breath of its mandate.

Timely and reasoned responses to NHRI recommendations

As regards to timely and reasoned response to the PDO’s recommendations, the practice of adopting parliamentary Resolutions based on the Ombudsman’s annual parliamentary reports is still in place. (Executive Summary of the Regional Report p. 51) The PDO reports that Parliament’s Resolution adopted on November 1,2023 contains 277 tasks for different state bodies from which approximately 19% is completely fulfilled, 24% is partially fulfilled while 34% is completely unfulfilled. The report about fulfillment of the resolution adopted in 2024 will be prepared by the PDO respectively after 1st March 2025. (See the Parliamentary Resolution para. 26, available only in Georgian)

Furthermore, the PDO points out that the parliamentary oversight on the fulfilment of the tasks enshrined in the Resolution remains weak. As noted in the previous Rule of Law Report, the Human Rights Committee does not adopt a conclusion on the fulfillment of those tasks as required by its statute. (Executive Summary of the Regional Report p.51)

The NHRI does not report having faced any threats.

The Public Defender’s Office recommends:

• Amend the Organic Law on Public Defender of Georgia to grant the PDO access to the casefiles of ongoing investigations into alleged ill-treatment and/or deprivation of life (individuals who died under state control, for example, in penitentiaries, psychiatric centres, etc.) before the end of investigations.
• Ensure effective follow-up to the PDO’s parliamentary recommendations and strengthen parliamentary oversight over the level of fulfilment of the tasks enshrined in Resolutions of the Parliament of Georgia.            

The institution’s human rights monitoring and reporting has found evidence of laws, policies and/or state measures that negatively impact on freedom of association, freedom of assembly and freedom of expression.

The Parliament of Georgia adopted significant legislative amendments in December 2024, several of which do not comply with human rights standards. Amendments to the Administrative Offenses Code, significantly increased fines and penalties for various violations, particularly in relation to protests. Specifically, fines for blocking traffic (ibid, Article 125 (6¹), graffiti (ibid, Article 150), vandalism (ibid, Article 166(2), and carrying prohibited items during demonstrations have been sharply increased (ibid, Article 174-1(4), and penalties for repeat offenses also increased. In certain instances, administrative arrests have also been introduced. (ibid, Article 150.4., 166²)

The amendments to the Law on Assemblies and Demonstrations expand the list of prohibited items during rallies while banning the covering of faces. (The Law on Assemblies and Demonstrations Article 11(2) available only in Georgian). Although similar restrictions are common in many Western countries, in most cases, the legislation of these countries, international human rights standards and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights indicate that this ban is not unconditional or blanket. It is important, in this case, for the legislation to ensure and protect the balance between freedom of expression and security interests.

Moreover, an amendment to Article 244 of the Administrative Offence Code expands the police’s scope for arbitrary detention, including allowing detention to “timely” bring the offender to court or to “prevent” the offender from protracting court proceedings, from avoiding participation in administrative proceedings, or from repeating an administrative offence. The Public Defender believes that the amendments lack sufficient clarity and foreseeability. Such vague legislative provisions create substantial risks of imposing disproportionate restrictions on human rights. Such vague legislative provisions create substantial risks of imposing disproportionate restrictions on human rights. 

Furthermore, the parliament also adopted the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence, assessed in detail below. It significantly affects freedom of association and expression as well as, by implication, limits access to foreign funding.

The institution’s human rights monitoring and reporting has found evidence of the practices that could negatively impact on civil society space and/or reduce human rights defenders’ activities, namely: verbal or physical attacks on civil society organisations and/or human rights defenders, their work and environment, negative attitudes/campaigns towards/perceptions of civil society and/or human rights defenders by public authorities and the general public, online and/or offline threats or harassment, intimidation, harassment or violence before, during or after protests, harassment in the form of excessive administrative controls or audits surveillance by state actors.

Negative attitudes/campaigns towards/perceptions of civil society and/or human rights defenders by public authorities and the general public

The government reinitiated and then the parliament adopted the bill on “Transparency of Foreign Influence” which has been criticised by PDO in the previous Rule of Law Report (Executive Summary of the Regional Report p.56).  (see the Law on Transparency of Foreign Influence Article 9.1.) They also are obliged to register as the entities “pursuing the interests of foreign power.” (ibid, Article 4.1) This further labels them and stigmatizes their very important work to the public. (Ecodefence and Others v. Russia, ECtHR para. 132) . The PDO reiterates its assessment noted in the previous Rule of Law Report that such legislation damages civil society and human rights defenders (HRDs) as it is aimed to undermine public’s trust to them (Executive Summary of the Regional Report p. 56.)

Intimidation, harassment or violence before, during or after protests

Furthermore, the law discussed above was passed in parallel with widespread public protests. The PDO points out that the authorities have violently dispersed those demonstrations. Moreover, the government has continued the practice of massive arrests of protesters under the flawed and outdated Code of Administrative Offences (CAO) (Executive Summary of the Regional Report p.56). PDO further underlines that the majority of the detainees raised allegations on inhuman and degrading treatment from police units involved in dispersal of the demonstrations.

The PDO noted the trend of targeted individual assaults against journalists and civil society members . In addition, the PDO noted  an organized campaign of insults and threats to active citizens and civil society members through telephone calls. 

The second wave of protests started at the end of November after the decision of the government to suspend EU integration process till 2028. The new wave of protests has been unfolding in the capital and various regions of Georgia.  In some cases, authorities responded to demonstrations with excessive force, using water cannons, tear gas, leading to numerous injuries, hospitalizations. Persons who were subjected to alleged ill-treatment mainly indicated deliberate physical violence by law enforcement officers in retaliation for their expressed civil position. (See, November 30, 2024, Public Defender's Statement on Dispersal of November 29-30 Protest.) The quality, location, and extent of injuries sustained by those detained, coupled with the state's inadequate response to this violence - including insufficient investigations - support the conclusion that systematic ill-treatments have occurred. (See, December 3rd, 2024, Public Defender's Statement,) 

The PDO also points out that there were unidentified groups of individuals who used physical violence against the protestors, mostly targeting journalists on site, and called on the law enforcement to conduct a timely and objective investigation.

While protestors have been arrested under criminal law, no police officers have been held responsible for their actions. (December 2, 2024, Public Defender's Statement on Detentions and Use of Disproportionate Force against Detainees) 

It is noteworthy that the civil servants have also voiced their protest regarding the latest developments in the country. After such outcry, the government has initiated amendments in Civil Service Act curtailing their protective guarantees. 

In fact, the PDO, under the equality mandate, is currently examining multiple cases of former civil servants dismissed for allegedly political reasons. It is also noteworthy that most of those former employees have created a labour union to better protect their rights and the government refuses to register it. The PDO under the same mandate is also currently examining the reasons for such decision.  

Verbal or physical attacks on civil society organisations and/or human rights defenders, their work and environment 

Gender aspect

Recently, an adopted law on Protection of Family Values and Minors restricts not only civil activism and creative expression but also intrudes into academic spaces. This undermines the development and teaching of gender studies, human rights research, and other academic disciplines. Namely, the Law calls for the prohibition of “production of LGBT propaganda” in educational institutions - in particular, dissemination of information “aimed at the promotion of a person's belonging to a different gender than their own, same-sex relationships or incest”. (See Communication of the Public Defender of Georgia concerning Identoba group cases Made under Rule 9(2) of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers for the Supervision of the Execution of Judgments and of the terms of Friendly Settlements para. 12)

To protect civil society space and human rights defenders (HRDs), the Georgian NHRI has taken the initiatives of monitoring, complaints handling, recommendations & opinions and capacity building.

The most important needs for your institution to advance the protection of HRDs nationally

It is noteworthy that the PDO actively supports the local Human Rights Defenders and civil society by understanding their needs, voicing their concerns, and monitoring protection of their rights. However, unfortunately, HRDs have no specific place in Georgian legislation. Even the legal definition of HRDs does not exist and the authorities do not have statistical data on crimes committed specifically against them.  

Furthermore, the PDO has created a guide to work on issues about human rights defenders. According to that document, pro-active monitoring of media as well as active engagement with the local NGOs and activists are crucial for the PDO to properly identify human rights violations against HRDs. 

Similarly, the PDO not only examines their individual complaints but also systematizes its findings about HRDs and issues recommendations and proposals through annual or thematic human rights reports (see: Guidance on work on issues of Human Rights Defender p. 11). If necessary, PDO protects HRDs through amicus curie briefs or directly challenges the constitutionality of Georgian legislation before the Constitutional Court of Georgia (ibid.). 

To national authorities:

• Adopt a new Code of Administrative Offences in compliance with international and constitutional human rights standards.
• Conduct an effective investigation into allegations of inhuman and degrading treatment against civil society members from police forces.
• Repel recently adopted amendments in Civil Service Act and Law on Assemblies and Demonstrations. 

To European actors:

• Consistently call upon the government to fulfil the PDO’s recommendations provided above.
• Consistently express public, high-level support for Georgian Civil Society and Human Rights Defenders. 

Significant challenges affecting access to justice and/or effective judicial protection:  The European Commission repeatedly recommended that the authorities undertake comprehensive reform of High Council of Justice, fully implementing Venice Commission recommendations.  (See European Commission Enlargement Package Report on Georgia  2024 p. 24) The authorities have not fulfilled this recommendation. 

Professionalism, and training of judges

As regards to training of judges the PDO underlines that the systemic training of judges on proper use and application of the anti-domestic violence legislation remains a serious challenge. In fact, CEDAW has recommended the authorities to ensure that judges would undergo the obligatory trainings on that issue as well as  about stereotypical gender roles, [X and Y v. Georgia para. 11 (b)] 

Delay in and/or a lack of specialisation publication of judgments

As regards to publication of judgments the PDO notes that although the relevant legislative amendments have been made to ensure the proactive publication of judgments, they remained dormant since those amendments have not been implemented. (See Annual Parliamentary Report 2024 p. 135, available only in Georgian)

Fair trial rights

Throughout the year 2024 the PDO observed a clear tendency that the lawyers were unable to promptly get the location of where their clients were held. Hence, rendered it difficult for the detainees to enjoy effective legal assistance. The administration of justice faces challenges due to the use of an outdated code of administrative offences. Unfortunately, all cases and court hearings concerning the more than 400 protesters arrested by police during dispersals or related incidents were processed under this legislation. This situation raises serious questions about the fairness and due process in these cases.

One of the systematic problems pertaining to investigation processes is the disregard of obligation to gather neutral evidence during searches and seizures when such opportunity exists. Unfortunately, the courts do not strictly scrutinize this aspect in their deliberations and still find the defendant guilty. 

Implementation by state authorities of European Courts’ judgments

The PDO notes that in 2024 there have been no significant progress about implementation of the ECtHR’s judgments, the amount of repetitive cases still remain high. The authorities still fail to fulfil the PDO’s recommendations to properly execute the ECtHR judgments. In fact, in Tsintsibadze Group cases improper qualification of ill treatment committed by law enforcement officers is still a challenge (Rule 9 Communication to Committee of Ministers paras. 24-6). To illustrate, the authorities classify such treatment under the Article of a general nature, carrying less sentence compared to more concrete provisions provided in Article 1441 - 1443 of the Criminal Code of Georgia. This is because the definition of ill-treatment provided in the latter articles overlaps with the crimes proscribed by the former. Unfortunately, most of the recommendations of the PDO to address those challenges remain unaddressed by the authorities (ibid. para. 19). 

However, the most problematic was the execution process of the judgments delivered in Identoba Group of Cases. In 2024 the legislative package on Family Values and Protection of Minors was adopted. The Committee of Ministers has directly pointed out that it raises serious questions about Georgia’s compliance to Court’s final judgments. (see: The Rule 9 Communication on Identoba Group Cases para. 3)  

The PDO notes that the national supervisory machinery on execution of the ECtHR’s judgments as well as the associated challenges remain the same. (See, Executive Summary of the Regional Report, p. 61) The PDO would like to reiterate that the legislators have a special responsibility to propose laws that would enforce compliance with the Court’s judgments. (ibid). The PDO also notes that adequate cooperation with the local civil society is also of paramount importance in monitoring the execution of the ECtHR’s judgments. 

NHRI actions to support implementation of the European Courts’ judgments

Rule 9 submissions to the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers

Throughout the reporting period, the PDO has sent four Rule 9 Communications to the Committee of Ministers of CoE (see the Website of the PDO). In order to support the execution of ECtHR’s judgments and raise awareness of the public in this regard, the PDO briefly overviews relevant judgments of the European Court under each thematic chapter in annual human rights reports presented to the parliament of Georgia. (For Instance, see Annual Parliamentary Report 2023 p. 15; 25; 136) Furthermore, the PDO also issues the annual alternative report to the one submitted by the Ministry of Justice before the Parliament of Georgia assessing the steps taken by the authorities in the process of execution of judgments of the ECtHR.

Awareness raising of the general public and human rights education

Moreover, to further support the implementation of the ECtHR’s judgments PDO is engaged in human rights education activities. To this end, in July 2024, the representative of the PDO upon the invitation of the local NGO, conducted a training for students on execution of ECtHR’s judgments against Georgia and assessed its implications on the overall situation of human rights protection in the country.

Measures taken in your country to follow up on the recommendations concerning justice systems, issued by European actors

The European Commission recommended Georgia to undertake comprehensive reforms of High Council of Judiciary and Prosecutor’s Office. (See European Commission Enlargement Package Report on Georgia 2024 p. 24) None of those have been fulfilled by the authorities. (ibid) As the European Commission has noted the amendments to the Law on Common Courts “...do not tackle judicial reform in a holistic and effective manner (ibid, p. 24) Moreover, the Commission criticized selection of new Supreme Court judges as the legal framework still falls short of European standards. (ibid.) 

Similarly, the legal regime applicable to prosecutors does not align with the said standards, especially as they pertain to the internal independence and disciplinary proceedings of prosecutors. (ibid.)

Challenges affecting media freedom

Apart from the general climate of discreditation, harassment and assaults against media professionals described below, the European Commission notes that the environment for journalists and those working in the media is extremely hostile which negatively affects media freedom. (See European Commission Enlargement Package Report on Georgia  2024 p.7) Furthermore, the legislative package on “Family values and protection of minors” further restricts freedom of expression. These instances run counter to international human rights standards.” (ibid.)

Naturally, the Law on Transparency of Foreign influence, described more fully below, negatively affects media pluralism and independence as well. (ibid; see: Reporters Without Borders) 

Harassment, threats and attacks against journalists and media outlets (including legal harassment, SLAPPs)

Amid the protests against the Transparency of Foreign Influence law, many journalists were physically abused because of their work (See, 17 April, 2024, Statement of Public Defender, available here ). In addition, they received threats through phone calls from generated numbers. (see Journalists' Safety before the 2024 Elections p. 11-12) According to a recent study about Journalists’ safety in Georgia, around 33% of the respondents received those calls. (ibid, p.11)  Moreover, around 56% of journalists subjected to some form of abuse and hate speech. (ibid, p.12). Similarly, around 24% of the surveyed journalists stated that they were subjected to state surveillance through phone tapping. (ibid, p. 11) 

Furthermore, multiple journalists have been subjected to physical assaults and arrests in the context of the protests since November 28th. For instance, a journalist was assaulted by an unidentified group of individuals while she was fulfilling her duty and broadcasting live from the epicenter of protests.  Similarly, the police conducted violence against journalist Guram Rogava while covering the protests. The police units have also beaten a journalist Aleksander Keshelavshvili.  Furthermore, journalist Zviad Koridze was also assaulted and beaten by unidentified individuals.

Decline in media pluralism

The PDO notes with concern that all those instances of violence remain uninvestigated and such an environment is a serious obstacle for pluralistic media landscape. The European Commission further urges the government “…to provide prompt, impartial and due legal follow-up to cases of attacks against and intimidation of journalists, including as regards the instigators of the 5 July 2021 violence against over 50 journalists” (see European Commission Enlargement Package Report on Georgia  2024 p. 8)

It should be underlined that arrest of journalist Mzia Amaghlobeli is a matter of extreme concern. After she slapped  the head of Batumi Police Department, she was arrested and charged under Article 3531 which criminalizes assault on a police officer. (see Criminal Code of Georgia Article 3531) The PDO has also publicly challenged the proportionality of the measure of pre-trial detention the accused is currently serving through an amicus curie brief.

Misinformation and/or disinformation

According to the European Commission, since the reintroduction of the Transparency of Foreign Influence Law the disinformation against the EU and its values had increased. (ibid, p.22) Moreover, 54% of journalists, interviewed in the study, notes that they had been subjected to disinformation as well. (see Journalists' Safety before the 2024 Elections p.14)

Access to public interest information/documents

As noted in the previous Rule of Law Report, “...the legislative framework on the right to access public information is flawed. In particular, the General Administrative Code is outdated and does not meet modern standards and needs (Executive Summary of the Regional Report p. 54) For example, the General Administrative Code fails to set standards for disclosure of classified information and contains a flawed definition of a public agency.” (ibid) 

Furthermore, the PDO identified numerous challenges about the calculation of time required to grant or decline public information request, properly defining the scope of the information to be provided to applicant and ensuring adequate balance between protection of personal data and information of public interest. The absence of a separate, independent supervisory authority, ensuring timely adjudication of freedom of information complaints is also a challenge (Special Report on Challenges Related to the Proper Realization of the Right to Access to Public Information p. 13, available only in Georgian). 

Despite serious shortcomings in the legislative framework, the government has yet to implement a comprehensive legal reform (e.g., by adopting a separate law on the right to access information). That is the reason why the European Commission reiterated its recommendation for the authorities to “...continue to review the legal framework to effectively guarantee people’s right of access to public information, and to guarantee consistent and equal enforcement of current legislation.” (see European Commission Enlargement Package Report on Georgia  2024 p. 5)

Furthermore, since January 2024 judicial authorities are obliged to publish a depersonalised version of a judicial act online once the final court decision has taken effect. (see European Commission Enlargement Package Report on Georgia  2024 p. 35) The Commission noted that “open access to reasoned court decisions remains a challenge. The Supreme Court ensured proactive access to the anonymised texts of its decisions, but other courts did not publish their decisions on a designated website.” (ibid) 

The most important needs for the NHRI to advance the protection of HRDs nationally

The latest report of the European Commission on Enlargement contains three recommendations concerning media freedom. All of them remain unfulfilled by the authorities. In fact, the instigators of violence on journalists during the events of July 5th 2021 are still free. The authorities have not taken meaningful steps towards creation of an effective supervisory authority or further aligning of Georgian legislation with European and international standards, on hate crimes and hate speech, including the 2008 Council Framework Decision on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia. (see European Commission Enlargement Package Report on Georgia  2024 p.8)

To national authorities: 

• Conduct an effective investigation into violent attacks against journalists from unidentified individuals and law enforcement personnel.
• Conduct an effective investigation into the campaign of phone call threats that targeted journalists and civil society members. 

Since September 2024 the Law on Family Values and Protection of Minors came into force.  It prohibited public gatherings and demonstrations which is “..aimed to popularize” the gender identities beyond biological sex and the same sex relationships. (ibid, Article 10) PDO notes that “it remains unclear what kind of actions might be considered as popularization during the enforcement stage and whether any gatherings of LGBTIQ+ community members, where discussions or debates on the rights of LGBTIQ+ community members, homophobia, and other related issues could take place, could be interpreted as popularization.” (see Communication of the Public Defender of Georgia concerning Identoba group cases Made under Rule 9(2) of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers for the Supervision of the Execution of Judgments and of the terms of Friendly Settlements para.9) 

The PDO further notes the imposition of criminal liability for violating the requirements established by the Georgian law "On the Protection of Family Values and Minors," which includes a sanction of up to 2 years of imprisonment is especially problematic through human rights lens. (ibid, para. 11) The reason behind it is that the provision is too vague to meet with the strict standard of foreseeability as the wording could also be interpreted as imposing criminal liability for purely artistic or academic activities. (ibid, para. 11-12)  

Moreover, the law also entails prohibitions on academic teaching. (ibid, Article 12) In fact, the law forbids promotion of LGBT propaganda in educational institutions - in particular, dissemination of information “aimed at the promotion of a person's belonging to a different gender than their own, same-sex relationships or incest. (Law on Family Values and Protection of Minors Article 8) The PDO notes that such norms virtually render impossible to pursue gender studies, thematic human rights research projects and other educational activities. 

Hence, such legislation is not in line with European and international human rights standards. (Communication of the Public Defender of Georgia concerning Identoba group cases Made under Rule 9(2) of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers for the Supervision of the Execution of Judgments and of the terms of Friendly Settlements para. 3; Decision of the CoE Committee of Ministers para. 3)

The German Institute for Human Rights was reaccredited with A-status in October 2023.  

The SCA acknowledged the extensive work carried out by the GIHR to strengthen its human rights protection mandate, including through increased funding for monitoring, including the establishment of national rapporteur mechanisms on the Council of Europe Conventions on Violence against Women and Domestic Violence and on Trafficking in Human Beings, the development of an advocacy strategy for amending the GIHR law, and making permanent the National CRC Monitoring Mechanism. It encouraged the GIHR to continue to advocate for appropriate amendments to its enabling law to strengthen its protection mandate, for making permanent the two rapporteur mechanisms, and to strengthen and seek formalization of its engagement with the Federal Parliament including participation in Parliamentary hearings. 

Further, with regards to the institution’s selection and appointment process, acknowledging the continued engagement of the GIHR with the Parliament, the SCA encouraged the GIHR to continue to advocate for the formalization and application of a consistent and uniform process that includes requirements to publicize vacancies broadly, including in the context of the Federal Parliament’s ongoing process of revising its rules of procedures. 

Finally, the SCA encouraged the GIHR to continue its advocacy for the necessary changes in its governance structure with regards to political representatives on the Board of Trustees, as well as in relation to the term of office of the Board of Directors and accordingly amend the law. 

Broadening the human rights mandate 

The German Institute for Human Rights (“GIHR”) continued to advocate for an amendment to its enabling law that would formalise its powers to access information and data specifically under its National Rapporteur Mechanism mandates on trafficking in human beings (EU Directive on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, Directive (EU) 2024/1712 and CoE Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings) and on gender-based violence (CoE Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence). Together with the permanent establishment of both mandates (currently, they are project-based), the GIHR’s protection mandate would be significantly strengthened. 

The GIHR also, together with the German NPM, developed and submitted to the Federal Ministry of the Interior and Community a concept for the establishment of a joint (GIHR – NPM) monitoring mechanism under the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum. The GIHR had approached the NPM and the ministry to advocate for an EU regulation compliant mechanism. Currently, the GIHR and NPM are negotiating the details of the mechanism’s mandate and funding. If successful, the new mechanism would significantly strengthen the GIHR’s protection mandate (investigative function, powers to access information and data, complaints handling function). According to the CEAS-time frame, the monitoring mechanisms has to be established and working by June 2026. 

Formalization of engagement with the Federal Parliament 

The GIHR plans to take up this point in its advocacy efforts with the new parliament. The formalization of the engagement would require a change of the rules of procedure, something that might be more easily achieved at the beginning of the new term.  

Selection and appointment of the members of the Board of Trustees 

The new four-year-term of the Board of Trustees started on 1 June 2024. As for previous appointments, the Board of Directors sent letters and held meetings with all appointing bodies. The Board of Directors reiterated the need for every appointing body to follow Paris Principles compliant procedures and ensure that Board of Trustees has a pluralistic membership. It remains that with different appointing bodies a consistent and uniform appointing process is neither possible nor desirable. However, the GIHR takes the view that each appointing process itself fulfils ls the Paris Principles requirements, albeit differing in the details.    

Recommendations concerning the National Rapporteur Mechanisms on gender-based violence and on trafficking in human beings 

The SCA recommended to make permanent the two National Rapporteur Mechanisms on gender-based violence and on trafficking in human beings. Moreover, the CEDAW Committee in its Concluding Observations from 2023, encouraged Germany “to strengthen the mandate of the German Institute for Human Rights, granting it the authority to support and monitor the transparent, coherent and consistent implementation of the Convention throughout its territory.” While the GIHR continues to advocate for full implementation of the recommendations concerning the two National Rapporteur Mechanisms, until now, no further progress has been made by the state authorities. 

The national regulatory framework applicable to the GIHR has not changed since January 2024. 

As regards the awareness of the NHRI’s mandate, the GIHR notes that relevant state authorities have good awareness of the NHRI’s mandate, independence and role. 

Access to information and policy makers 

Overall, access to information and policy makers is good. As recommended by the SCA, the engagement with the Federal Parliament should be formalized so that, e.g. any statement or recommendation submitted by the GIHR during the legislative process receives an item number and thus becomes part of the official documentation of a legislative process. Another possibility would be that the parliament extends a standing invitation to the GIHR. 

The GIHR also advocated for a legal amendment that would strengthen the mandates of the two National Rapporteur Mechanisms, including guaranteeing access to data and information. Unfortunately, the government coalition ended before a legislative process regarding an amendment could start.  

State authorities’ follow-up to the NHRI recommendations 

No measures or legislation have been put in place since 2022 to ensure timely and reasoned responses to NHRI recommendations. The addressees of the NHRI’s recommendations are not legally obliged to provide a timely and reasoned reply.   

Resources to carry out the mandate of the NHRI 

After receiving a substantial increase of funding, the GIHR considers its resources currently to be adequate. However, the next government should quickly proceed to make the two National Rapporteur Mechanisms permanent (with the 2025 budget), in order to enable the GIHR to continue working on these issues (trafficking in human beings and gender-based violence). This is particularly necessary as the two bodies systematically collect data in order to monitor developments over time and evaluate the effects of laws and policies. In addition, project-based funding has the inherent weakness that the GIHR can only provide temporary contracts. This forces the GIHR to let go of the staff after six to eight years. This structurally weakens the work and permanently puts pressure on its staff.  Project-based funding is also earmarked and often limited to a one to three years period. Ear-marked funding and short funding periods limit the GIHR‘s ability to react flexibly on emerging or pressing issues. 

Functional immunity of the leadership and staff of the NHRI 

The GIHR itself does not enjoy immunity. No employee of a German public body enjoys immunity, not even the Federal President or the Federal Chancellor. This is in line with German constitutional law, particularly human rights law, according to which the state is liable for violations of the rights of natural or legal persons. 

With respect to personal liability for actions taken in their official capacity, the GIHR Statute provides that the Board of Directors is liable towards the association only for intent or gross negligence (sec. 31.5 GIHR Statutes). Pursuant to general labour law in Germany, staff members of GIHR are not liable for actions taken in their official capacity, unless they act grossly negligent or with intent. The limited liability of the Board of Directors is equivalent to the liability of public office holders, including that of the Chancellor or Federal President. This is equivalent to the liability of all civil servants. 

So far there has not been any instance in which German law and jurisprudence did not provide sufficient measures to protect and support the NHRI, including its staff. However, with the global rise of right-wing and reactionary forces, threats, harassment, and other forms of intimidation will rise. 

Threats faced by the NHRI 

In 2023, the far-right AfD party introduced a bill in the Bundestag 'for the repeal of the law on the legal status and tasks of the German Institute for Human Rights,' which also aimed to withdraw its funding. In its reasoning, the bill claims that the DIMR has abandoned political neutrality and discredits voters, sympathisers, members and elected representatives of the AfD. The bill was referred to the competent committees by the Bundestag plenary. In January 2025, the AfD requested that the Committee on Human Rights and Humanitarian Aid reported on the status of the debate on the motion and asked for a report. The report showed that the committee cancelled the motion several times. With the collapse of the government and the new elections, the bill fell into abeyance.  

The GIHR recommends that: 

1. The federal parliament should make permanent the two National Rapporteur Mechanisms on trafficking in human beings and gender-based violence. It should also provide a legal basis for both mechanisms (see SCA recommendation).
2. The monitoring mechanism under the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum as proposed by the GIHR and the NPM should be established as soon as possible and sufficiently funded to make it fully functional by June 2026.
3. The federal parliament should change its rules of procedure to extend a standing invitation to the GIHR for parliamentary hearings and accept any written submission of the GIHR on draft laws as well as circulate them as official parliamentary documents (see SCA recommendation on formalisation of engagement). 

The GIHR’s human rights monitoring and reporting found evidence of laws, policies and/or state measures that negatively impact on freedom of association, negatively impact on freedom of assembly, negatively impact on freedom of expression, criminalise human rights defenders’ work as well as limit access to funding. 

Excessive use of police force 

GIHR identified a number of state measures that contradict or endanger liberty rights. Of particular concern is the excessive use of police force, negatively impacting freedom of assembly. This applies in particular to actions against pro-Palestinian demonstrators, with the police being unable to strike a balance between appropriate measures against anti-Semitic extremism and the freedom to demonstrate. The GIHR has published a report on the consequences of October 7, 2023 in Germany, highlighting that antisemitic incidents in the form of discrimination as well as physical violence have increased significantly in Germany since October 7, 2023. Anti-Semitic slogans were also used at demonstrations resulting in police measures. GIHR criticised in its report that protest gatherings were often sweepingly described as ‘pro-Palestinian’, resulting in peaceful protesters against the Gaza war being equated with supporters of Hamas. 

Media reports on protests in the context of the war reflect the polarised views of society: The German public-service television network ARD reported on the increased police measures against the background of the offences committed during the demonstration. The article quoted voices from the government of the federal state Berlin justifying these measures. On the contrary, the newspaper Taz focuses on the excessive use of police force against the peaceful exercise of freedom of assembly.  

Adoption of new assembly law in Saxony threatens to stifle freedom of assembly 

Regarding a new assembly law passed by the German state of Saxony (Sächsisches Versammlungsgesetz vom 22. Juli 2024 (SächsGVBl. S. 724), experts find that some of the new provisions significantly curb or even threaten to stifle freedom of assembly (Statement by Prof. Dr Clemens Arzt, pp. 24/25). The excessively broad police powers over third parties are criticised, with some provisions designed to legalise the intimidation of assembly personnel (“Ordner”) (ibid., pp. 18-20). 

Criminal prosecutions against climate activist groups 

The criminal prosecutions against the climate activist group Last Generation raise strong concerns regarding the right of association and the criminalisation of the work of human rights defenders. As part of an investigation, the initial suspicion that the Last Generation was a criminal organisation was confirmed by Regional Court (Landgericht) Munich (LG München, Beschl. v. 29.07.2024, Az. 2 Qs 33/23). Civil society organisations such as the Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte and Human Rights Watch are concerned that a final ruling with this outcome would pave the way for the criminal prosecution of anyone participating in or supporting the Last Generation, including administratively or financially. In March 2025, the Munich Public Prosecutor General's Office brought further charges against five climate activists. Here, too, the accusation is that the Last Generation formed a criminal organisation. 

Countering hate speech, disinformation and extremism by the courts 

German courts faced the challenge of countering hate speech, disinformation, extremism, including anti-Semitism, without unduly restricting the right to freedom of expression. The conviction of activist Ava Moayeri in August 2024 (Amtsgericht Tiergarten Berlin, judgment of 06.08.2024, Az. 261b Cs 1037/24) for chanting "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" during a Berlin rally reflects the restrictive approach to political slogans, which courts interpret as support for extremist organisations. In addition, Human Rights Watch expressed concern that a German parliament resolution on combating anti-Semitism may constrain civil society engagement and freedom of expression.  

A delicate balance between the protection of democracy and freedom of expression and the press was brought to court in 2024 after the German Ministry of the Interior and Community de facto banned the far-right magazine Compact by prohibiting the company that publishes the magazine. Companies can also be banned by the Ministry of Interior under certain conditions, if they are f. ex. directed against the constitutional order within the meaning of Article 9 of the Basic Law and Section 3 of the Associations Act. The ban prohibited any continuation of previous activities. Although the magazine is suspected of holding anti-constitutional views, Germany's highest court has suspended the ministry's decision in a procedure on interim measures of legal protection pending a decision on the merits. 

Launch of an online platform to remove illegal content, hate speech and disinformation from online platforms 

The German Federal Network Agency (Bundesnetzagentur) has launched the online platform 'Trusted Flagger' under the Digital Services Act, aiming to remove illegal content, hate speech and disinformation from online platforms. However, the platform's conformity with constitutional rights is not uncontroversial. For example, it is argued that it creates a structural risk to freedom of expression: The Trusted Flagger often lacks the legal expertise and time to accurately assess the legality of online speech, potentially leading to unlawful content removal and a precarious lack of transparency.  

Adoption of the Draft of Tax Reform Act 

In July 2024, the Federal Cabinet adopted the Draft of a Tax Reform Act. It provided for non-profit organisations to be allowed to occasionally express their views on day-to-day politics beyond their statutory purposes. In addition, the obligation to utilise funds in a timely manner was to be abolished. However, after the federal government´s break-up in December 2024, only a shortened version of the law was passed in Bundestag and Bundesrat - the clarifications regarding the permitted activities of non-profit organisations had been removed. The EU Commission had recommended reforming the tax exemption for non-profit organisations in order to overcome practical challenges. 

NHRI’s support to women human rights defenders and LGBTQ+ human rights defenders  

In 2024, GIHR continued to support the Afghan Human Rights Defenders Scholarship of the Elisabeth-Selbert-Initiative initiated and funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Institute also supported members of the former National Human Rights Institution of Afghanistan (Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission) and other human rights defenders, among them women human rights defenders. Three years after the take-over of the Taliban many human rights defenders in Afghanistan are still under a continuous threat to be exposed and persecuted by the Taliban regime. In 2022, the German government launched a Federal Admission Programme in order to facilitate the admission of Afghans at risk. Since the beginning of the programme, the Institute participated in the programme as a so-called ‘reporting body’ with the mandate to suggest and submit human rights defenders at risk to the programme to be admitted to Germany. Having been suggested for the programme, some human rights defenders and other particularly vulnerable persons, including LGTBIQ, fled to Pakistan hoping to be accepted to Germany. Due to budget negotiations and the early elections in Germany, the Federal Admission Programme for Afghanistan was suspended in 2024, leaving many protection seekers in Afghanistan and neighbouring countries in a dire situation. The GIHR campaigned for the continued funding and continuation of the programme.  

The GIHR notes several concerning developments that seriously impact civic space. The GIHR’s human rights monitoring and reporting found evidence of practices that could negatively impact on civil society space and/or reduce human rights defenders’ activities, such as verbal or physical attacks on civil society organisations and/or human rights defenders, their work and environment, negative attitudes/campaigns towards/perceptions of civil society and/or human rights defenders by public authorities and the general public, online and/or offline threats or harassment, intimidation, harassment or violence before, during or after protests, surveillance by state actors as well as strategic lawsuits against public participation – SLAPPs. 

Attacks on civil society and human rights defenders 

Human rights organisation such as HRW and amnesty international as well as media reported on widespread violent attacks on civil society and human rights defenders, committed both by the police at climate and pro-Palestine demonstrations as well as by individuals. Striking cases include attacks on journalists, such as an attack by  three unknown persons on a video journalist in Leipzig who was covering a pro-Palestine demonstration, and a journalist who was assaulted by security officers after interviewing a Syrian musician.  

Also “Bürgerbewegung Pax Europe” faced a violent attack, a deadly knife attack during a protest in Mannheim. While the targeted group is known for its anti-Islam activism and is thus itself suspected of endangering civic space, the violent attacks may nevertheless illustrate a climate of fear for freedom of assembly.  

Cutbacks in government funded programmes on promotion of democracy 

Civic space is under pressure due to cutbacks in government funded programmes on the promotion of democracy. With regard to the 2025 budget, the government discussed major cutbacks for civil society projects in children's and youth work, political education and voluntary services across Germany. The government collapsed before the budget was finalised; it is still open which projects and which budget line will be cut in the future.    

Rise in right-wing extremism and the polarisation of society putting pressure on CSOs 

The umbrella organisation of mobile counselling teams against right-wing extremism warns that the rise in right-wing extremism and the polarisation of society is putting further pressure on civil society organisations. The right-wing extremist party AfD has improved its electoral success in state and federal elections. The party has established itself as the parliamentary arm of a large network that wants to overthrow democracy in Germany, with young people, in particular, becoming increasingly receptive to far-right ideas. Against this backdrop, many activists feel abandoned by politicians in their efforts for democracy. Especially in regions where decision-makers play down right-wing extremism, the number of activists is decreasing.  

In January 2024, investigative research uncovered plans by high-ranking AfD politicians, neo-Nazis and financially strong entrepreneurs who had concrete plans to expel millions of people from Germany (called “remigration” by AfD). This was followed by many large demonstrations against right-wing extremism throughout Germany. However, civil society involvement was declining during 2024 amid the growing threat of right-wing extremism, requiring stronger safeguards.  

Critical voices in the press towards civil society engagement  

Another factor that may have affected civil society engagement was highly critical voices in press that criticised civil society engagement in the context of the debate on the Democracy Promotion Act. The funding program by the government for civil society engagement was portrayed by them as a purchase of loyalty by the state, non-governmental organisations were depicted as instruments of power for left-wing party politics - financed with taxpayers' money.  

Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) 

Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) were a cause for concern during the reporting period. The civil society organisation Ende Gelände criticised the lignite company Lausitz Energie AG (LEAG) for seeking a wide-ranging court injunction against two environmental activists, including a potential fine of €250,000 per violation, as an attempt to silence dissent. The court ruled in favour of the activists, holding that the 'humane earth climate' is in principle a legal good that can give rise to a legal emergency (nothilfefähiges Rechtsgut) (Landgericht Cottbus, 26.09.2024 – 1 O 286/19).  

In April 2024, a "No SLAPP" initiative was launched to provide legal assistance to those affected. The No SLAPP Alliance consists of several civil society organisations. It is a member of the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe (CASE), which is committed to the fight against SLAPP complaints at European level. The No SLAPP Contact Point project is funded by the Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and Media. 

Federal Police Act under discussion 

A restructuring of the Federal Police Act has been under discussion in the Bundestag since March 2024. While the revision is to be welcomed in principle, there are plans to extend the possibilities for monitoring telecommunications and traffic data, as well as the localisation of mobile phone cards and terminals and the use of drones. A reinforcement of the powers of the federal police - which still provides for the possibility of racial profiling - is likely to have a deterrent effect on civil society actors. 

Threats or attacks specifically against human rights defenders 

According to a representative survey conducted by Amnesty International in September 2024, 2,500 people have had the following experiences in the last 12 months in the context of their civil or social engagement: one in ten respondents said they had experienced threats of violence, and just under three percent said they had experienced physical attacks. More than a quarter of those affected have experienced insults. Around 10 percent report inadequate protection by the authorities, with the percentage in eastern Germany being significantly higher than in western Germany. Moreover, people who have experienced discrimination are more severely affected in all categories. 

Transnational repression of human rights defenders 

The GIHR is in regular contact with the CSO coalition on transnational repression, founded in August 2024. They report i.a. that a small number of Tajik opposition activists were surveilled, presumably by security officials working for the Tajikistan embassy, while protesting in Berlin in September 2023 on the occasion of the visit of President Rahmon. Within hours approximately 50 of their relatives and contacts in Tajikistan were questioned and harassed by security forces there.  

In 2023 and 2024 three Tajik activists - Abdullohi Shamsiddin, Bilal Qurbanaliev and Dilmurod Ergashev – were deported from Germany to Tajikistan and in each case immediately jailed on arrival. In two cases – Shamsiddin and Qurbanaliev - they were given prison terms of seven years or more, with no credible evidence presented to justify the prison terms. Ergashev remains in pre-trial detention.  

In at least one case, of Shamsiddin, relatives report that he has been mistreated in jail. The German Foreign Office is also fully aware of the severity of the human rights situation in Tajikistan. 

These Tajik citizens should not have been deported by German authorities due to the high risk of torture in Tajikistan. There is evidence that German and Tajik authorities work closely together to identify and process the Tajik citizens in Germany who are a priority for deportation, as indicated in a recent response to a set of parliamentary questions (also reported here).  

Initiatives, frameworks or policies for the protection of human rights defenders at national level 

Germany has no comprehensive laws to protect the rights of human rights defenders. Although the Federal Council (Bundesrat) has initiated a legislative draft to introduce the new criminal offence of ‘political stalking’, the scope of application only includes public officials and elected representatives. These individuals are thus specifically protected, including when they protect human rights, while private individuals or those acting in a civil society capacity are not. Germany has a whistleblower protection law protecting people who report legal violations in companies, authorities or other organisations. The law is intended to prevent retaliatory measures such as dismissals, warnings or harassment against whistleblowers and was extended in 2024 to cover organisations with at least 50 employees. (Gesetz für einen besseren Schutz hinweisgebender Personen (Hinweisgeberschutzgesetz – HinSchG). 

Programs and initiatives for the protection and support of human rights defenders from abroad 

The German government funds various programmes and initiatives for the protection and support of human rights defenders. However, these are programmes that support activists from abroad, not those operating within Germany. For example, the Elisabeth Selbert Initiative offers human rights defenders at risk a safe place that they can use for personal recovery, coping with trauma and for professional development and networking. The Martin Roth Initiative aims to protect artists and cultural workers whose work is restricted by state or non-state actors through temporary protection stays in Germany or third countries and to ensure their continued work. The Defending Voices Programme for the Safety of Journalists helps to create safe working environments in Syria, Mexico and Brazil and to combat impunity for crimes against media professionals and is funded by the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development.  

Lack of adequate research on protection of woman human rights defenders  

The GIHR has not identified any gender-specific aspects in existing protection legislation. However, it notes that gender-based violence and oppression is a major concern as right-wing extremism and other anti-feminist movements spread nationally and internationally. There is thus a gender dimension to the general lack of adequate research on and protection of human rights defenders. 

The GIHR has taken several initiatives in 2024 to promote civil society space and human rights defenders. 

The GIHR participated in roundtables.  In June 2024, the GIHR organised an expert discussion with the CSO coalition on transnational repression. Moreover, the GIHR protects civil society space and human rights defenders (HRDs) also through capacity-building. For instance, in 2024, the GIHR continued to support the Afghan Human Rights Defenders Scholarship Program of the Elisabeth-Selbert-Initiative initiated through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The GIHR offered a fellow a two-month internship to gain insight into the work of the institute. The GIHR also organised a workshop for current fellows of the scholarship programme on the work of the Institute and on the European human rights system.  

In the next legislative period, the GIHR will continue to communicate the importance of human rights defenders for democracy to the government and secure their funding. 

The GIHR recommends to national authorities to:  

1. strengthen civil society organisations structurally: by modernising the law on non-profit organisations and adopting the Democracy Promotion Act (a draft has been submitted to the Bundestag, but since a new legislative period started, it fell into abeyance),
2. introduce complaints offices to provide preventive and retroactive protection mechanisms for attacks on human rights defenders, conduct research on better protection and causes for violence, provide legal assistance to victims, offer psychological support and ensure better visibility for the work and repression of human rights defenders,
3. counter threats against civil society groups and human rights defenders: Addressing the causes of the rise of the new right-wing extremism, as well as the question of the unconstitutionality of far-right groups and the consequences of prohibition. 

The GIHR also recommends to European actors to: 

1. adopt an EU directive to ensure better national protection of human rights defenders and create new narratives that valorise the work of civil society and the protection of people in vulnerable situations, especially in the area of migration and asylum,
2. strengthening EU programmes for political and human rights education, promoting democracy, strengthening civil society in order to counter right-wing extremist ideologies,
3. support awareness of transnational repression of HRDs / diaspora communities in member states. 

Based on the human rights monitoring and reporting, the GIHR identified significant challenges affecting access to justice and/or effective judicial protection in the areas of independence and impartiality of judiciary, delays in court proceedings, access to legal aid, professionalism, as well as specialisation and training of judges. 

Safeguarding the independence of the judiciary 

The GIHR has not identified any current cases in which the independence of the courts has been compromised. However, given the right-wing extremist tendencies in society as reflected in election results, the executive, the legislature and the judiciary face the challenge of preventively safeguarding the independence of the courts. Against this backdrop, several initiatives have been launched to strengthen the resilience of the German judiciary. In December 2024, the Bundestag voted in favour of enshrining key structural features of the Federal Constitutional Court in the Basic Law (constitution). 

Reforming the criteria for the right to issue instructions to the Public Prosecutor’s Office 

The Federal Ministry of Justice has presented a reform draft for the ministerial right to issue instructions to the public prosecutor's office in individual cases. This is not intended to abolish the right to issue instructions but instead aims to standardise the existing criteria according to which ministers may issue instructions. The draft also provides for an obligation to document instructions in writing. The German Federal Bar welcomes the specific draft law almost in its entirety, while the right-wing extremist AfD parliamentary group introduces its own bill to end the right to issue external instructions to public prosecutors in the Bundestag. Due to the end of the government, the abovementioned law was not passed by the cabinet and therefore not introduced into parliament. 

Preventing the collapse of the civil justice system 

A draft proposal by the CDU/CSU parliamentary group entitled ‘Preventing the collapse of the civil justice system - creating effective regulations to deal with mass proceedings’ was under discussion in the Bundestag. The draft refers to mass proceedings in civil law, which have been increasing for years and jeopardise the functioning of the judiciary. The discussion is in line with the criticism of citizens who, in surveys, express basic trust in the judiciary but strongly criticise the fact that many proceedings take too long and the courts make inconsistent decisions. A digitalisation reform of the justice system in 2024 attempts to address these shortcomings. 

Suspension of arms deliveries  

Access to justice was criticised in connection with the suspension of arms deliveries to Israel before administrative courts. After courts had refused to rule on the export licences because the deliveries had already been carried out, an action for an injunction regarding future arms deliveries was rejected by Administrative Court of Berlin because the Federal Government had stated that no further deliveries were planned (Administrative Court of Berlin, 4 L 148/24 (2024) (no 136), para 8). Due to the lack of an transparency regarding the authorisation of arms exports in advance, this creates a situation in which legal recourse to the courts is de facto rendered impossible. 

Challenges in access to justice disproportionately impacting women and marginalised gender groups 

Victim protection in the context of legal proceedings is deficient. In July 2024, the CDU/CSU parliamentary group introduced a draft bill to amend the Criminal Code and other laws to improve victim protection, particularly for women and vulnerable people such as people with disabilities and senior persons. The bill aims at strengthening the protection of vulnerable persons by introducing ‘taking advantage of physical superiority’ as a qualifying feature in some offences such as aggravated robbery and grievous bodily harm. The characteristic should also be taken into account as a criterion to qualify a homicide as murder. This means that acts of violence, especially against children, women, the elderly and people with disabilities, will be punished accordingly. 

The bill was met with widespread criticism. Although experts shared the basic concerns of the bill, associations such as the German Women Lawyers' Association (djb) considered the proposals to be “largely ineffective, constitutionally questionable in parts and therefore symbolic.”  

Moreover, also published in July 2024 was a draft bill by the Federal Ministry of Justice aimed at improving the protection of persons affected by violence in family court proceedings, strengthening legal aid and to amend other procedural regulations. The draft bill is intended to guarantee better protection for people affected by violence in family law court proceedings. The National Reporting Mechanisms on gender-based violence of the GIHR, civil society organisations and associations criticise that the protection provided by the current law falls short and that the draft bill does not fully implement the Istanbul Convention. (f.ex p. 17, p. 23, p. 24, p. 31). The risk of re-traumatisation when seeking court proceedings in connection with family court proceedings therefore remains a hurdle that disproportionately affects women and marginalised gender groups. The National Reporting Mechanisms on gender-based violence of the GIHR also criticises aspects of the regulation of an elective jurisdiction in the draft law.  

In addition, in November 2024, the Federal Cabinet adopted the draft ‘Act for a reliable support system for gender-specific and domestic violence’ Violence Assistance Act (Gewalthilfegesetz). This was approved by the Bundestag and the Bundesrat in early 2025. It improves the provision of protection, counselling and support services for women affected by violence and their children. Through this structural improvement the law helps to reduce the barriers to access to justice for women. However, some regulations, especially those requiring extensive structural adjustments, such as the expansion of specialised advice centres and the establishment of new shelters, are subject to a long transitional period and will not become legally binding until 2032. The GIHR welcomes the law as a milestone for the protection and support of those affected, as it guarantees uniform quality standards for women's shelters nationwide, their funding and a legal right to protection and counselling. The figures from the ‘Monitor Violence against Women’, published by the National Rapporteur Mechanism on gender-based violence of the GIHR in December 2024, show how urgently this legal regulation was needed: The figures reveal how a dramatic gap in the provision of protection centres. Although the Violence Assistance Act is meant to counteract this fatal shortcoming, the GIHR's National Rapporteur Mechanism on gender-based violence criticizes the fact that the legal rights do not apply to all victims of gender-based violence. Trans men as well as intersex and non-binary persons are not covered, which contradicts the understanding of the Istanbul Convention, according to which ‘gender’ is not to be understood exclusively in the biological sense. 

Activities of the GIHR to support implementation of the European Courts’ judgment 

The GIHR has also taken several initiatives to support implementation of the European Courts’ judgments, such as  Rule 9 submissions to the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers, referring to the judgments of European Courts in the reports and recommendations to state authorities, engagement with a national coordinator of the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, engagement with courts, as well as awareness raising of the general public. 

In particular, on the occasion of the review of the case Basu v. Germany (Application no. 215/19), judgment by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in December 2024, the GIHR commented on the implementation of the decision in accordance with Rule 9.2 of the Rules of the Committee of Ministers.  

Measures to follow-up on recommendations issued by European actors 

The EU Commission recommends that Germany aligns the remuneration of judges and public prosecutors in accordance with European standards. In July 2024, the Commission stated that although some progress had been made, remuneration was still considered inadequate. The German Association of Judges also shares this criticism. 

The GIHR recommends to national and regional authorities to: 

1. increase efforts to safeguard the independence of the Federal Constitutional Court,
2. introduce further structural reforms, focussing on constitutional courts on the federal level, but also court organisation and court personnel. These measures should aim at preventing power-accumulation and undermining of the constitutional justice system in the event of anti-democratic forces in government,
3. on the EU-level to strengthen initiatives that more closely link EU sanction mechanisms to rule of law requirements. 

Based on the human rights monitoring and reporting, the GIHR identified significant challenges affecting media freedom, such as decline in media independence, harassment, threats and attacks against journalists and media outlets (including legal harassment, SLAPPs), misinformation and/ or disinformation as well as access to public interest information/documents. 

Challenges to media freedom 

In particular, the GIHR notes some concerning activities by both state and non-state actors seriously affecting the media freedom. Violent attacks on journalist have been reported during and in the aftermath of demonstrations. As mentioned in the section on “Negative practices against civil society and human rights defenders,” a video journalist in Leipzig who was covering a pro-Palestine demonstration was attacked by three unknown persons, and another journalist was assaulted by security officers after interviewing a Syrian musician.  

Moreover, in the proceedings of the climate activist group ‘Letzte Generation’, which defended itself against interceptions of its press telephone by the police, the Munich Regional Court ruled against the activists (LG München, Beschl. v. 29.07.2024, Az. 2 Qs 33/23). According to the court, the police were allowed to take wiretapping measures because there was an initial suspicion that the ‘Last Generation’ had committed the offence of forming a criminal organisation. Civil society organisations such as the Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte (GFF) have classified the measure as a threat to freedom of media. 

The freedom of media was also put to the test by a court judgment against the editor-in-chief of the information and research platform FragDenStaat ("AskTheState"), Arne Semsrott. He was convicted under criminal law for publishing court documents (in connection with the Letzte Generation and Radio Dreyeckland cases mentioned here - see above and below) in accordance with Section 353d of the German Criminal Code (Berlin Regional Court, judgement of 18 October 2024 - 536 Kls 1/24). The Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte considers the provision in Section 353d of the German Criminal Code to be unconstitutional because it prohibits the publication of documents from ongoing criminal proceedings without exception and therefore disproportionately hinders free reporting and access to public interest information. 

Freedom of the press was confirmed in a trial in June 2024, when the Karlsruhe Regional Court acquitted an editor of the radio station of the accusation that he had violated the prohibition of supporting a banned association by linking to an archive of the banned platform "linksunten.indymedia". The court emphasised that the linking was part of journalistic work and thus covered by the freedom of the press (Judgement of the 5th Criminal Chamber of 6 June 2024, ‘Radio Dreyeckland’ (Ref. 5 KLs 540 Js 44796/22). 

Measures to follow-up on the recommendations issued by European actors 

Germany has not taken measures in response to the EU Commission's recommendation to introduce a statutory right of access to information for the press to federal authorities, but merely referred to the Freedom of Information Act, in place since 1999. 

The GIHR recommends to national and regional authorities to: 

1. strengthen society's media literacy through education programmes to build trust in independent media and counter the decline in media consumption and the spread of fake news, disinformation and hate speech,
2. create a legal basis for a right to information of the press,
3. increasing financial support for civil society organisations supporting the freedom of media. 

Reforms to the legislation on the lobbying register 

Following recommendations from the EU Commission regarding better transparency in the German legislative process by disclosing all contributions from interest representatives, Germany has taken steps, in particular by reforming the legislation on the lobbying register  (Gesetz zur Änderung des Lobbyregistergesetzes vom 15. Januar 2024). Lobbyists must now disclose whether they have held a political office or a high-ranking administrative position within the past five years. Former government members and senior officials are subject to a mandatory cooling-off period before engaging in lobbying activities. Additionally, members of parliament and government officials must provide more detailed disclosures of secondary income and corporate holdings to mitigate conflicts of interest. However, there is still a need for action regarding both the transparency of the legislative process during the parliamentary phase and revolving door effects between politics and business (https://www.dbb.de/artikel/deutschland-muss-nachsitzen.html). 

Discrimination in employment, education and housing as persisting structural human rights issues 

Despite existing legal regulations at constitutional and statutory level, discrimination in areas such as employment, education and housing remain a persistent problem. In her country report on Germany, issued in March 2024, by then Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatovic, “notes that the high levels of poverty and social exclusion in Germany are disproportionate to the wealth of the country as Europe’s largest economy”. She issued her concern regarding “the persistent narrative in political discourse and the media that poverty or homelessness are caused by the affected individuals themselves, due to their choice, indolence or negligence.” According to the Commissioner, such a narrative “hinders progress in ensuring effective access to social rights.”  She further notes the growing levels of inequality in Germany which threatens social cohesion and leads to “serious concern among her interlocutors regarding the rise of the far-right in the political sphere, which, as many fear, threatens democracy in Germany.” 

In recent years, rising rents, food and energy prices have become a financial burden for a growing number of persons in Germany – an issue which was also prominently discussed by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights in the abovementioned report. She particularly addressed the lack of protection from poverty and the protection gaps regarding the right to adequate housing. Trade unions, environmental and social organisations have warned that the social situation might exacerbate social injustice and jeopardise solidarity and trust in democracy. Against the backdrop of the budget negotiations for 2025, such organisations were appealing to the German government in an open letter not to allow necessary investments in climate protection, social security, the promotion of democracy or the renewal of public infrastructure to be played off against each other.  

The dismantling of the welfare state with severe austerity measures having been adopted in the reporting period primarily affects those already living in or at-risk of poverty. It threatens the realisation of economic, social and cultural human rights and, eventually, solidarity and trust in democracy. Coupled with the growing polarisation of society, with the far right offering simplistic solutions, this creates an increasingly anti-democratic climate. 

The fear-inducing narrative of an overburdened state, particularly with regard to asylum and migration, but also with regard to social spending such as the provision of the minimum subsistence level, repeatedly overlays the human rights discourse. The instrumentalisation of emergency scenarios and crisis rhetoric promote extremist and populist as well as discriminatory narratives, jeopardise social cohesion and eventually weaken the rule of law. 

The GIHR recommends to national and regional authorities to: 

1. foster civic space by appreciating and recognising the specific function and the contribution of civil society organisations to democracy and the capacity of states to resist extremisms. In the German context that includes reforming the tax exemption for non-profit organisations and improve the possibilities for funding of civil society projects, 
2. combat fear-induced narratives that fuel hatred and that pit social security and migration issues against each other, and invest in social infrastructure to create a climate in which people do not feel abandoned and thus rebuild trust in the rule of law, 
3. take measures to ensure that the guarantees of the rule of law are firmly established, both through constitutional reforms that further protect the independence of the judiciary, the separation of powers and the freedom of the media, and at European level through sanctions mechanisms that are more closely linked to the implementation of the rule of law by states. 

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) was re-accredited with A-status in October 2022. On that occasion, the SCA issued a number of recommendations requiring further action by the EHRC. Following concerns raised by civil society organisations, the SCA recommended the EHRC to address key human rights issues in an independent, effective, public and transparent manner, particularly in relation to the promotion and protection of the rights of LGBTI people, migrants and asylum seekers, persons with disabilities, and on issues relating to racial discrimination, in line with international human rights standards.  

Similarly, the SCA encouraged the institution to take visible and clear steps to strengthen its working relationship with civil society organisations, including organisations that work to promote and protect the rights of these vulnerable groups.  

Additionally, the SCA was of the view that the current selection and appointment process for members of the Commission was not sufficiently broad and transparent. While acknowledging that the EHRC has taken steps to ensure clear and participatory selection and appointment processes, the SCA encouraged the EHRC to continue to advocate for the formalization and application of a process that includes requirements to publicize vacancies broadly, promote broad consultation and participation in the process, and assess applicants on the basis of clear and uniform criteria.  

During the session, the EHRC informed the SCA that section 28(8) of the Equality Act, providing for legal assistance to persons with disabilities, was yet to be fully implemented. The SCA acknowledged the institution’s efforts to advocate for the implementation of this provision in the Act and recommended that it continue to push for the strengthening of its protection mandate.  

The SCA also noted that changes should be made to the NHRI’s enabling legislation to adequately and explicitly address the requirements of pluralism and diversity of its Commissioners, while recognising that the EHRC reported that its current Board of  Commissioners is representative of the society and that the EHRC has advocated for amendments to the enabling law requiring explicit provisions on pluralism as a requirement for selection and appointment.  

Further, the SCA encouraged the EHRC to advocate for a separate ring-fenced budget line to enhance its financial autonomy, in line with the UN Paris Principles and the SCA’s General Observation relating to ‘adequate funding’. Additionally, the SCA noted that the Secretary of State may dismiss a Commissioner who, in their opinion, is unable, unfit or unwilling to perform their functions, which raises concerns about the security of tenure of Commissioners. Hence, the SCA emphasized that the enabling law of a NHRI must contain an independent and objective dismissal process with sufficient safeguards against discretion of appointing authorities. 

In October 2023, the SCA decided to initiate a special review of the Equality and Human Rights Commission of Great Britain at its first session of 2024. The SCA was of the view that third party submissions and publicly available information raise serious concerns about the continued compliance of the EHRC with the Paris Principles, including its ability to conduct its mandate independently, to take positions in line with international standards, and its cooperation with civil society. 

The Special Review of the EHRC took place in May 2024. The SCA considered the evidence and recommended that the EHRC’s A-status accreditation be maintained.

Since its last periodic reaccreditation as an A-status NHRI in October 2022, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (hereafter “EHRC”) has continued to advocate for the strengthening of its human rights mandate and for a separate ring-fenced budget line. The EHRC recommends that the UK Government prioritise the review and refresh of the Framework Document, which outlines the EHRC’s relationship with the UK Government. The review is an opportunity to further strengthen the EHRC’s independence and financial autonomy.   

NHRI follow-up on the recommendations concerning their institution, issued by European actors   

In line with the recommendations made by the SCA, the EHRC has continued to press the UK Government to make changes to strengthen its powers to enhance its effectiveness and efficiency, along with making administrative changes to enhance the EHRC’s independence. 

Gender perspective   

Following a special review in May 2024, the SCA encouraged the EHRC to continue to focus on the recommendations made during its previous review and to continue to engage meaningfully with civil society organisations, including those working on transgender rights. EHRC has developed a dedicated strategy to engage with LGBT stakeholders, and to work constructively with organisations to identify areas where EHRC might intervene or provide advice. It is important to point out that UK law recognises ‘sex’ as a Protected Characteristic (PC) with Gender Reassignment (also a PC) being a separate category. 

The UK’s Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act, which came into effect from October 2024, introduced a new legal duty on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of their workers (the ‘preventative duty’). The change in legislation gives the EHRC power to take enforcement action where there is evidence of organisations failing to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment. Enforcement by the EHRC does not depend on an incident of sexual harassment having taken place. 

The NHRI believes its regulatory framework should be strengthened. The EHRC believes that whilst its current regulatory framework is fully compliant with the UN Paris Principles, there are areas that should be further strengthened.  

One key outstanding issue is that the EHRC’s equality and human rights enforcement powers are asymmetrical. The EHRC can provide legal assistance to individuals in proceedings brought under the Equality Act (2010). However, it cannot do so in human rights cases unless the claimant is also complaining of a breach of the Equality Act (2010). The EHRC has called on the UK Government to implement section 28(8) of the Equality Act 2006 to enable the EHRC to support human rights cases relating to a person’s disability to seek redress for breaches of their rights. This power would relate specifically to disability and not to other grounds of discrimination, defined as ‘protected characteristics’ in the Equality Act 2010.  

Relevant state authorities have good awareness of the NHRI’s mandate, independence and role. 

NHRI’s access to information and law- policy-making 

As emphasised in previous ENNHRI State of the Rule of Law reports, the EHRC believes it has adequate access to information and to policy makers and is involved in all stages of legislation and policy making with human rights implications. A key way in which the EHRC participates as part of the system of checks and balances is by submitting parliamentary briefings to the relevant actors as bills progress through the legislative process, as well as through both formal and informal direct engagement with key stakeholders, including all devolved governments, parliamentarians and other regulators or arms-length organisations, as appropriate (Equality Act 2006, section 13). This includes submitting responses to consultations on relevant equality and human rights matters, offering advice, expert opinion and making recommendations to decision makers.  

There are legal measures in the EHRC’s enabling act (Equality Act 2006) which, in specific circumstances, require addressees of the EHRC’s recommendations to provide a timely and reasoned reply. This includes instances where: an unlawful act notice has been issued where there has been a breach of the Equality Act 2010 (section 21); an organisation has entered into a legal agreement with the EHRC not to commit a specified unlawful act or refrain from specific actions (section 23); or where a compliance notice has been issued relating to the Public Sector Equality Duty (section 32). In the event that addressees fail to adhere to the requirements to respond to the recommendations, there are effective legal mechanisms in place to tackle this and the EHRC can apply to the relevant court for an order requiring the addressee to reply (section 24 of the Equality Act 2006). 

The EHRC has the power to conduct inquiries into matters relating to its equality and human rights duties. These could be thematic (e.g. into the causes of unequal outcomes), sectoral (e.g. looking at the employment of disabled people in particular sectors) or relate to one or more named parties (section 16 of the Equality Act 2006). The EHRC is required to enable people to make representations relating to any inquiry it conducts. The EHRC has the power to require any person to provide information, documents or oral evidence to an inquiry. The EHRC must publish a report of each inquiry and may make recommendations to any person in relation to any matter arising out of the inquiry. That person must take any recommendation into account and any court or tribunal may have regard to the EHRC’s findings.  

Adequate resources 

The EHRC’s enabling law (the Equality Act 2006) requires the relevant UK Government Minister to ensure that the EHRC has a budget that is sufficient to enable it to carry out its functions. The EHRC has a wide remit and broad powers to promote and enforce compliance with equality and human rights laws in the UK and has acquired additional duties since 2022, without the necessary funding to support their implementation which increases the pressure on the Commission to prioritise. Indeed, the EHRC’s budget for 2023/24 represented a flat cash settlement in line with previous years and a further real-terms reduction, over 30% lower than what was defined as adequate to fulfil its statutory functions by a 2012 comprehensive budget review of the Commission. The EHRC has called for an increased budget to support the Commission to continue to fulfil its full mandate. 

The EHRC continues to press the UK Government for changes to increase its financial autonomy, for example recommending a separate parliamentary budget estimate for the Commission, all while discharging the additional responsibilities given to the EHRC by successive UK Parliaments. 

Timely and reasoned responses to NHRI recommendations 

There have been no significant changes since 2022 but as described above, the EHRC feels that appropriate mechanisms are in place to ensure timely and reasoned responses to NHRI recommendations. As outlined above there are, if necessary, legal measures which, in specific circumstances, require addressees of the EHRC’s recommendations to provide a timely and reasoned reply. 

Functional immunity / Measures to protect NHRI staff 

The NHRI’s leadership and staff enjoy functional immunity and sufficient measures necessary to protect and support the NHRI, heads of institution and staff against threats and harassment and any other forms of intimidation (including SLAPP actions) are in place.  

The Equality Act 2006 is the founding legislation of the EHRC. However, and in common with all other public bodies in the UK, the EHRC is bound by common regulatory frameworks, which regulate matters such as conflicts of interest and legal indemnity.  

The standard indemnity for Board members of UK public bodies applies to all EHRC Commissioners. This means that where an action, though legal, is performed improperly which causes harm, thus giving rise to legal action in civil law, the indemnity provided by the Government sponsoring department will apply provided the Commissioner acted in good faith and his/her action or omission was within the remit of the EHRC.   

The EHRC has produced personal safety and welfare advice, including guidance on dealing with threats, such as direct aggression or threatening behaviour towards an individual member of staff​.​ 

Threats faced by NHRIs 

The NHRI has faced threats since 2022.  

The EHRC is aware that, due to the nature of its role, it may occasionally face external threats. In response to some of the EHRC’s work on issues of sex and gender there were protests outside one of the EHRC’s offices in 2023. The police were notified of the incident.  

The Commission issued advice for staff on personal safety and welfare, including guidance on dealing with threats, and undertook a review of security procedures for its offices. The EHRC has processes in place for dealing with vexatious complaints and abusive behaviour.​ 

• The EHRC recommends that the UK Government prioritise the review and refresh of the Framework Document, which sets out how the Commission works with the UK Government, to enhance the EHRC’s financial autonomy and institutional independence.
• The EHRC continues to recommend that the UK Government implement section 28(8) of the Equality Act 2006 to enable the Commission to support human rights cases relating to a person’s disability. 

The NHRI’s human rights monitoring and reporting has found evidence of laws, policies and/or state measures that negatively impact on freedom of association, freedom of assembly and freedom of expression. 

Right to protest

In 2023 the UK Parliament passed the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act which makes provision for a minimum level of certain public services during trade union strike action. Measures include removing legal protections for people who do not comply with ‘work notices’ specifying what work must be done to meet minimum service levels. During the passage of the legislation through the UK Parliament the EHRC raised concerns that the provisions may interfere with the ECHR right to freedom of association (Article 11). 

There have been recent legislative developments in the UK in relation to the right to protest guaranteed by Articles 10 (Freedom of Expression) and 11 (Freedom of Assembly) of the ECHR), noting that the rights to freedom of expression and assembly are qualified rights that can be restricted in some circumstances.  

In 2022, the UK Parliament passed the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act which widened the ability to place restrictions on ‘public processions and assemblies’, ‘wilful obstruction of highways’ and ‘one person protests’ in England and Wales. In 2023, the UK Parliament passed the Public Order Act. The EHRC raised concerns that some measures in this legislation were incompatible with Article 10 and 11 rights under the ECHR. The Commission was particularly concerned about the expansion of stop and search powers, new offences of ‘locking on’, where a person attaches themselves to another person, an object or to land, and the expansion of powers to the Secretary of State to bring civil proceedings in relation to protest-related activities, all of which raise concerns about the compatibility of this legislation with Articles 19(2), 21 and 22(2) of the ICCPR. In 2024, the UN Special Rapporteur on Environmental Defenders criticised these measures as ‘increasingly severe and draconian’. 

The sentences of a number of individuals given custodial sentences as result of being convicted under these new offences have been reduced following recent appeals. The current UK Government, which took office following the UK General Election in July 2024, has yet to state whether or not it intends to review the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, introduced by the previous Government in 2022.  

In November 2023, the EHRC’s Chairwoman wrote to the Chief Constable of the Metropolitan Police, in regard to the policing of protest activities, particularly those relating to events in the Middle East, offering advice in navigating the balancing of rights and duties. In the letter, the Commission noted that tensions were exceptionally high, with many groups feeling vulnerable and threatened.  

Freedom of expression at universities

Concerns about undue restriction of freedom of expression in universities have been raised repeatedly, including by government ministers and in the media over the past decade. Policies and practices which restrict the attendance of speakers with controversial or ‘extremist’ views on campus (often called ‘no-platforming’), which risk infringing Article 9 rights, have come under particular scrutiny. There have been instances where academics who have unpopular or controversial views have raised concerns about limitations on their ability to teach in line with these views or express them on campus, and reports of intimidation and harassment of speakers.  

In response, the previous UK government passed the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act in 2023, which gave the Office for Students, the independent regulator of higher education in England, additional powers to receive and act on complaints relating to free speech. The current UK Government has confirmed that key provisions of the Act will be brought into force but announced that other elements of the Act, which the Government considered would risk leaving universities vulnerable to disproportionate costs for legal disputes, would not be implemented.  

NHRIs providing specific support to women human rights defenders (WHRDs) or LGBTQ+ human rights defenders 

Although not specifically targeted at women human rights defenders or LGBTQ+ human rights defenders, the EHRC provides funding for civil society organisations in Great Britain to attend sessions of the human rights treaty bodies to give evidence to the Committees relating to treaties that the UK Government has signed up to. Previously this has included in relation to the United Nations' review of the UK’s record on women rights and it anticipates supporting human rights defenders to attend the next periodic review sessions. 

The NHRI’s human rights monitoring and reporting found evidence of practices that could negatively impact on civil society space and/or reduce human rights defenders’ activities in terms of surveillance by state actors and strategic lawsuits against public participation – SLAPPs. 

The Data Protection and Digital Information Bill was first introduced during the 2022-23 parliamentary session. The Bill sought to make multiple changes to individual data rights. The EHRC advised that, taken together, the proposed changes would amount to a significant reduction in rights, especially in the context of the use of AI and personal data. This Bill did not become law, as it was not passed by Parliament before the UK General Election was called in June 2024. However, the UK Government subsequently introduced the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, which initially included provisions around proactive AI monitoring of benefit claimant bank accounts, previously included in the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, which the EHRC briefed on and advised against. These provisions were subsequently removed or significantly altered during the legislative process. 

Initiatives, frameworks, or policies for the protection of human rights defenders existing at the national level 

In terms of initiatives, frameworks, or policies for the protection of human rights defenders existing at national level, the NHRI reports the presence of specific laws protecting the rights of human rights defenders and specific strategies to protect human rights defenders and/or inclusion of human rights defenders in human rights action plans. 

In March 2021, the UK Government confirmed that it would introduce a range of measures to tackle intimidation in public life, including ‘a new electoral sanction of intimidation against those who participate in elections and contribute to the political debate’.  

In the same year, the Electoral Commission and National Police Chiefs Council issued joint guidance for candidates to help them recognise and respond to intimidatory behaviour. In October 2021, a Member of the UK Parliament, Sir David Amess, was murdered by a constituent, leading to renewed calls for legislation to protect against online targeting of MPs and to end online anonymity.  

The UK government subsequently introduced the Elections Act 2022 which established a new penalty for anyone found guilty of intimidating candidates, campaigners or elected representatives.  

NHRI initiatives in 2024 to promote civil society space and human rights defenders 

In 2024, the NHRI has taken the initiative of organising promotion campaigns and joint meetings to promote civil society space and human rights defenders. 

The EHRC helps civil society organisations to understand their rights, support them to engage with UN human rights processes as a means of asserting those rights, and encourage and defend their ability to advocate for change at the domestic level. For instance, the EHRC may host webinars or roundtable discussions and provide free training sessions to introduce stakeholders to the UK’s international human rights obligations and demonstrate how to use the EHRC’s world-leading Human Rights Tracker, its searchable online tool for England and Wales where anyone can learn more about the human rights standards the UK has signed up to. The Tracker is used by civil society organisations, academics, parliamentarians, legal professionals and government departments themselves.  

The NHRI also aims to provide financial assistance (up to a maximum of once per treaty monitoring cycle) by commissioning organisations to produce joint shadow reports on behalf of wider civil society, or to travel to participate in UN oral evidence sessions to increase the diversity of representation in UN review processes.  

NHRI actions to protect civil society space and human rights defenders (HRDs) 

The NHRI protects civil society space and human rights defenders (HRDs) through capacity-building and through NHRI’s specific/additional mandates (support to whistleblowers).  

The most important needs for the NHRI to advance the protection of HRDs nationally 

As mentioned, the EHRC undertakes a range of capacity building initiatives to support HRDs.  

The EHRC became a prescribed body for whistleblowing in November 2019. This means that workers who are concerned that their employer is committing breaches of equality and human rights law can report their concerns to the EHRC. A summary of the whistleblowing disclosures made to the EHRC in 2023-24 is published on the Commission’s website. 

Examples of NHRI engagement in this area with international and regional mechanisms in support of human rights defenders and civil society 

In 2024, the EHRC engaged with various international and regional human rights reviews, raising priority issues for improving the UK’s compliance with its international obligations. These included: 

1. The UK’s examination under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
2. The UK’s examination under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
3. An inquiry review conducted by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
4. The Council of Europe's Baseline Evaluation of UK compliance with the Istanbul Convention 

The EHRC undertakes regular engagement with public bodies, parliamentarians and ministers on the follow-up to these reviews, to encourage implementation of recommendations. The EHRC has observer status on a civil society children’s rights group and Welsh Government’s human rights action group and legislative options working group (which is considering incorporation of CEDAW and CRPD into Welsh law). The EHRC also publish UN recommendations in ‘plain English’ and Welsh on its online Human Rights Tracker, to support transparency and scrutiny, and produce assessments of UK and Welsh governments’ action, or lack thereof, in response to recommendations. 

Based on the NHRI’s human rights monitoring and reporting, access to legal aid and delays in court proceedings are reported to be the significant challenges affecting access to justice and/or effective judicial protection. 

The EHRC’s Equality and Human Rights Monitor, its state of the nation report on Equality and Human Rights in Britain includes relevant information on delays in court proceedings and access to legal aid. 

In 2020, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) produced a recovery plan to maintain the operation of the justice system during the COVID-19 pandemic. This included opening temporary ‘Nightingale courts’ to increase capacity and a ‘super courtroom’ to hear complex cases (HMCTS, 2020). In 2023, the UK government announced that some ‘Nightingale courts’ would remain open for a further year to deal with a significant backlog of cases (MoJ and HMCTS, 2023).  

In England and Wales, the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 introduced changes to make it easier for some people to get legal support. New evidence requirements have extended the availability of legal aid in domestic abuse cases and the previously mandatory telephone gateway to civil legal advice in education, discrimination and debt cases has been withdrawn. In 2023, the UK government launched a review of civil legal aid to improve the system over the long term (MoJ, 2023). Some family law cases were brought into scope of legal aid in 2023 (Legal Aid Agency, 2023). 

In 2021, a UK government-commissioned review of criminal legal aid recommended reforms to protect the system’s long-term sustainability (Bellamy 2021). Implementation of these recommendations has varied, with some not accepted or implemented (MoJ, 2022a), though in 2022 the UK government announced additional funding for criminal legal aid in line with the ‘minimum necessary’ amount recommended by the review (MoJ, 2022b). 

Implementation by state authorities of European Courts’ judgments: 

The UK Government reports its position annually on the implementation of human rights judgments from the domestic courts (declarations of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act 1998) and the European Court of Human Rights for the last year: Responding to human rights judgments: 2023 to 2024 - GOV.UK.  

NHRI actions to support implementation of the European Courts’ judgments: 

The institution has undertaken the following actions to support implementation of the European Courts’ judgments: Rule 9 submissions to the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers, referral to the judgments of European Courts’ in the reports and recommendations to state authorities, engagement with a national coordinator of the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, engagement with courts and awareness raising of the general public. 

The EHRC reviews the progress of implementation of European Court of Human Rights judgements against the UK and considers outstanding cases against its strategic priorities to decide on appropriate action, which may include a rule 9 submission or recommendations to the UK government.  The EHRC engages periodically with the central government team with responsibility for coordinating the implementation of judgments. 

Based on the NHRI’s human rights monitoring and reporting, the significant challenges affecting media freedom are reported to be harassment, threats and attacks against journalists and media outlets (including legal harassment, SLAPPs), misinformation and/ or disinformation and access to public interest information/documents. 

Investigatory Powers Act 

The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA) introduced new safeguards against arbitrary interferences with the right to privacy in the collection and processing of data, but there remained significant concerns that these safeguards did not go far enough. In 2023, following litigation before the European Court of Human Rights, the UK government issued a Remedial Order to amend the IPA by introducing additional safeguards for the bulk interception of confidential journalistic material. In 2024, the UK Parliament passed the Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act to ensure that the original Act remains fit for purpose, following a number of reviews. Prior to the Act being passed into law, the EHRC voiced concerns that the proposals failed to provide strict safeguards and oversight to ensure compliance with the right to privacy under Article 8 of the ECHR and Article 17 of the ICCPR.  

Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPPS) Bill

In response to concerns about the misuse of litigation to suppress freedom of speech, a Private Members’ Bill was introduced in the UK Parliament, proposing to end the practice of SLAPPS by allowing independent judges to dismiss spurious claims before they go to trial, and protect defendants from high costs. The Bill did not become law prior to the UK General Election in July 2024. In November 2024 the current UK Government stated that it would not introduce legislation against SLAPPs in the current Parliament but would focus on the implementation of relevant provisions in the UK’s Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. The UK Government also indicated that it was monitoring evolving approaches to SLAPPs in other jurisdictions, notably following the adoption of the Council of Europe’s recommendations on SLAPPs.  

Misinformation and/or disinformation

Misinformation and disinformation are a significant challenge as people increasingly turn to alternative sources for news and information, particularly social media. The UK’s Online Safety Act 2023 included a requirement for Ofcom to establish an Advisory Committee on Misinformation and Disinformation.  

It was anticipated that there was a significant risk of misinformation spreading in the run-up to the UK General Election in July 2024, though no major instances were identified. However, following a knife attack at a children's dance workshop in Southport, England in July 2024, there were reports of false information about the perpetrator circulating online, including from very prominent figures. In 2023, the EHRC provided advice to the UK Parliament as the then Online Safety Bill was under scrutiny. The EHRC identified that misinformation and disinformation can spread due to the design of recommender algorithms on social media. Through the Online Safety Act, Ofcom (the regulator for communications services) is required to establish an Advisory Committee on Misinformation and Disinformation, which it is currently in the process of doing.

The Greek National Commission for Human Rights (GNCHR) was last re-accredited with A-status in October 2024.  

In relation to the selection and appointment process for members of the GNCHR, the SCA noted the current practice of sending a letter to all nominating authorities instructing adherence to the Paris Principles in the selection process. However, it recommended that the GNHCR advocate for the formalisation of a clear, transparent and participatory selection and appointment process of the NHRI’s decision-making body in relevant legislation, regulations or binding administrative guidelines, as appropriate. The SCA also encouraged the GNCHR to consider policy and/or administrative options which would allow it to provide guidance to nominating entities about their selection processes and the requirements of the Paris Principles. 

Additionally, acknowledging that the Director is an ex officio member of the Board and participates in Board meetings, the SCA encouraged the GNCHR to advocate for an amendment in the enabling law to ensure that its Board includes full-time members with voting rights.  

Further, the SCA recommended that the GNCHR advocates for amendments to its enabling legislation to provide a limit to the reappointment of members of the Commission to one additional mandate.  

Finally, the SCA welcomed the increase in the annual budget, which reflected the expansion and adjustment of the institutions’ operations and encouraged the GNCHR to continue to advocate for an adequate level of funding to effectively and progressively carry out its mandate and to enable the recruitment and retention of staff with salaries and benefits comparable to civil servants discharging similar functions. 

The Greek NHRI reformed its founding legislation (Law 2667/1998 as amended by Law 4780/2021), its Organisation (Presidential Decree 74/2023) and Rules of Procedure (2024), among others, to meet with the SCA’s previous recommendations (2017). In 2024 the GNCHR was re-accredited with an A status in full compliance with the Paris Principles. In recognition of its work, the SCΑ in the preamble of its report stated that “the SCA welcomes the work carried out by the GNCHR to follow up on the SCA’s previous recommendation and with regards to the rights of migrant workers, refugees, LGBTIQ+ persons, and monitoring places of detention”. In fact, the SCA was satisfied with the progress made to comply with its previous recommendations on selection and appointment and adequate funding and recommended that the Greek NHRI be re-accredited with A status (see SCA report October 2024, p. 32).  

The European Commission in its 2024 EU Rule of Law Report - Country Chapter on Greece refers to the Greek NHRI as an independent authority, part of checks and balances with a mandate to protect and safeguard human rights (p. 24) and uses its findings for the reporting on the situation of rule of law in Greece (explicit reference to GNCHR Statements and positions in footnotes). 

Furthermore, Greece is receiving technical assistance by the OECD (2024-2026) on reforming the law governing all independent authorities in Greece with a view to improve their standing and operation. In this framework, the GNCHR was consulted at an early stage by the OECD project team. The Greek National Commission is indeed an independent administrative authority under national law. However, there are some particularities regarding its composition, mandate and status. First, the Greek NHRI is a commission-type NHRI with members being nominated, among other, by other independent authorities under the Greek law. The GNCHR itself has a broad mandate that encompasses all human rights (in comparison with other administrative authorities with specific human rights mandates). Finally, the GNCHR has been established and operates under the Paris Principles which form a set of international law rules directly applicable to its status and operation. What is more, the GNCHR is regularly being reviewed by the competent peer organ on its compliance with the UN Paris Principles (GANHRI Sub-Committee on Accreditation). Since 2000, the GNCHR holds an ‘A’ status. 

The Greek NHRI, within its mission, is monitoring the technological evolution, the artificial intelligence evolution and the digital transformation, and draws the attention of the competent State authorities by highlighting the new challenges, their impact on human rights and the possible risks. In 2024, the GNCHR was designated by the Ministry of Digital Governance as one of the national authorities and bodies that enforce or supervise compliance with EU obligations to protect citizens’ fundamental rights within the framework of the Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial Intelligence Act). More specifically, according to the announcement of the Greek Ministry of Digital Governance (12.11.2024), the Ministry of Digital Governance, within the framework of the Regulation on Artificial Intelligence (AI Act), published the list of national authorities and bodies that enforce or supervise compliance with EU obligations to protect citizens’ fundamental rights. The GNCHR was included in this list along with the Hellenic Data Protection Authority, the Greek Ombudsman and the Hellenic Authority for Communication Security and Privacy. According to the announcement, the aforementioned Authorities will acquire additional powers, such as access to any documentation created or maintained by an organization for its compliance with the AI Regulation, when this is necessary for the effective fulfilment of the mission of these Authorities and within the limits of their jurisdiction. The additional powers will apply from 2 August 2026. The list has been notified to the European Commission and will be updated based on future needs and circumstances. 

With regards to the possibility to contribute to access to justice for individuals, the Greek NHRI has no mandate on complaints handling or providing of legal services to individuals. However, it holds the power to intervene as amicus curiae before courts. It has exercised this power twice in 2024:  

1. The GNCHR received a request for the first time by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to submit a written intervention as regards the case of G.R.J. v. Greece (15067/21) and A.R.E. v. Greece (15783/21). The cases were heard by a Chamber of seven judges on 4 June 2024 and were related to reported incidents of informal forced returns of people seeking international protection in 2019 and 2020. The ECtHR specifically asked the Commission whether “there has been a systematic practice of refoulement of foreign nationals by the Greek authorities to Türkiye at land and sea borders”. The GNCHR reply was based on the findings of the Recording Mechanism of Informal Forced Returns operated by the Greek NHRI with the participation of non-governmental organisations and the technical assistance of the UNHCR Office in Greece. On 07.01.2025, the ECtHR published its judgments on A.R.E. v. Greece and G.R.J. v. Greece relying greatly, inter alia, to the intervention made by the Greek NHRI, proving that the Commission’s repeated recommendations to the competent bodies of the Greek state on informal forced returns remain highly topical.
2. In November 2024, the GNCHR submitted a third party intervention before the Greek Council of State in favour of the retaining in force of a Ministerial Decision (nr.15786/20.2.2024) on the reform of the way the information of parents and spouses are being mentioned on birth certificates, in line with new Law 5089/2024 on Civil Marriage Equality. 

On another note, the GNCHR through the operation of the Racist Violence Recording Network and the Recording Mechanism of Informal Forced Returns by identifying the alleged victims and ensuring the safety of the recording, encourage and facilitate the access of the alleged victims to justice (see Recording Mechanism of Informal Forced Returns, Annual Report 2023, p. 46). Delivery of justice plays a crucial role in healing the trauma of citizens who endure unprovoked violence fuelled by prejudice, as well as in restoring their trust in the rule of law (see Racist Violence Recording Mechanism, Annual Report 2023, p. 6). 

When it comes to strengthening the regulatory framework, the Greek NHRI informs that it has already submitted to the authorities a proposal for reform of its founding legislation in order to codify recent additional mandates given to the Institution, such as the compliance of EU funds with fundamental rights and protection of human rights under the EU AI Act. The explicit provision of these additional mandates in the NHRI law serves the purpose of security of law, good governance and better GNCHR planning. At the same time, the GNCHR requested additional human resources (number of employees and profiles) in order to adequately perform its new roles. For the time being, no additional resources were provided for the fulfilment of the additional mandates. 

In relation to the State authorities’ good awareness of the NHRI, since 2022 the same challenges persist on the awareness of the Greek NHRI’s mandate by the relevant executive, parliamentarian, judicial and local authorities. There is partial compliance with their obligation to consult the NHRI prior to human rights law and policy drafting, which constituted also a specific recommendation by the EU Commission to Greece (see 2024 EU Rule of Law Report - Country Chapter Greece, p. 2). In particularly, it is recommended to Greece to “Step up the efforts to ensure the effective and timely consultation in practice of stakeholders on draft legislation, including by observing the statutory timeframe for public consultation”. In 2023, the GNCHR was consulted twice prior to the passing of a new law, at the invitation of the Parliament. At its own initiative, the GNCHR submitted its written views on the following bills with an impact on human rights: (1) anti-bullying law (5029/2023), (2) new Migration Code (5038/2023), (3) amendment of labour law (5053/2023). In 2024, similarly to 2023, none of the drafts laws introduced for voting in the Parliament were previously communicated to the Greek NHRI by the executive authorities for its expert opinion. The Parliament invited the GNCHR to present its views during the elaboration of two bills (e.g. on same sex marriage and minor rights). Both of these bills were discussed at the Standing Committee on Public Administration, Public Order and Justice in which a GNCHR expert participated and briefed the Members of the Parliament (MPs). Furthermore, the Commission submitted an expert opinion on a labour rights bill (transposition of EU Directive 2022/2041 on minimum wages) discussed in Parliament in November 2024 without being invited to the discussions.  

An exception to the above challenge has been the cooperation of the Commission with the newly established Ministry for Social Cohesion and Family regarding the transposition of EU Directive 2022/2381 on improving gender balance among directors of listed companies and related measures. The GNCHR convened an oral hearing with all stakeholders (public and private) to discuss the draft law prior to its finalization. The feedback received from the invited participants improved the draft text, which was subsequently put out for public consultation. Upon invitation by the Standing Parliamentary Committee on Social Affairs, the GNCHR participated in parliamentary discussions during the enactment of Law 5178/2025 in February 2025. 

Drawing on the Commission’s 25 years of experience, the GNCHR asserts that the NHRI’s involvement in the legislative process should not be left to the discretion of governmental or parliamentary authorities. For the sake of better democratic lawmaking, the NHRI offers its expert opinion and advice to the authorities aiming to align national laws with international standards and obligations of the State. GNCHR reiterates its recommendation for a standing invitation to Parliament when bills with a human rights impact are tabled for debate. The GNCHR stands ready to launch such a discussion at the Parliament expressing its reasoned views. 

With regards to the introduction of legislation, state measures or practices to ensure timely and reasoned responses to NHRI recommendations, no significant changes were made since 2022. The GNCHR law provides for annual reporting of relevant Ministries (i.e. Ministries maintaining a liaison officer with the GNCHR) on the measures taken in the previous year with respect to human rights in their field of responsibility as well as a follow-up to GNCHR recommendations (ENNHRI Rule of Law Report - Greece 2023 p. 21). The GNCHR, in its Annual Reports, dedicates a chapter on the implementation and follow-up on its recommendations by the state authorities (impact and efficiency of the NHRI work).  

Regarding immunity, the GNCHR members enjoy personal and functional independence (immunity), as per Article 14 (6) of Law 4780/2021 for actions taken in their official capacity, protecting them from prosecution for opinions expressed or votes given in the exercise of their functions. 

Despite the GNCHR’s upgrade into an independent authority, its increased budget and staffing, there is still room for improvement in relation to the effective execution of its additional recent mandates. To this end, the GNCHR recommends the State to: 

• engage in the reform of the law governing the Commission in order to strengthen its capacity (tools and resources) to adequately carry out its multiple mandates. 

At the same time, the GNCHR would like to reiterate its previous recommendations (see ENNHRI Rule of Law Report – Greece, p. 16) not yet addressed by the State.  

To the executive authorities, the GNCHR calls for: 

• timely and meaningful consultation of the Greek NHRI on draft laws in line with EU recommendations;
• its involvement in reporting procedures before the EU Commission (rule of law) and the European Committee on Social Rights (Council of Europe) that are currently out of reach
• a follow-up procedure (reasoned reply) by respective Ministries to GNCHR’s recommendations in line with Council of Europe’s recommendations. 

To the parliamentary authorities, the GNCHR invites them to discuss the possibility of: 

• a standing invitation of the GNCHR to all sessions of parliamentary committees addressing human rights issues. 

Freedom of association 

Since 2022, the EU Commission identified that the issue of multiple registration requirements for civil society organisations in Greece may not be proportionate in view of maintaining an open framework for them to operate. Henceforth, the EU Commission closely monitors this issue and has formulated respective recommendations to the Greek authorities in its 2022, 2023 and 2024 Rule of Law Reports. In 2024, the EU Commission recommended in particular to the Greek authorities to “strengthen efforts to evaluate the current legal framework for the registration system for civil society organisations and assess whether there is a need to amend it, while moving forward with a structured dialogue with CSOs.” The GNCHR regrettably informs that there has been no progress in the implementation of this last recommendation. Civil society report on the rule of law in Greece confirms such conclusion (Struggle for Accountability – The state of the rule of law in Greece, January 2025, pp. 64-65). The Greek NHRI also monitors registration requirements and sanctions imposed by Law 4808/2021 related to the suspension of trade union rights in case of non-registration to the newly established Trade Unions General Registry (GEMISOE). As informed in the ENNHRI Rule of Law Report – Greece 2024 (p. 12), the Council of State declared them contrary to art. 8 of the EU Fundamental Rights Charter and the General Data Protection Regulation. The case was referred to the Plenary of the Council of State. The hearing took place in May 2023, and the issuance of the relevant judgment is currently pending. 

The UN Human Rights Committee in its Concluding Observations on the 3rd periodic report of Greece expressed its concerns about the stringent registration and financial requirements imposed on civil society organizations, in particular those working in the areas of migration, asylum and social integration when assessing application of Article 22 of the ICCPR in Greece. To this end, the Committee recommended to Greece to “consider reviewing article 40 of Law 4825/2021 on the deportations and return procedures of third-country nationals with a view to removing unduly restrictive requirements regarding the registration and funding of such organizations”. 

Support to women and LGBTQ+ human rights defenders 

The Greek NHRI is composed of 20 experts appointed by independent authorities, trade unions, bar associations, nongovernmental organisations, research institutions and academia. Among nominating entities are the oldest feminist organisation in Greece, i.e. the “Greek League for Women Rights” and four LGBTQ+ organisations, i.e. the “Greek Transgender Support Association”, the “Athens Pride Festival – Athens Pride", the "Lesbian and Gay Community of Greece", the ‘‘COLOUR YOUTH-Athens LGBTQ Youth Community (COLOUR YOUTH)" and the "Rainbow Families Greece". These entities have appointed 4 women in the current cohort (2 main members with their alternates). 47% of the total membership are currently women. The GNCHR members are considered human rights defenders. Some of them are renowned activists in the Greek society, defending human rights.  

In addition, the Racist Violence Recording Network (RVRN) operating under the auspices of the Greek NHRI and the UNHCR Office in Greece records criminal acts or violent activities or behaviours against HRDs, namely against people who promote and protect human rights and are targeted because of that. RVRN records, almost on an annual basis, incidents against HRDs since its establishment. Based on these recordings, the incidents concerned HRDs linked to refugee/migrant population and LGBTQI+ community, while in several cases RVRN members have also been targeted. In this framework, RVRN in its last Annual Report (2023) emphasized once again the need for a framework to protect human rights defenders. Its absence exacerbates their vulnerability, often resulting in harassment and even violence, particularly in contexts where racist violence is escalating. In the past years, the RVRN had observed the extension of this targeting also through defamation campaigns or by criminalizing human rights defenders’ actions—a trend also recognized by international and European bodies (Report of the UN Special Rapporteur, Mary Lawlor, on the situation of human rights defenders, Preliminary observations and recommendations, Athens, 22 June 2022). 

In 2024, Greece was under review by the UN Human Rights Committee as to the progress made in the implementation of the ICCCPR since 2016. The GNCHR in its Submission to the UN Human Rights Committee (2024) reported on restrictions to freedom of association linked to the registration requirements for NGOs involved in the protection of refugees and trade unions, the racist violence incidents against HRD recorded by the RVRN and practices of intimidation, harassment and SLAPPs against NGOs and journalists working in the refugee and migration context (see also GNHCR Statement on human rights defenders working in refugee and migration field, 2024). In its Concluding Observations (2024), the UN Committee expressed concerns at reports of an increasingly hostile environment towards human rights defenders, particularly those working with refugees, asylum-seekers and migrants, including reports of smear campaigns, intimidation, harassment, threats, legal harassment and criminal charges (para. 32). It formulated the following recommendations to Greece: 

“33. The State party should take appropriate measures to ensure a safe and enabling environment for human rights defenders, including: 

(a) Enhancing its efforts to combat and prevent all forms of violence and threats against, and the harassment and intimidation of, human rights defenders and other civil society actors, taking all measures necessary to guarantee their effective protection and ensuring that they can freely carry out their work without fear of violence or reprisals, including arbitrary detention, travel bans, asset freezing or prosecution; 

(b) Ensuring that all human rights violations, including harassment and attacks, against human rights defenders are promptly and thoroughly investigated, that perpetrators brought to justice and, if found guilty, duly punished, and that victims receive sufficient reparations; 

(c) Adopting legislation and policies to protect human rights defenders and guaranteeing their rights, in accordance with the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.” 

The GNCHR is following up on the Human Rights Committee’s recommendations (work in progress).  

The Greek NHRI systematically reported, since the first rule of law report (ENNHRI Rule of Law Report – Greece), on the absence of a special protective legal framework for human rights defenders operating in Greece. The GNCHR would like to reiterate its standard recommendation (which is also a RVRN’s recommendation and the UN Special Rapporteur’s on the situation of human rights defenders) that a special national law on the recognition (definition) and protection of human rights defenders in Greece should be adopted. Even if human rights defenders are protected under constitutional or other general or per professional category provisions, a new special legal framework would add, according to the UN Special Rapporteur, “legal guarantees, visibility and recognition for individuals and groups dedicated to human rights, shielding them from attacks, including undue restrictions on their work”. 

The GNCHR as a commission-type NHRI with broad representation of civil society in its membership has a unique relationship with civil society and human rights defenders. It promotes and supports the work of human rights defenders and civil society organizations active in Greece on all occasions either directly or indirectly. It relies on their findings for its advocacy and monitoring work, it collaborates with them on capacity building activities and promotes their involvement in consultation processes throughout policy making and legislative procedures. The GNCHR has built a strong, trusted relationship with civil society, creating a mutually beneficial dynamic. For the Institution, this means access to reliable, on-the-ground information, while for the organizations, it ensures protection and amplification of their work.  

The Greek NHRI, within its mandate as a bridge builder between civil society and the authorities, extended its scope of work into facilitating the dialogue not only between national authorities and civil society but also between EU authorities and civil society. A recent illustrative example is the Greek NHRI's facilitation of regular meetings between the European Commission and NGOs working in the refugee and migration sector, whenever the occasion arises—such as a country visit by the Head of DG Home (Working Meeting with the participation of Civil Society actors and the Director General of DG HOME at the premises of the GNCHR, GNCH Press Release in July 2024 and November 2024) or the Commissioner for Home Affairs (The GNCHR meets with the new EU Commissioner for Home Affairs and Migration M. Brunner, Press Release in January 2025). 

In 2024 Greece was under review by the UN Human Rights Committee and the UN Committee against Racial Discrimination as to the progress made in the implementation of the ICCCPR and ICERD in Greece respectively. On both occasions, the GNCHR submitted its independent reports to the UN treaty bodies. On November 2024, the Greek NHRI engaged in an informal dialogue in Geneva with the UN CERD. The Racist Violence Recording Network (a network of 51 CSOs and NGOs operating under the auspices of the GNCHR and the UNHCR Office in Greece) is an important stakeholder in the fight against racial discrimination in Greece, acknowledged for its outstanding contribution by different national and international organisations and bodies. The GNCHR relies on the RVRN’s findings for its advocacy and monitoring work. For the first time, the Assistant Coordinator of the RVRN participated in the delegation representing the Greek NHRI in order to present the findings and conclusions from the Network’s work. The UN CERD in tis Concluding Observations to the Greek State (2024) acknowledged the RVRN’s role by advising the Government to “ensure effective and meaningful consultation with and the participation of civil society organizations and relevant stakeholders working on the rights of persons belonging to groups vulnerable to racial discrimination and hate crimes, in particular the National Commission for Human Rights, the Ombudsperson and the Racist Violence Recording Network, in relation to the development, monitoring and implementation of measures related access to justice for victims of racial discrimination and hate crimes” (para. 15).  

Moreover, the establishment and operation of the Recording Mechanism of Informal Forced Returns which is comprised of 11 NGOs active in the field of migration and asylum provides a “protective shield” to its Members, given the general hostile environment currently in Greece (from state and non-state actors) towards civil society organisations active in the refugee and migration context. NGOs enjoying a membership status in the GNCHR’s Recording Mechanism are able to carry on their relevant activities in the field (recording testimonies of informal forced returns in the name of the Greek NHRI) without any interference by the state authorities. 

In January 2025 the GNCHR collaborated with the Office of the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights during their monitoring visit in Greece. A GNCHR delegation met with the Commissioner at the GNCHR premises and handed over an analytical memo on the current situation regarding the human rights of migrants/asylum seekers and Roma population in Greece. The Commissioner’s country visit had a specific focus on the protection of human rights in the context of border control operations and on the human rights of Roma. In his preliminary remarks, the Commissioner noted, among others, “the worsening environment for legal professionals and civil society organisations supporting vulnerable people, as well as for investigative journalists” and recalled that “it is essential for strong rule of law-based states that the role and work of civil society and media be cherished and supported”. The GNCHR concurs with the Commissioner’s recommendations. 

The GNCHR through its multilevel and long-time cooperation with civil society monitors closely the situation of human rights defenders in Greece. It has formulated, in its Reference Reports and ad hoc interventions different kind of recommendations in relation to the protection of their work, the promotion of their role and the non-violation of their rights. Currently, the GNCHR identifies the following recommendations to the state authorities as the most urgent to be addressed: 

• Refrain from hate speech, intimidation, harassment, or the criminalization of civil society organizations working in the refugee and migration field. Ensure accountability for human rights violations against human rights defenders in relation to their work.
• Take proactive measures to create an enabling environment for human rights defenders in Greece, in accordance with international standards and specific recommendations from UN and Council of Europe monitoring bodies.
• Uphold their freedom of association by removing restrictive laws, measures, and policies.
• Ensure their sustainability through adequate funding from state-owned or state-managed financial resources. 

Based on its human rights monitoring and reporting, the GNCHR identified length of court proceedings, access to justice for women and the right of access to court and fair trial standards as the main areas where significant challenges persist, affecting access to justice and effective judicial protection. 

Excessive length of court proceedings 

As mentioned in the Greek NHRI previous Rule of Law Reports (2024, 2023) the delays and inefficiency of the justice system remain the main obstacles to the full enjoyment of the rule of law in Greece.  

The national recovery and resilience plan entails a plethora of measures on the improvement of the efficiency of the justice system. In September 2024, the European Commission’s preliminary assessment noted a satisfactory fulfilment of milestones and targets related to the fourth payment request submitted by Greece. The query revolves around a total of 17 milestones and 3 targets, concerning -among others- the training of judges and clerks, a set of actions so as to increase the justice system’s IT capabilities with regard to the digitalisation of documents, the enhancement of the record-keeping system of the courts, the simplification, standardisation and acceleration of procedures through digitalisation, and the interoperability of IT systems of the courts with those of the Ministry of Justice, as well as other national and international authorities and databases. In December 2024, Greece submitted the fifth payment request, which entails reforms targeting to the acceleration of the administration of justice (see Greece 2.0 Press Release, 6.6.2024). According to the Digital Transformation Bible 2020-2025 28 projects are designated for the development, integration and improvement of digital tools related to the access and management of legal information, the operation of court proceedings and in general the improvement of the functioning of the judicial system. 19 projects are in progress, 3 are completed, 1 is aborted (Development of an Electronic Payment System in the Mortgage Offices), while the remaining ones are scheduled.  

Improving the efficiency of the justice system involves foremost the acceleration of the administration of justice, which is a major drawback for the proper functioning of the justice system in Greece. Acceleration of the administration of justice constitutes a separate measure under the national recovery and resilience plan. It is comprised by several elements, ranging from a revision of the judicial map across Greece (covering all branches of the judiciary), the introduction of an array of procedural and training measures and the introduction of digital tools and data.  

In May 2024, the Greek Parliament adopted Law 5134/2024, which reformed the judicial map in civil and criminal justice. The reform is included in the Recovery and Resilience Plan (measure ID 16575) and is set to be fully implemented by the end of 2025. 

The new provisions redefine the courts’ jurisdiction and competences and consolidate the first degree of jurisdiction with the merging of the magistrate’s courts and the courts of first instance, aspiring to rationalize the number of the judicial bodies. Measures are introduced to speed-up the adjudication process in first instance courts, whereas the use of electronic procedures for submitting applications and issuing decisions is encouraged, in order to increase the mechanism’s efficiency. The procedure for filing appeals and other legal remedies is simplified, while stricter deadlines are in order, so as to avoid delays. Simultaneously, intensive focus is given on the alternative dispute resolution process and on the non-litigious cases (mortgage pre-notation, sworn statements and acts relating to inheritance), which are transferred from courts to lawyers, in order to reduce the courts’ heavy workload. 

The adoption and implementation of the new judicial map received severe criticism from the Plenary of the Bar Associations, highlighting the lack of staff training, the deficiencies in adaptation of technological systems to new developments, as well as the shortages as regards the preparedness of building infrastructures. No tangible progress has yet been made in relation to the changes brought about by the new judicial map and the changes in the procedures in the civil courts and the Council of State. 

In July 2024, Law 5119/2024 pertaining to the administrative justice was launched, entailing the reformation of the preliminary procedure before the Council of State. The Plenary of the Bar Associations delivered a statement expressing its opposition to the new provisions, claiming that it restricts the right to be heard and to effective judicial protection. They also stressed that there was no prior consultation with lawyers. 

The major challenges that the judicial system has to face can be better understood through the 2024 EU Justice Scoreboard [Quantitative data] and the statistics from CEPEJ, which display that the estimated time needed to resolve litigious civil and commercial cases at first instance is among the highest disposition times in EU (with an average of 746 days for civil cases and 223 days for criminal cases). When it comes to the administrative cases, the Greek average reaches the number of 464 days for the courts of first instance, whereas for the Council of State the number of days needed skyrockets to 1.239. 

The Office for the Collection and Processing of Judicial Statistics, established in 2020, runs the project "Support for the office for the collection and processing of judicial statistics", which is part of the Recovery and Resilience Fund. The operation of the Office suffers from delays, while in October 2024, the Ministry of National Economy and Finance extended the project’s end date. 

Challenges of access to justice of women 

In January 2025, the EU Directive 2024/1385 relating to lay down a comprehensive set of rules which address the persisting problem of violence against women was incorporated into national law. The GNCHR was invited to participate in the parliamentary proceedings. The GNCHR welcomed the provisions pertaining to genital mutilation and forced marriage but remained concerned as regards the insufficient adaptation of the article referring to the aggravating circumstances. The Greek NHRI also agreed with the article affording the prosecutor offices the discretion to reject or alter the terms of the mediation process, having as a criterion the protection of the victim. Moreover, it highlighted that mediation should only be applied to women victims of violence who are in a position to decide freely whether to accept or refuse the procedure, in line with the Council of Europe’s GREVIO recommendations (see Baseline Evaluation Report Greece, 2023). Additionally, awareness has been raised with respect to the lack of co-operation protocols between prosecutors’ offices, victims’ support organisations and state-provided social services.  

With respect to the access to justice, the CEDAW, in its Concluding Observations on the combined eighth and ninth periodic reports of Greece (para. 13), raised the issue of the legal illiteracy among rural women, women with disabilities and women belonging to ethnic minorities, including Roma women and women belonging to the Muslim minority in Thrace, and their reluctance to file complaints about gender-based violence and discrimination, because of the prevalence of judicial gender bias and gender stereotypes among law enforcement personnel. It also stated that refugee, asylum-seeking and migrant women continue to face barriers to access to justice, a phenomenon that deteriorates due to their lack of trust in the judiciary and law enforcement forces, as well as to the fear of retaliation. National stakeholders raise awareness with respect to the lengthy judicial proceedings and the deeply-rooted gender stereotypes and prejudices among the branch of the judiciary. These elements in conjunction with the low convictions’ rate deter the victims from finding recourse to the judicial procedure.  

Restrictions to the right of access to a court 

In 2024, the ECtHR ruled against Greece in two cases referring to the excessive formalism by the Supreme Courts’, especially at the stage of admissibility, impairing, thus, the fair trial right. 

In the case of Tsiolis v. Greece concerning the Council of State’s dismissal of an application for non-compliance with the admissibility requirements, the ECtHR held that an excessive formalistic approach was taken in implementation of the procedural requirements impairing with the very essence of the right of access to a court, thus Article 6 para. 1 ECHR had been violated. Relevant to the above, the Athens Bar Association underlined that the number of cases that the Council of State has launched through the years displays a substantial decrease; it released 10.250 in 2012, whereas in 2024 the number plummeted to 2.604.  

The case of Zouboulidis v. Greece (no 3) concerned the formalistic interpretation by the Council of State of its scope of jurisdiction on compensation claims from the State for the alleged errors of the civil courts until the eventual adoption of new legislation. The ECtHR held that the restriction on applicant’s right for an undetermined period creating legal uncertainty to his detriment constituted a disproportionate burden that impaired the very essence of the right of access to a court (violation of Article 6 para 1 ECHR). In November 2024, a legislative drafting committee was established with the task to handle and regulate the action for damages occurred by the acts or omissions of the judicial organs, in compliance with the Zouboulidis judgement.  

Room for improvement on fair trial standards 

In October 2024, the European Commission notified Greece that it failed to properly incorporate and transpose the Directive 2016/343/EU pertaining to the strengthening of the presumption of innocence and the right to be present at criminal trials. It is unequivocal that these elements are inextricably connected to the right to a fair trial. Thus, it released a formal notice initiating an infringement procedure. 

European Court of Human Rights 

The Greek NHRI informs that Greece continues to maintain a satisfactory track record regarding the payment of just satisfaction ordered by the Court. The adoption of both individual and general measures varies, with frequent legislative amendments enacted in response to ECtHR judgments finding violations. GNCHR notes that particularities of the Greek legal system substantially hinder the reopening of cases both in law and in practice, thus impeding access to restitutio in integrum. In the specific context of Greece, it is proven that the imperative of restitutio in integrum in the implementation of judgments carries significant weight. Even in cases where proceedings can be reopened, there is often little to no substantive prospect of success in rectifying the consequences of the violation and ensuring a Convention-compliant outcome for the applicant. Domestic courts demonstrate reluctance to deviate from their initial findings, as exemplified in the Bekir-Ousta group. Furthermore, normative constraints, such as the prohibition of reopening proceedings at the expense of the accused, hinder efforts to achieve restitutio in integrum, as demonstrated in cases like Sidiropoulos and Papakostas group. Similarly, the newly introduced remedy on poor detention conditions in response to the Nisiotis group, is sparingly employed and applications are rejected at an overwhelming rate.  

In 2024, the Committee of Ministers received from the European Court 29 cases against Greece for supervision of their execution (compared to 35 in 2023 and 25 in 2022). Of the new violations found by the Court in 2024, some of them concerned the detention and reception conditions of asylum seekers, and one concerned the failure of the investigative and judicial authorities to adequately respond to allegations of rape. Another concerned the authorities’ failure to demonstrate that the use of force by coastguards during an operation to intercept a boat illegally transporting people to Greece had been “absolutely necessary” and the lack of an effective investigation thereof. The Committee closed 31 cases against Greece, including four leading cases under standard supervision (Council of Europe/Committee of Ministers, Supervision of the execution of judgments and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, Annual Report 2024, pp. 73-74). 

There are nine groups of leading cases pending before the Committee of Ministers, most under enhanced supervision due to the important structural and/or complex problems revealed therein: 

• Sidiropoulos and Papakostas group (33349/10+) concerns the ill-treatment by law enforcement and the lack of effective investigations into death or ill-treatment in the context of law enforcement;
• Nisiotis group (34704/08+) relates to inhuman and/or degrading treatment based on poor detention conditions (overcrowded prisons, no ventilation, no personal space, lack of medical care, etc);
• M.S.S. group (30696/09+) relates to shortcomings in the examination of asylum requests, poor detention conditions, absence of adequate support upon release and absence of an effective remedy.
• Beka-Koulocheri group (38878/03) relates to the non-compliance or significantly delayed compliance of the authorities with final judgments of the domestic courts;
• Bekir-Ousta and others group (35151/05+) relates to the refusal to register two associations and the dissolution of one association asserting that their aim was to promote the existence of an ethnic minority in Greece (as opposed to a religious one);
• House of Macedonian Civilization and others (1295/10) relates to the refusal to register an association due to the use of the word “Macedonian” and based on an alleged contravention of public order. 

Notwithstanding the enhanced supervision by the ECtHR with respect to detention centres’ or police and border guard stations’ conditions (Nisiotis group and M.S.S. group), the situation cannot be deemed as improved. The Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), in its 2024 Report, observed that foreign nationals continue to be held in poor facilities and receive inhuman and degrading treatment (see also Special Report of the Greek Ombudsman, 2023). The CPT criticized heavily the new EU-funded Closed Controlled Access Centres on the Aegean Islands, stating that they do not provide for decent living conditions. 

Additionally, following the GNCHR’s visit to the Ritsona centre, it was witnessed that the facilities do not provide for a female-friendly safe space, as they did during the previous years. Also, deficiencies as regards the employees, professional experts and interpreters create difficulties to the procedure of reporting, when it comes to violent incidents and ill-treatment. Moreover, despite the agreement signed between the IOM and the Ministry of Migration and Asylum concerning the project ‘Hippocrates I’, which foresees the provision of primary medical care and psychosocial support to those residing in such centres, the ratio between the staff members and the people residing is disproportional. A positive step made is the recruitment of 405 employees under the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund, in order to strengthen the human resources of the Asylum Service and enhance its operational capacity. The project started in January 2024 and is expected to last until 2027. 

As it has been reiterated in the ENNHRI 2023 Rule of Law Report, the introduction of a new remedy in the Penitentiary Code (article 6A by virtue of article 8 of Law 4985/2022) to address poor detention conditions yielded little to no practical result. Its application remains thin on the ground and the rejection rate exceeds 99.5%. In Circular 3/2023, the Deputy Prosecutor of the Supreme Court emphasizes the importance of applying the new Article 6A of Law 4985/2022 in line with ECtHR rulings. He revisits the issue with Circular 05/2024, highlighting that by the end of 2023, Greece faced 139 convictions by the ECtHR for violating Article 3 ECHR, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. Additionally, 567 inmate cases were settled through friendly agreements, with Greece ranking fifth among Council of Europe countries for pending cases, mainly related to detention conditions.  

The GNCHR is of the view that given the fact that only four out of 197 appeals have been accepted, combined with the absence of any appeals in nearly 44% of correctional facilities and in light of the recent findings by the CPT suggest that the implementation of the law requires significant improvement to ensure compliance with both national and international standards. The Greek NHRI, in its Note before the Greek Parliament, has already pointed out that since the conditions in Greek correctional facilities have been repeatedly deemed equivalent to inhuman and degrading treatment by the ECtHR, as confirmed by CPT and CAT, there are serious reservations regarding the effectiveness of the relevant legislative provision. Penitentiary facilities - despite the recent reforms in the Penal Code to facilitate the exit from the system (see ENNHRI Rule of Law Report - Greece 2023 p. 31) still remain overcrowded and prison conditions are below international human rights standards. The Greek National Commission recommends the removal of obstacles faced by inmates wishing to complain about their detention conditions and the strengthening of their procedural rights, particularly their rights to access information, to legal representation, and to free legal aid. This is crucial given the unknown (not officially published) proportion of inmates with mental health disorders and the significant number of foreign inmates who are often unable to effectively utilize the available legal remedies. The Greek NHRI has prioritized this issue and is using all available tools to monitor the situation in Greece. Soon, a comprehensive report on the human rights situation in correctional facilities will be published.  

In brief, the GNCHR recommends the following to the authorities: 

• Hearing of detainees’ appeals shall be encouraged, and the evidence regarding detention conditions shall be thoroughly investigated, extending beyond the claims of the prison administration.
• Protection measures shall be implemented to ensure that detainees who submit appeals do not face retaliation.
• Regular, detailed statistics on detention condition appeals (e.g., number of appeals, number accepted, reasons for refusal) shall be published.
• Free legal aid shall be encouraged and facilitated, particularly for vulnerable groups (e.g., foreign nationals and individuals with mental health disorders).
• Clear and comprehensible information (including in multiple languages) concerning the process for filing an appeal and the necessary supporting evidence shall be made readily available. 

The Greek Ombudsman in its reports highlights systemic faults and shortcomings recorded in the internal process of investigating disciplinary offenses and, therefore, their durability over time, despite the recommendations and repeated interventions of the Ombudsman. 

A large group of cases pending for examination before the Court is related to alleged informal forced returns from Greece to Türkiye. Rule 39 provisional measures have been issued by the Court in a number of these cases. According to the official ECtHR statistics, 61 out of 69 interim orders in 2024 are related to border issues. In 2024, the GNCHR continued its practice (ENNHRI Rule of Law Report – Greece, p. 33) to intervene for every case communicated by civil society to the competent Greek authorities recommending them to comply with the Court’s respective interim orders (relevant information are included in the Annual Report for 2024 of the Recording Mechanism for Informal Forced Returns, to be published). On 07/01/2025, the ECtHR published two judgments against Greece on complaints by third-country nationals that they had suffered violations of ECHR rights as a result of informal forced returns (IFR) from Greece to Türkiye (Decision G.R.J. v. Greece - Alleged “pushback” of an Afghan from Greece to Türkiye; A.R.E. c. GRÈCE). The Court of Strasbourg, based on official reports of international organisations and national human rights structures, like the GNCHR, describing a rather stable and uniform modus operandi, held that at the time of the events relied on by the applicant, there was a systematic practice of pushbacks by the Greek authorities. In A.R.E. v. Greece, the Court acknowledged that the applicant suffered an IFR incident, found an infringement of Article 3 of the ECHR and pointed out that the applicant had been irregularly deported to Turkey, without any assessment of the risk she was running in Turkey, in breach of the principle of non-refoulement. Moreover, the Court found an infringement of Article 5 of the ECHR, with regard to the right to liberty and security, as the applicant was subjected to arbitrary detention without legal justification or access to remedies to challenge its lawfulness. In addition, the Court found infringements of Article 13 of the ECHR, as the applicant had no access to an effective remedy to protect her rights. In the same case, the Court, taking into account the cases of IRF incidents already investigated by the competent authorities and the fact that the proceedings regarding the applicant’s complaint were closed without an effective investigation, found that the domestic remedies alleged by the Greek Government to be available to the applicant, were not effective in complaints concerning “pushbacks” or other violations that occur during “pushbacks”. 

It is recalled that the GNCHR has repeatedly issued relevant recommendations, calling, inter alia, on the competent authorities to ensure that all the institutions of the Greek State strictly observe the principle of non-refoulement and the Greek judiciary to effectively investigate the relevant complaints. Taking into account the recent judgments of the ECtHR, the Greek NHRI underlines that its repeated recommendations to the competent bodies of the Greek state are currently highly topical. The consolidation of the IFR operations characteristics and their repeated methodology (modus operandi) have already been recorded and highlighted in the 2022 and 2023 Annual Reports of the Recording Mechanism of Informal Forced Returns which operates under the auspices of the GNCHR since January 2022. 

Finally, with respect to freedom of association group of cases that are pending for 16 years before the Committee of Ministers for execution, some progress was made following the deadlock created by the Court of Cassation's negative decisions in 2021 and 2022. More particularly, based on bilateral discussions between the Greek authorities and the Committee of Ministers, a Committee of Experts was established in 2024, comprised of Greek legal experts that would study the matter of general measures and advise the authorities on the next steps. The Committee of Experts intends to finalise its work and deliver its proposal to the authorities by June 2025. 

Court of Justice of the European Union 

Following a preliminary reference submitted by the Council of State, the CJEU, in October 2024, delivered its ruling stating that the Member States cannot launch a decision rejecting an asylum application as inadmissible on the basis of the concept of a "safe third country" in cases where they have established that the asylum seeker will not be able to enter the territory of a state described as safe. The ruling is deemed of great significance, since it contradicts the long-standing pattern of the Greek forces, that is, to horizontally dismiss asylum applications as inadmissible under the safe third country principle. Thus, the rejection should be considered as prohibited when it is not plausible for the applicants to re-enter to Türkiye, while the precondition should be examined not at the time of the decision’s execution, but during the launching of the latter (GCR, 'safe third country'; CJEU, Request for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Council of State (Council of State, Greece)). By a subsequent decision of the Plenary of the Council of State on 27 March 2025, the Joint Ministerial Decision designating Turkey as a safe third country for asylum seekers originating from Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan, and Bangladesh has been annulled.  

Greek NHRI’s activities to support the implementation of the European Courts’ judgments 

With regards to the actions taken by the NHRI to support implementation of European Courts’ judgments, the GNCHR maintains a long standing, multi-level cooperation with the European Court of Human Rights, promoting the work of the Court and contributing to the effective implementation of its judgments in Greece. In 2024, the GNCHR translated into Greek two of the Court’s thematic factsheets on interim measures and the protection of minors, aiming to facilitate the dissemination of ECtHR case-law in Greece.  

The GNCHR is also active on engaging the Greek Parliamentarians in discussions about substantial implementation of the ECtHR’s jurisprudence in cases against Greece as well as GNCHR’s recommendations on specific cases under enhanced supervision by the Committee of Ministers. In 2024, the GNCHR was invited to offer relevant insight before the Special Permanent Committee on monitoring the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in the Hellenic Parliament. The Greek NHRI continues to promote the engagement of the Parliamentarians in the implementation of European Courts’ judgments.  

The GNCHR uses the Court’s jurisprudence to help the authorities align their national practice with international standards. In its advisory opinions to draft laws or policies, the GNCHR always makes reference to relevant ECtHR caselaw. In 2024, the Greek National Commission participated in different national inter-ministerial or administrative policy-making or monitoring bodies on Roma rights, migrant rights, children rights and other. 

European Commission (European Union) 

Following the recommendations of the European Commission in previous years’ Rule of Law Reports (2022, 2023, 2024) pertaining to the involvement of the judiciary in the appointment of the highest positions of the Council of State, the Supreme Court and the Court of Audit, the Greek Parliament moved on to the adoption of art. 27 Law 5123/2024. The latter engages the administrative Plenaries of the three highest courts in the procedure leading to the appointment of their Presidents and Vice-Presidents. More particularly, the plenary of the aforementioned courts delivers its opinion (vote by secret ballot), after the formation of a query by the Minister of Justice. It has to be noted, though, that the opinion is not binding. After consulting the Conference of Presidents of Parliament and upon a proposal from the Minister for Justice, the Council of Ministers has to choose the candidates. The appointments are made by Presidential Decree, following the recommendation by the Council of Ministers. 

The new provision is in alignment with the Greek Constitution (art. 90 para. 5), as well as with the European standards, which stipulate that the head of state, the government or the legislative power take decisions concerning the selection and career of judges, an independent and competent authority drawn in substantial part from the judiciary should be authorized to make recommendations or express opinions which the relevant appointing authority follows in practice (see Council of Europe, Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities, paras 46-48).  

As the explanatory memorandum of Law 5123/2024 sets out, the amendment in question consolidates judicial independence and boosts the foundations of the rule of law. In its 2024 Rule of Law Report, the EU Commission acknowledged that its previous standing recommendation on the need for involvement of the judiciary in the appointment of the above positions has been fully implemented. 

The Greek judicial system is facing several systematic issues in the provision of legal aid and interpretation in the last years (especially after the economic crisis of the 2010s). The Legal Aid Law 3226/2004 has been found insufficient in practice, with limited resources allocated to providing quality legal representation. Based on research by the Hellenic League for Human Rights, the majority of beneficiaries of legal aid are foreigners. In half of the cases, there is no timely appointment of an interpreter by the Court. In two-thirds of cases studied, an interpreter was not available for the preparatory meeting between the defendant and their lawyer.  

In 2023 the European Commission, in the context of infringement proceedings under Article 258 TFEU, sent a letter of formal notice to Greece due to late payments to lawyers under the legal aid scheme and the consequent incorrect application of the rules laid down in the Late Payments Directive (2011/7/EU). In March 2024 Article 25 Law 5095/2024 was passed to settle the payments due to lawyers from 2018 under the legal aid scheme (from 2018 to 2022 42.000 applications for payment of legal fees were pending). The European Commission, in light of the new law provisions, decided to close the infringement case in July 2024. However, in September 2024, no payment had yet been made; therefore, the Bar Associations decided to abstain from their duties. 

European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (Council of Europe) and Human Rights Committee (UN) 

The GNCHR had multiple times recommended to the State to ensure the necessary adequate interpretation for any administrative or judicial proceedings involving third-country nationals; the exercise of the right to interpretation constitutes a basic prerequisite and guarantee for the enjoyment of foreigners’ fundamental rights. The Greek NHRI published a comprehensive report on “the right to interpretation and translation in the criminal proceedings and the right to information in the context of criminal procedures” with concrete substantiated detailed recommendations on how to establish an interpretation system in line with international and regionals standards. In 2024, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture documented cases where foreign nationals deprived of their liberty under the migration legislation were not informed of their rights and for the reasons of their detention in a language that they can understand and signed several official documents in Greek without the assistance of an official interpreter (see CPT Report). Moreover, the UN Human Rights Committee in its Concluding Observations on the 3rd periodic report of Greece recommended Greece to ensure effective access to legal aid to victims of discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and asylum seekers and migrants. 

Greece’s press freedom index improved, rising 19 places in 2024, but remains last among EU countries. The country has risen to the 88th place from 107th last year out of 180 countries, in Reporters Without Borders’ (RSF) 2024 World Press Freedom, Index. Greece’s overall score increased at 57.15 out of 100, from 55.2 in 2023. 

In its 2024 Rule of Law Report, the European Commission recommended to Greece to “further advance with the process of adopting legislative and non-legislative safeguards to improve the protection of journalists, in particular as regards abusive lawsuits against journalists and their safety, in line with the adopted Memorandum of Understanding and taking into account European standards on the protection of journalists”. 

SLAPPs cases 

According to the MRFF’s latest report, the Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation (SLAPPs) remain one of the most challenging threats in respect of the media freedom in Greece. Notwithstanding the establishment of the Task Force, the Observatory, as well as the support and training provided by the International Training Centre for the Safety of Journalists and other ME Professionals, the issues have not been resolved. 

In 2024, the Greek government introduced the amendment of Criminal Code under Law 5090/2024, setting as the main target the protection of freedom of expression and the protection of journalists from abusive lawsuits. The reform brought about the facilitation of the dismissal of manifestly unfounded claims (paragraph 3 of article 43 of the CCP). Also, the new law decriminalized the offence of simple defamation (Article 362 of the Criminal Code), while it retained the slanderous defamation, increasing the minimum sentence and making even more difficult to achieve the suspension of sentences stemming from a court of first instance, when they are appealed. The new provisions foresee the repeal of article 367 of the Code, which amounted to a justifying basis for removing the offence in favour of journalists, while they exercise their duties, on the ground of the justified interest in covering issues of public interest. Associations and scholars have raised their objection as to the effectiveness of these amendments, supporting that from now on the interested parties could only invoke the articles of the Constitution and ECHR. The GNCHR is of the view that an Anti-SLAPP legislation, which would entail the dismissal of SLAPPs at an early stage of the procedure and the simultaneous transfer of the burden of proof to the applicants, would be a positive measure, assisting in the preservation of time and resources. 

At a European level, the 7.2.2024 Resolution of the European Parliament on the state of Rule of Law in Greece encapsulates the concerns of the body, as regards the status of journalists in Greece and their ineffective protection against systematic lawsuits. The Greek Government in its extensive response to the Resolution of the Parliament supported, among others, that  ‘the Greek State is already considering transposing the content of the anti-SLAPP Directive to regulate all, without exception, abusive actions to silence journalists, and not only those actions of a cross-border nature’. On 27/02/2024, the Parliament voted in favour of a new Directive (EU) 2024/1069, which aims to protect persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded claims or abusive court proceedings in cross-border disputes. The European body highlights that it is of significant importance for journalists to exercise their duties effectively and without the fear of punishment for their research. Therefore, it provides safeguards for the alleged defendants, including early dismissal of unfounded claims, remedies against abusive lawsuits and security for costs. The member states have to incorporate the Directive by May 2026. To fully implement the act, Greece has to move on to some legal reforms in order to deter comprehensively the phenomenon designated above.  

Additionally, the UN Human Rights Committee in its Concluding Observations on the 3rd periodic report of Greece (2024) stated that ‘it remains concerned about reports that local officials file strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) to suppress critical news reporting and put financial and psychological pressure on journalists’. The Greek NHRI in its Submission to the UN Human Rights Committee (September 2024, p. 23) reiterated its recommendation on ensuring the unhindered exercise of the journalistic function, urging the Greek State to take measures to protect and compensate victims of “strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs). 

The GNCHR, based on information from publicly available sources, recorded the following SLAPP cases in the past year: 

• According to the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom, in 2025, there is one lawsuit against two journalists, Konstantinos Poulis and Anna Nini, submitted by the convicted for the fatal bodily harm of activist Zak Kostopoulos. The applicant accused the respondents of defamation and misuse of sensitive personal data, mainly concerning the footage and reports from the court sessions.
• After being acquitted, the businessman Aristidis Floros, demanded the deletion of 182 posts related to his cases, including a cartoon, from the news outlet Tvxs. The Journalists’ Union of Athens Daily Newspapers (ESIEA) expressed its concern for these practices, highlighting that ‘they directly threaten the principles of freedom of the press and urged the government ‘to take a stand, institutionally shielding the media from similar threats and SLAPP practices in cases of public interest’.
• On 25 January 2024, a case against two journalists of Reporters United was heard in Athens Court of First Instance. This case was initiated in 2022 by Grigoris Dimitriadis, who was allegedly involved in the illegal surveillance scandal against newspaper EFSYN and online investigative portal Reporters United and their reporters Nikolas Leontopoulos and Thodoris Chondrogiannos, plus freelance journalist Thanasis Koukakis for compensation. In 2023 Dimitriadis filed a second lawsuit against many of the same plaintiffs for the same reasons. Journalists’ associations denounce the above lawsuits as SLAPPs (e.g. Media Freedom Rapid Response, Mission Report Greece 2024, pp. 18-19). Many press organizations and groups came to the support of the journalists, requesting the implementation of effective anti-SLAPP legislation. The Athens Court of First Instance held its ruling on 10/10/2024, dismissing Dimitriadis allegations regarding the first of the lawsuits. As the judges concluded, the reports were not false, abusive or libelous, while they recognized the public interest element of the reporting. The decision was welcomed by the relevant associations, which highlighted the vindication of the investigative journalism against the increasing trend of SLAPPs and the meaning behind the reference of the court to the Constitution and ECHR (Human Rights Watch, Victory for Greek journalists in Surveillance case, 16/10/2024).
• On 19 September 2024, the Appeal Court heard the appeal of the journalist Stavroula Poulimeni and media outlet Alterthess against their partial conviction by the First Instance Court for violating the right to privacy by publicizing the names of two Hellas Gold executives, who were involved in a water pollution case. The partner organisations of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR) and the Panhellenic Federation of Editors’ Unions expressed their support to Poulimeni condemning and reporting the weaponization of GDPR against press freedom in Greece.
• The judgment nr. 123/2024 of the Court of First Instance in Larissa was positively received by the Panhellenic Federation of Editors’ Unions. The Court dismissed a lawsuit filed by Giorgos Mihalopoulos against five journalists, with which the former demanded an excessively high amount of compensation.
• With the judgement nr. 3487/2024 held by the Athens Court of First Instance, a lawsuit filed against NAFTEMPORIKI was rejected. The applicant had requested compensation for alleged abuse of his personality (POESI, SLAPPs Observatory). 

POESY has created a form on its website where SLAPPs can be recorded. Journalists, victims of SLAPPs can submit in full confidentiality information on their cases. However, the cases will be processed only for information purposes. In addition to the form, POESY also provides information on SLAPP cases and other SLAPP-related news, and it collects relevant information on legislative developments related to SLAPPs. While this initiative is a welcome tool to gather information and at the same time to raise awareness on SLAPPS, at the moment it appears to be the only one aimed at countering SLAPPs. It is also significant that many journalists didn’t seem to be aware of it as they also seemed to be unaware of the government’s Task Force. More initiatives will have to be developed to provide support for journalists and tackle the problems of SLAPPs. 

Journalists’ safety 

In 2024, the Mapping Media Freedom platform recorded 19 alerts pertaining to the safety of journalists (physical assaults, fines blocked access, obstruction, surveillance etc.), while, from the beginning of the year up until today, the incidents enumerated are 6. Accordingly, the Council of Europe’s Platform displays 3 active alerts in 2024 and 1 in 2025, whereas, in general, there are two cases of impunity and one active systemic alert. Some illustrative cases of these reports concern physical assaults resulting in journalists’ injury by riot police, when the former were covering demonstrations and protests. For instance, on 26 January 2025, Marios Lolos, a photojournalist, reported his attack by the riot police, during a protest that took place in Athens commemorating the Tempi train collision (Council of Europe, Safety of Journalists’ Platform, Greece, Alert No. 28/2025). Another case involving the photojournalist Orestis Panagiotou, who was injured while covering a strike by water shooting by the police forces was heard before the First Instance Administrative Court of Athens, which ruled in favour of the victim in October 2024. The Court made an explicit reference to the Greek Constitution, as well as to article 10 of the ECHR, which establishes the freedom of the press. 

As it has been highlighted by the partner organisations of the Media Freedom Rapid Response (MFRR), along with Reporters Without Borders and the Committee to Protect Journalists, in their latest report , the bill on suspending the confidentiality of communications, cybersecurity and the protection of citizens’ personal data continues to fall short of what is foreseen by the European standards. Consequently, the journalists remain unprotected when it comes to the right to protect the confidentiality of their sources.  

Additionally, the OECD does not oversee state’s efforts to establish a safe environment for investigative journalism, but it highlights that some concerns are still present. 

Cases of impunity 

With respect to the case of Giorgos Karaivaz that is monitored by the EU Commission and European Parliament within the rule of law cycle, the Greek NHRI informs that the crime and police reporter who was shot and killed by two men outside his home, the Athens mixed jury court, on 31 July 2024, did not manage to find beyond reasonable doubt that the suspects were guilty. Therefore, although the Prosecutor had requested their conviction, the two hitmen were acquitted. 

In respect of the murder of the reporter and broadcaster Sokratis Giolias that took place in 2010, the Ministry of Citizen Protection released its response stating that the investigation remains at the Athens Public Prosecutor’s Office, since there was no sufficient evidence and, thus, no active lines of inquiry.  

Transparency and media ownership 

During 2024, the registration of websites on the Registry for Electronic Press (MHT) was completed securing, thus, more information as regards the media owners. The National Council for Radio and Television (NCRTV) and its Transparency Department do not provide updated data, mainly due to limited financial and human resources. Consequently, changes in media concentrations or ownership cannot be monitored on time. The Euromedia Ownership Monitor has pointed out the problem set out above, highlighting the lack of transparency in the broadcasting sector. The Media Capture Monitoring Report stipulates that many points of articles 6 and 22 of EMFA are encapsulated in the Greek law, but their compliance remains contested.  

According to 2024 MPM, the indicator of Transparency of Media Ownership witnessed a significant reduction reaching the percentage of 25%, mainly due to the adoption of Law 5005/2022. The Plurality of Media Providers area adheres to a medium risk, whereas the score of Plurality in Digital Markets remains high, at 86% (it might have its cause to the delays emerged in the registration of websites). With respect to the state funding, the UNHRC in the 2024 assessment underscored that ‘remains concerned that the law (L 5005/2022) may be misused to exclude media that are critical of the government from receiving state advertising revenue’.  Moreover, Media Capture Monitoring Report underpins that a high percentage of state funding is allocated via several subsidies, whose distribution requirements remain obscure. The upgrade of the e-Pasithea information system and the implementation of the EC Directive 2022-2523 (concerning a global minimum level of taxation for multinational enterprise groups and large-scale domestic groups in the Union) are noted as positive steps for the enhancement of the media sector. The UN Human Rights Committee took note of the adoption of Law No. 5005/2022 on strengthening the publicity and transparency of print and electronic media, which provided for the establishment of an independent committee in charge of overseeing the compliance of print and online media with journalistic ethics. Nevertheless, the HRC is concerned that the law may be misused to exclude media that are critical of the Government from receiving State advertising revenue.  

National Council for Radio and Television 

In May 2024, the Athens Bar Association filed an application to the Council of State requesting the annulment of the ministerial decision with which members of the NCRTV had been appointed. The Court dismissed the case claiming that the Association lacked the legal interest required. Additionally, the NCRTV faces challenges as regards the financial and human resources. In its annual report for 2023 the latter highlights the reduction that it has undergone in respect of the budget required since 2010 (i.e. salaries, personnel, equipment, information systems), which creates impediments to the exercise of its task. The NCRTV’s activity is supervised by the Special Permanent Committee on Institutions and Transparency of the Greek Parliament. According to the Media Pluralism Monitor (MPM) indicators, the independence and effectiveness of the media authority shows a significantly high risk, reaching the percentage of 83%. The number might have its roots in the opaque and highly contested procedures that took place during the appointment of the new board, culminating in the application for annulment before the Council of State. 

Access to documents 

Journalists covering migration and refugee issues have shared information with the GNCHR, reporting increasing difficulties in accessing information and sources in recent years. They attribute these challenges to ministries’ refusals to provide information, often citing privacy or confidentiality concerns as justification. Similarly, they report that they do not have free access to the refugee population hosted in reception and accommodation facilities. The GNCHR recalls that in Szurovecz v. Hungary, the ECtHR found that denial of access to a journalist on privacy and security grounds was not a sufficient basis for this restriction and found a violation of Article 10 of the ECHR, again underlining the 'watchdog' role of the media and the fact that their presence is a guarantee to ensure the accountability of the authorities. 

As the Greco’s 2024 fifth evaluation report states, ‘GRECO recommended undertaking an independent assessment on access to information requirements in order to adopt regulation, and the necessary implementation measures, that fully meet the standards of the Council of Europe Convention on Access to Official Documents’.  Notwithstanding the initiation of a reformation of the Administrative Procedure Code conducted by the Greek government, Greco insists that, still, there is no dedicated freedom of information act, since the scope of the recommendation is much broader than a mere code amendment. As a result, the latter does not consider the recommendation as implemented, since the state did not take into account the challenges emerged from the current legislation. 

Under Law 5143/2024 (article 57), article 5 of the Code of Administrative Procedure was amended. In alignment with the reform, the current title makes a reference to public documents, while the private ones held by public authorities fall –officially- within this category. Additionally, the special legitimate interest is not, principally, a prerequisite for having access to private documents, facilitating in that way the process. As it was supported during the public consultation ‘the proposed regulation incorporates the implementation of the Council of Europe's Tromsø Convention on Access to Public Document. The results of the amendment remain to be seen.  

Restrictions on trial coverage 

Article 8(1) L 3090/2002, as replaced by Article 31 L 5119/2024, prohibits full or partial broadcast of trials. The restriction of the coverage received severe criticism by journalists’ organisations and scholars, as to its compatibility with the Greek Constitution.  

European Court of Human Rights 

In 2024 three cases that were brought before the ECtHR against Greece are of particular interest to journalistic freedom: 

1. Ilias Kanellis and Andreas Pappas v. Greece & Maria Vasilaki and Emmanouil Vasilakis v. Greece (2024): The case concerned civil defamation proceedings against the applicants, in their capacities as co-directors, journalist and editor of the magazine “The Athens Review of Books”. The ECtHR confirmed the domestic courts’ assessment, holding that the boundaries of responsible journalism had been overstepped.
2. Thomaidis v. Greece (2024): The case concerned civil liability damages imposed on the applicant, a journalist and main presenter of a television programme for revelation of witness statements in a match fixing case pending before justice. The ECHR ruled that ‘it is legitimate for special protection to be afforded to the secrecy of judicial investigation in criminal proceedings in view of what is at stake, both for the administration of justice and for the right of persons under investigation to be presumed innocent’ and that ‘the punishment of a journalist for assisting in the dissemination of statements made by another person in an interview would seriously hamper the contribution of the press to discussion of matters of public interest and should not be envisaged unless there are particularly strong reasons for doing so’. In the particular case, the Court found that the domestic courts adduced standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 of the ECHR.
3. Vouliwatch v. Greece (communicated in August 2024): The case involves a request by the applicant association for access to documents pertaining to the contract signed between the General Secretariat of Information and Communication of the Greek Government and a private company on creating information material for the public on combatting Covid-19. National instances (the National Transparency Authority and Administrative Courts) have dismissed its request due to lack of special interest according to the national law. The applicant invokes Article 10 of the ECHR complaining that the denial of access to the requested information is in breach of its right to receive and impart information, underscoring its role as its role as ‘public watchdog’. 

Follow-up to the 2024 European Commission’s recommendation to Greece 

In order to fully implement the recommendation issued by the European Commission, Greece adopted some legislative and non-legislative safeguards, so as to afford a better environment to journalists and investigative journalism, especially as regards the threats stemming from SLAPPs. 

In February 2024, the amended Criminal Code abolished the criminal offence of simple defamation, while the slanderous defamation was retained. As it was underscored previously, the amendment of Criminal Code under Law 5090/2024 aimed to the protection of freedom of expression and the protection of journalists from abusive lawsuits. Nonetheless, the Greek NHRI informs that many associations and scholars do not concur and have raised reservations as to the effectiveness of the new provisions and relevant reforms.  

In May 2024, a collective labour agreement was established between the state and the unions, pertaining to the public sector journalists. This movement was welcomed by the trade unions (practical improvements for better working conditions, protection in war zones and areas of natural disasters, financial-social protection). It entails provisions which solidify gender equality and secure the protection for women journalists against harassment (inclusion, equal opportunities, and harassment policies, financial and social support to new spouses and mothers, creation of a Committee with the task to monitor the effective implementation of the gender equality provisions, phenomena of harassment and violence). 

Law 5085/2024 on "Urgent Measures for the Prevention of Violence at Sporting Events”. Following an initiative of Task Force, these provisions were welcomed by journalists’ unions as reinforcing their protection while covering sport events. 

The European Media Freedom Act (EMFA, May 2024), obliges member states to amend domestic media bills, so as to tackle the issue of media capture. The reforms in question entail securing media regulator independence, transparency in media ownership, safeguarding media pluralism, and delimiting state influence on editorial policies. The level of Greece’s compliance with the provisions of the act is deemed partial. 

Effective and timely investigations of incidents of alleged misconduct involving state official 

The GNCHR received a request for the first time by the European Court of Human Rights to submit a written intervention as regards the cases of G.R.J. v. Greece (15067/21) and A.E. v. Greece (15783/21). These cases were related to two applications against the Greek Authorities, lodged with the ECtHR by persons requesting international protection, on reported incidents of informal forced returns for the period 2019 – 2020 both at land and at sea. The Strasbourg Court requested from the GNCHR an answer to the general question whether there is a systematic practice of pushbacks of third-country nationals from Greece to Türkiye at the land and sea borders. GNCHR’s intervention was based on the findings of the Recording Mechanism of Incidents of Informal Forced Returns. On 07.01.2025, the ECtHR published its judgments on A.R.E. v. Greece and G.R.J. v. Greece acknowledging that at the time of the events and based on the reports of international organizations and national institutions, there was a systematic practice of pushbacks by the Greek authorities. The Recording Mechanism of Informal Forced Returns, operated under the GNCHR recommended in its Annual Report 2023 to the Greek Authorities to “investigate in an independent and efficient manner, all complaints lodged by persons alleging to have been subjected to IFR incidents and other incidents of serious human rights violations at the borders, by applying, mutatis mutandis, the provisions laid down in the Circulars of the Prosecutor of the Supreme Court No 1/2023 and No 18/2023,56 underlining that any failure to act in this regard is not only contrary to the obligations of the Greek Authorities pursuant to international human rights law and the ECHR, but risks to put the country on an embarrassing spot and ends up to new convictions by the ECtHR [see for example ECtHR (5418/15) Safi & Others v. Greece]”. 

On 21.01.2025 the ECtHR published its judgement on Panayotopoulos and others v. Greece which acknowledged a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR (ill-treatment by the police). The case concerned a police violence incident that occurred in October 2016, involving three Roma people. While in custody, they were allegedly subjected to racist abuse and violence, including being beaten, in an attempt to extract information and confessions. One of the applicants ended up in hospital two days later complaining of chest pains, with wounds to his genitals. The Strasbourg Court found the violation of Article 3 in conjunction with Article 14 based on racial motivation. Based on the findings of the Racist Violence Recording Network, in the last six years 40-60% of the racial incidents involve targeting by officers in uniform. The Racist Violence Recording Network for 2023 recorded incidents against Greek Roma citizens who were targeted by other citizens and Police representatives because of their different ethnic origin, including a pregnant woman and minors. At the same time, the Network is closely following the developments on the murders of young Roma involving officers in uniform, highlighting the importance and need for the investigation of the incidents in light of the existence of a racist motive. The Network notes that the context of targeting experienced by the Roma community is broader and permeates all its aspects racism, highlighting their treatment as "less" Greeks (RVRN Annual Report 2023, p. 17). In 2025, a bill was passed by the Parliament on the reform of the Police Corps (Law 5187/2025). Among other provisions, a Directorate for Social Policing is established to cover domestic violence, racist violence and gender violence. The Greek NHRI supported the reform given that there are many common elements in both investigation and victim support in these fields.  

Checks and balances (independence of independent authorities) 

In the GNCHR Rule of Law Report for 2024 (p. 16), the Greek National Commission denounced the unconstitutional selection and appointment of new members of the National Council for Radio and Television (NCRT) and the ADAE and the serious impediments that ADAE faced in the execution of its mission. The Greek Council of State dismissed the appeal of the Bar Association of Athens on the unconstitutionality of the election of NCRT and ADAE members due to a lack of sufficient interest of the applicant. Article 90(g) of the Lawyers Code (L 4194/2023) which explicitly foresees that bar associations may intervene before the courts and any authority “on any matter of national, social, cultural, economic nature or content that is of interest to their members or to the legal profession in general, as well as on any matter of national, social, cultural or economic interest.” The ECtHR has already convicted Greece for its Supreme Courts’ excessive formalism, especially at the stage of admissibility, impairing, thus, the fair trial right (see ECtHR, Tsiolis v. Greece, Judgment, 19.11.2024, and Zouboulidis v. Greece (No 3), Judgment, 4.6.2024).  

The Greek NHRI depicts that there is still a worrying trend for governmental authority to interfere in the exercise of the independent authorities’ oversight and investigatory powers as enshrined in the Constitution and its executive laws. On 19 February 2025, the GNCHR published a Statement on the need to respect the constitutionally enshrined supervisory role of the Independent Authorities on the occasion of the issuance of a Press Release by the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Insular Policy. The latter responded to the publication of the findings of the Greek Ombudsman on the Pylos shipwreck by claiming that the investigation was politically motivated, questioning also the Greek Ombudsman’s competence to investigate these incidents since his term has already expired (contrary to the provisions of Article 101 of the Greek Constitution).

The Hungarian National Human Rights Institution (NHRI) currently holds a B-status after being downgraded in March 2022. In October 2019, the SCA had decided to defer its decision on the re-accreditation of the NHRI. In June 2021, the SCA recommended that the Hungarian NHRI be downgraded to B-status, with recommendations on ‘addressing human rights violations’, ‘selection and appointment’, ‘interaction with the international human rights system’ and ‘cooperation with civil society’. The Hungarian NHRI had one year to provide the documentary evidence necessary to establish its continued conformity with the UN Paris Principles and maintained its A-status during this period. However, in March 2022, the SCA confirmed its recommendation for the Hungarian NHRI to be downgraded to B-status. The NHRI challenged this recommendation before the GANHRI Bureau, in accordance with Article 12 of the GANHRI Statute. This challenge was not successful, and the decision became final on 17 May 2022. 

The SCA recommendations have been reviewed by the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary (CFR) and they are used in his practical work. While his primary responsibility lies in protecting the rights ensured in the Fundamental Law of Hungary and in a broader sense, the values enshrined therein, during his proceedings, he pays special attention to the standards formulated in international treaties and the recommendations made by international organisations as well. The Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary continues to be open to dialogues with both national and international organisations with a view to sharing and getting familiar with their useful experience. 

The European Commission 2024 Rule of Law Report on Hungary explains that the competence of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary (CFR) was significantly extended in 2023, i.e., to the protection of the rights of persons with disabilities and whistle-blowers. It should be stressed that the wide range of investigations conducted in 2024, the number of issued reports, as well as the broad range of fundamental rights concerned all prove that the extension of the competences of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary has in fact strengthened the efficiency of rights protection.  

The legal institution of the CFR, which is an organ with administrative powers that is also responsible for the enforcement of the principle of equal treatment from 1 January 2021, meets the requirement of independence from the aspects of legal regulation, personal conditions and organisational structure alike. 

The CFR pays special attention to ensuring that his activity extends to the broadest possible spectrum of the protection of fundamental rights, furthermore, he strives to give detailed, professionally informed answers to all international inquiries. In the course of this activity, the CFR regularly participates in personal meetings and professional events and receives experts in his Office. In those areas of fundamental rights protection that are especially sensitive, the work of the CFR is supported by two internationally esteemed deputy commissioners (one responsible for the protection of the rights of national minorities living in Hungary, and another one in charge of the interests of future generations) elected by the National Assembly, furthermore, his professional decisions are supported by senior experts and staff members with special knowledge, who are working for the organisational units with responsibilities clearly defined in the internal regulations (OPCAT, principle of equal treatment, police complaints, CRPD Independent Monitoring Mechanism, whistle-blower protection).   

Two directives of the European Union adopted in 2024, included gender-specific issues i.e., 

• Directive (EU) 2024/1500 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 on standards for equality bodies in the field of equal treatment and equal opportunities between women and men in matters of employment and occupation, and amending Directives 2006/54/EC and 2010/41/EU,
• Council Directive (EU) 2024/1499 of 7 May 2024 on standards for equality bodies in the field of equal treatment between persons irrespective of their racial or ethnic origin, equal treatment in matters of employment and occupation between persons irrespective of their religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, equal treatment between women and men in matters of social security and in the access to and supply of goods and services, and amending Directives 2000/43/EC and 2004/113/EC. 

The Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary places particular emphasis on ensuring compliance with relevant legal directives, for example within penitentiary institutions. In fulfilment of this mandate, the CFR conducts on-site visits to personally assess the implementation of these directives. 

The regulations defining the procedure of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary that are set out in Act CXI of 2011 on the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary (hereinafter referred to as: the CFR Act) were not modified in their substance in 2024. 

The rules for access to classified data were modified and the respective provisions of the CFR Act were adjusted to these with effect of 1 March 2024. All this does not meaningfully affect the exercise of the Ombudsman’s powers, this is merely about an amendment serving legal harmonisation purposes. 

The Hungarian NHRI's mandate to contribute to access to justice for individuals has been overall strengthened since 2022 in relation to complaints handling, strategic litigation before courts, providing legal assistance to individuals, awareness-raising.  

One of the content criteria of the rule of law is the establishment and operation of a system of safeguards that guarantee fundamental rights. These safeguards include the establishment of the institution of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary (CFR) that is meant to protect fundamental rights, which is only accountable to the National Assembly. The Fundamental Law of Hungary created an Ombudsman system that ensures the uniform, efficient and comprehensive protection of fundamental rights. The CFR is a public function regulated on the constitutional level, which is elected by the National Assembly by a two-third majority for a six-year period, thus ensuring a high level of legitimation. 

It is his responsibility to protect fundamental rights and to ensure that the activity of the authorities does not violate the constitutional rights of the citizens. Pursuant to Article 30 of the Fundamental Law of Hungary, the Ombudsman carries out fundamental rights protection activities, his proceedings may be launched by anyone. He investigates into or gets expert to investigate into any improprieties regarding fundamental rights and he initiates general or individual measures in order to remedy them. 

The operation of the Office is established by Hungary’s highest-level legal source, the Fundamental Law of Hungary, which defines the mandate and procedural framework of the Ombudsman. The detailed regulations governing its functions are further specified in Act CXI of 2011 on the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary. The Office of the Ombudsman is independent from the executive power and the courts, and it serves to supplement the self-controlling mechanisms of state power, to ensure the protection of fundamental rights and to work as an efficient tool of the control function of the Parliament. 

In the course of his activities, the CFR pays special attention to the interests of future generations, the rights of national minorities living in Hungary, the rights of children, and the protection of the rights of the most vulnerable social groups. Anyone is free to initiate his proceedings. 

The CFR is not eligible to launch judicial proceedings for remedying the disclosed impropriety in his general Ombudsman’s competence. However, he may interfere with the already launched judicial proceedings, i.e., he may support the successful litigation of the claimant or the defendant: 

• in lawsuits for the review of a police decision on a police complaint that he has investigated into;
• in administrative cases launched against administrative decisions related to the condition of the environment.  

The Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary may conduct an administrative procedure in order to enforce equal treatment and the administrative decision adopted by him may be subjected to judicial review.  

In any cases that cannot be reviewed due to the lack of competence, the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary pays special attention to informing the petitioners of the possible legal remedies, including the option of going to court. 

Extension of Mandate 

One of the key elements of the changes of the past five years was the extension of the mandate of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary, which included four priority areas: the handling of police complaints (2020), the protection of the principle of equal treatment (2021), the protection of the rights of persons with disabilities (2023), as well as whistle-blowers protection (2023). These new responsibilities have led to the establishment of a uniquely integrated fundamental rights protection system in Hungary, combining administrative and Ombudsman-type mechanisms. With the extension of its mandates, the CFR now has the authority not only to issue non-binding recommendations for remedying identified improprieties but also to make administrative decisions through a separate procedure. In cases where a violation of the principle of equal treatment is established through an Ombudsman-type procedure, the CFR may impose sanctions, including ordering the enforceable termination of the infringement, prohibiting similar conduct in the future, or levying fines ranging from HUF 50,000 to HUF 6,000,000. 

In connection with this, 2023 saw yet another addition to the mandates of the NHRI covering an important international aspect. In 2023, in compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), a CRPD Independent Monitoring Mechanism was set up within the Office, which promotes, protects and monitors the national-level implementation of the Convention with regard to persons with disabilities. 

Among the newly introduced authorizations, a key development is the legislator’s provision allowing whistle-blowers to request anonymity, a safeguard that has been ensured through a secure electronic system since 24 July 2023. This system enhances the security and confidentiality of whistle-blowers reports, fostering greater trust and encouraging the disclosure of public interest concerns. Additionally, the regulation reinforces oversight by ensuring that fundamental rights-related inquiries extend to the procedures of state bodies that receive and assess public interest disclosures, including those operating independent whistleblowing systems. 

To effectively fulfil these new responsibilities, the establishment of a dedicated, well-trained staff and specialized organizational units became essential. The gradual expansion of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary’s competences has contributed to the development of a highly efficient Ombudsman system, further strengthening fundamental rights protection. 

Regional Offices and Temporary Regional Office  

Between 40-44% of individuals initiating Ombudsman procedures in Hungary over the past five years were residents of Budapest or Pest County. To enhance nationwide accessibility, particularly for disadvantaged groups facing financial and digital barriers, the CFR established six regional offices in 2022 in Debrecen, Szeged, Győr, Székesfehérvár, Miskolc, and Pécs. This initiative has significantly improved access to rights protection services. 

The CFR’s regional office model is recognized as exemplary in Europe, attracting international delegations. The Ombudsman also played a key role in global rights protection efforts, particularly in response to the Ukrainian-Russian conflict. Within two days of the war’s outbreak, he visited border areas and set up temporary regional offices in Záhony and Beregsurány to provide legal and humanitarian support. Additionally, since March 2022, the CFR’s website has offered critical information in Hungarian, Ukrainian, and English. 

The regional and temporary offices ensure nationwide legal aid and rapid humanitarian response. In autumn 2024, the NHRI shared information on these activities with the International Rescue Committee NGO. 

Mobile Ombudsman’s Office (Educational Initiative) 

On the occasion of World Children’s Day in 2024, the National Human Rights Institution (NHRI) launched the Mobile Ombudsman’s Office Programme, an innovative initiative designed to enhance accessibility to fundamental rights protection services across the country. The programme operates through a specially equipped mobile office, housed within a converted bus, which functions as a regional office in any location, ensuring broader outreach and engagement with communities nationwide.   

At present, the programme primarily focuses on promoting awareness of children’s rights. As part of this initiative, the mobile office visits children's homes and educational institutions to strengthen children's legal knowledge and foster their understanding of their rights. The educational programme consists of a structured, interactive learning experience: children first watch an age-appropriate short film, followed by an opportunity to assess their knowledge through an online quiz. Additionally, they are given the chance to engage directly with children’s rights experts, enabling them to ask questions and gain deeper insights into their rights and legal protections. 

Exemplary Client Service 

The Office of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary underwent considerable infrastructural development in the period between 2019 and 2024. In August 2020, the Office moved to new headquarters, which are in a revamped building at Falk Miksa utca 9–11 in Budapest’s 5. district. The new, modern facility provides a state-of-the-art working environment, in line with the requirements of the 21st century, whose level of professional and technical equipment, availability, accessibility, as well as the staff’s high-level professional qualifications all serve the purpose of ensuring the protection and practical enforcement of fundamental rights even to the most vulnerable groups of society, especially to persons with disabilities.  

With a view to the professional and comprehensive management of complaints, the staff members of the complaint office, both at the Budapest headquarters and at the regional offices, receive continuous further training on the changes in the effective laws and they take part in sensitisation training sessions several times a year. In 2024, it was the experts of the Directorate-General for Equal Treatment (DGET) who provided the sensitisation training sessions for the staff.  

The NHRI would like to present its practice in which the staff members of DGET hold the hearings and meetings in a specifically designed conference hall of the Office. This room is free of barriers both physically and from an info-communication perspective, and it is also equipped with an induction loop.  

The delegations visiting the Office always praise the facilities and practices of the complaint office, as well as the reception hall for the complainants, which is not only barrier-free but also, child-friendly. 

The Fundamental Law of Hungary provides a modern legal framework that upholds fundamental rights and effectively addresses contemporary challenges. The CFR operates with full independence, safeguarded by constitutional and statutory guarantees against political or economic influence. As a supervisory body of the National Assembly, the Ombudsman enjoys institutional autonomy, with strong democratic legitimacy ensured by an election process requiring nomination by the President of the Republic and election by a two-thirds parliamentary majority. The six-year mandate is renewable once, promoting stability and continuity. 

Candidates must be highly qualified legal professionals with significant expertise or at least ten years of experience in fundamental rights-related proceedings or legal scholarship. The Ombudsman holds personal immunity equivalent to Members of Parliament, reinforcing independence. The Ombudsman’s work is guided solely by law, with reports being final and not subject to appeal. Transparency and accountability are maintained through public reporting and open procedures. 

The relevant state authorities have good awareness of the Hungarian NHRI’s mandate, independence and role. The NHRI fulfils a widely acknowledged and accepted role in the area of rights protection, which is confirmed by continuous and constructive cooperation with the partners concerned. 

Partnerships and Cooperation 

The Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary (CFR) has achieved significant progress in fostering constructive and results-oriented partnerships with state institutions. Ombudsman investigations serve not only as a means of oversight but also as a platform for promoting long-term, cooperative engagement aimed at enhancing the protection of fundamental rights. The National Human Rights Institution (NHRI) maintains close collaboration with key Hungarian institutions, particularly those involved in child protection and social services, the Hungarian Police, the Hungarian Prison Service, and state forestry companies. Through joint professional meetings and active participation in legislative and regulatory processes, the NHRI has further strengthened its role and recognition within the national institutional framework, reinforcing its commitment to ensuring effective rights protection. 

Acceptance of recommendations 

Approximately 90% of the recommendations outlined in the reports issued by the NHRI are accepted and incorporated into the operations of the relevant institutions. This high rate of implementation underscores the credibility and effectiveness of the Ombudsman’s inquiries, demonstrating that the findings not only merit attention but also serve as valuable guidance for improving institutional practices and strengthening the protection of fundamental rights.  

The organisational and operational rules kept in effect or issued by the Government formed as a result of the 2022 elections (e.g.  BM (Ministry of Interior) instruction No. 12/2022 (VI. 28.) on the Organisational and Operational Rules of the Ministry of Interior, or IM (Ministry of Justice) instruction No. 5/2024 (VI.20.) on the Organisational and Operational Rules of the Ministry of Justice) define which senior manager or organisational unit of the ministry is responsible for the crafting of a position statement and the preparation of a response to the measure proposed by the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary. 

Significant Changes since 2022 

Under the leadership of the Ombudsman, the Office has established cooperation with numerous new partners, with a particular focus on safeguarding the rights of society’s most vulnerable groups, including children, persons with disabilities, and the elderly. The NHRI remains steadfast in its commitment to reducing social inequalities and upholding respect for human dignity, reinforcing its role as a key advocate for fundamental rights and inclusive societal development. 

The Hungarian NHRI has adequate access to information and to policy makers and is it involved in all stages of legislation and policy making with human rights implications. Based on his mandate, the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary is fully authorised to, and capable of participating in each phase of human rights-related legislation and policy-making. 

Legislative Consultation and Cooperation 

In accordance with Section 20 (2) of the CFR Act, the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary (CFR) is entitled to provide comments on draft legislation falling within the scope of his competencies. The CFR actively exercises this mandate and consistently emphasizes the importance of this consultation obligation in its annual reports. 

The experience of the National Human Rights Institution (NHRI) indicates that the relevant authorities and institutions demonstrate a cooperative approach, ensuring compliance with consultation requirements and providing the necessary information within the prescribed deadlines. This collaborative framework contributes to the effective integration of fundamental rights considerations into the legislative process. 

Investigative Powers and On-Site Inspections 

The NHRI possesses broad investigative powers, which it exercises in full compliance with statutory requirements. In 2024, the NHRI conducted numerous on-site inspections at various institutions, including children's homes, retirement homes, residential care facilities for persons with disabilities, and penitentiary institutions. 

The findings from these visits informed a series of recommendations aimed at improving conditions and ensuring compliance with fundamental rights standards. The majority of these recommendations were accepted by the relevant institutions, reflecting the effectiveness of the NHRI’s oversight and its role in fostering positive institutional reforms. 

Cooperation with Policymakers 

The NHRI takes part in legislative decision-making and policy-making on an ongoing basis, for example, in its report No. AJB-1262-29/2023, in which he drew attention to the issues concerning the detainees’ rights of contact. In their response, BVOP, i.e., the Hungarian Prison Service Headquarters accepted the measures taken by the CFR and took measures to ensure the practical implementation of the proposals made in the report. In the wake of the report, the organ concerned amended BVOP instruction No. 12/2020 (IV. 24.) on the procedural rules of conducting visits in its own competence with effect from 1 July 2024. On the other hand, the legislator amended the respective sections of Act CCXL of 2013 on the execution of punishments, criminal measures, certain coercive measures and confinement for administrative offences in line with the recommendations with effect from 1 March 2025. 

Participation in the Legislative Process 

In 2024, the NHRI played an increasingly significant role in legislative preparation, including contributions to the amendment of law enforcement regulations. This growing level of cooperation and recognition further reinforces the NHRI’s professional credibility and influence in shaping human rights-related policies. 

The NHRI has appropriate access to both the necessary information and key policymakers, enabling it to actively participate in all stages of the legislative and policy-making process concerning fundamental rights. Notably, 2024 saw an expansion of opportunities for the NHRI to be involved in the drafting of legislation, further solidifying its role as a key stakeholder in promoting human rights-based governance. 

Budget of the Hungarian NHRI 

The budgetary resources required for the comprehensive performance of the tasks by the Hungarian NHRI were available in 2024. 

The protection of the NHRI’s leadership and staff 

The independence of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary (CFR) is ensured by legal guarantees that exclude political or economic influence. The Ombudsman and his two deputies enjoy the same immunity as members of the National Assembly, ensuring that they cannot be held accountable for facts or opinions expressed in the course or performance of their duties. However, this immunity does not extend to certain criminal offences, such as incitement against a community or the desecration of a national symbol, nor does it exempt them from civil liability. The staff of the Office of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary are considered public officials and therefore benefit from enhanced legal protection, which covers crimes committed against them in their official capacity. 

The physical protection of customer service employees is provided by security personnel during consultations and hearings. Additionally, internal regulations ensure equal opportunity support for employees, with particular attention to those with young children, single parents, individuals with illnesses or disabilities, and employees over the age of 50, such as through flexible working hours. The transparency of the Ombudsman’s operations is maintained through clear procedures and publicly accessible reports, further reinforcing its independence and institutional safeguards. 

The Office of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary has not faced any external threats during the discussed period. In a statement issued in December of the year preceding the parliamentary elections, the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary emphasized the importance of a society-wide commitment to constitutional fundamental values.

To strengthen the independence and effectiveness of human rights institutions, the NHRI formulates three key recommendations that remain relevant as of today in line with the recommendations of its 2022 baseline report. These recommendations focus on promoting accessibility, enhancing the protection of the rights of homeless individuals, and ensuring the enforcement of human dignity. 

Regarding accessibility, the NHRI places special emphasis on ensuring equal access to rights, particularly for persons with disabilities. A notable example is the operation of the regional customer service office of the Directorate-General for Disability Affairs, which, thanks to modern infrastructure, ensures the practical realization of fundamental rights. The Debrecen-based office serves as a model of best practices for both domestic and international delegations. A report detailing the challenges and recommendations related to accessibility further explores the difficulties persons with disabilities face when accessing public services. 

To protect the rights of homeless individuals, the NHRI considers combating the criminalization of homelessness one of its key priorities. The protection of human dignity is a fundamental priority for the most vulnerable groups. The NHRI recommends strengthening appropriate policy measures to ensure that all individuals have access to the conditions necessary for a dignified life. 

Ensuring the enforcement of human dignity is a core objective for the NHRI, serving to uphold the rights of every individual. According to the NHRI, continuously updating human rights protection measures and a particular focus on the situation of the most vulnerable groups are essential for increasing effectiveness. 

These recommendations align with those outlined in the previous baseline report and offer appropriate responses to contemporary social challenges. 

There is no known case of a member of a civil society organization being subjected to a violent attack or retaliatory measures. 

Since 1 January 2014, the Office has been receiving public interest disclosures and has been engaged in whistle-blowers protection by ensuring the possibility of anonymous reporting. Based on nearly a decade of experience, a significant number of whistle-blowers choose to utilize the anonymity provided by the secure electronic system. This allows them to report unlawful or suspected unlawful acts and omissions without fear of retaliation. During the drafting of Act XXV of 2023 on complaints, public interest disclosures, and whistleblowing regulations, a key legislative principle was to build upon and complement existing, well-functioning legal mechanisms while establishing new legal institutions. 

The Hungarian NHRI confirms that the following initiatives, frameworks, and policies are in place at the national level: 

• Presence of specific laws protecting the rights of human rights defenders;
• Specific strategies to protect human rights defenders and/or inclusion of human rights defenders in human rights action plans. 

Government Decree no. 1291/2023 (VII. 19.) on the National Crime Prevention Strategy (2024–2034) and its Action Plan for 2024–2025, as well as Government Decree 1619/2021 on the Government Action Plan for the Implementation of the Hungarian National Social Inclusion Strategy 2030 (2021–2024), emphasize cooperation with civil society organizations as a fundamental element. Both strategies define the main areas and organizational frameworks of this cooperation, ensuring structured collaboration between governmental and non-governmental actors. 

In 2024, the Hungarian NHRI took actions to promote civil society space and human rights defenders, including:  

• Award of prizes;
• Promotion campaigns;
• Joint meetings. 

The Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary has the constitutional task to engage and cooperate with civil society. Some of these collaborations take place informally, while others are conducted within organized frameworks. The Civil Consultative Body supports the implementation of the tasks associated with the National Preventive Mechanism. The previous three-year mandate of the previous Civil Consultative Body expired in the Autumn of 2024. Following a call for applications initiated by the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary, the new Civil Consultative Body was expanded, making it the largest to date, with 16 members. For the next three-year cycle, its members can also make proposals regarding the content of the annual visit plan of the National Preventive Mechanism, set investigative priorities, and recommend performing visits to specific detention facilities or closed institutions. During the meeting on 11 November 2024, participants summarized past experiences, reviewed the results of institutional visits, and discussed future plans. The successful collaboration between the stakeholders is demonstrated by the continuation of their work with an expanded membership in 2024. The Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary conducts institutional visits either personally or through the staff of the office. The jurisdiction of the National Preventive Mechanism now covers nearly 3 000 facilities. The Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary also highlighted that several investigations were launched based on reports issued by the members of the Civil Consultative Body. In addition to the two formal meetings held in 2024, the National Preventive Mechanism also organizes professional roundtable discussions involving members of the Civil Consultative Body and representatives of legislative bodies and law enforcement agencies. These discussions focus on broader, systemic issues – such as irregularities in misdemeanour proceedings – and seek to explore possible solutions. 

In the context of the responsibilities of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary as the Independent Disability Mechanism, the work is supported by the Disability Advisory Board. This board consists of delegates from 28 organizations, including national advocacy groups for people with disabilities, other organizations working for the rights of people with disabilities, representatives from the scientific community, and the great historical churches. During the board's meeting on 19 November 2024, participants first visited the Immanuel Home of the Debrecen Great Reformed Church Congregation, where the institution's director presented the facility at the behest of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary. The institution provides exemplary solutions in Europe for the care of individuals with severe and multiple disabilities. The members of the Disability Advisory Board were introduced to the results achieved in the fields of special education and social services, with several civil partners highlighting the usefulness and lessons of the professional program. The meeting’s agenda focused on comprehensive issues related to the deinstitutionalization of residential placements and the implementation of supported housing – topics that were also suggested by the Board members in writing to the NHRI. At the Ombudsman’s request, civil partners – such as the Máltai Szeretetszolgálat (Hungarian Charity Service of the Order of Malta) and TASZ (Hungarian Civil Liberties Union) – and speakers from the relevant professional fields – such as the delegate from the Hungarian Reformed Church – presented the process of implementing supported housing. They illustrated its outcomes through practical examples. 

In 2024, the Ombudsman’s institution participated in civil initiatives aimed at recognizing the work of human rights defenders and helpers. In addition to the Varázsceruza Award ceremony, the NHRI actively contributed to the “Odaadó Award” ceremony, where it acted as a jury, evaluating submissions and participating in the award decision process. The event provided an opportunity for the community to recognize those who, through dedicated work, support their fellow human beings facing challenges. Such initiatives serve as exemplary models and contribute to the social appreciation of civil society and human rights values. 

In 2024, the Hungarian NHRI took actions and conducted initiatives to protect civil society space and human rights defenders. These included: 

• Monitoring;
• Complaints-handling;
• Legal assistance;
• Recommendations and opinions;
• Capacity building;
• Additional mandates (protection of whistleblowers). 

The Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary regularly collaborates with civil organizations, which often approach the Office regarding their own matters or to protect the rights of individuals they represent. In 2024, numerous initiatives and investigations were launched with the participation of civil society. The Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary, as the National Preventive Mechanism, played a particularly important role in this work. In his report no. AJB-1114/2024, the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary presented the findings of a visit to the Tengerszem Integrated Social Institution at the Öregtorony Home in Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County. The visit was carried out at the suggestion of a member of the Civil Consultative Board and revealed significant infrastructural and staffing deficiencies in the institution, which threatened the basic rights of those in care. The report made detailed recommendations for the renovation of the institution, improvement of healthcare services, enhancement of hygiene conditions, and an increase in the number of staff. Similarly, report no. AJB-1182/2024 was also prepared with the same objective and details the Ombudsman's visit to the MMSZ Care House – “Domb” Home in Zalaapáti and the Napsugár Service Center. During the unannounced visit, the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary assessed the living conditions and treatment of the residents, as well as the shortcomings in the operation of the institutions. Based on the findings, the report proposed several corrective measures to the institution's maintainer. 

The problems and issues initiated by civil partners were often discussed in professional forums or roundtable discussions, where the NHRI, representatives from the relevant state ministries, and civil society members collaboratively sought solutions. A noteworthy example of such a practice is the session held in Debrecen, where, upon the suggestion of the Disability Advisory Board, the issues of institutional replacement and supported housing were placed on the agenda. 

In 2024, the Ombudsman demonstrated its support for the work of human rights defenders in several significant cases, including monitoring, complaint handling, legal assistance, and the formulation of professional recommendations. The NHRI continues this work to strengthen the protection of human rights and promote the active participation of civil society in the enforcement of fundamental rights. 

In 2024, the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary continued to collaborate actively with international and regional mechanisms to support human rights defenders and civil society. This work is well-reflected in the activities of the Disability Advisory Board and the Civil Consultative Body, which were detailed earlier by the NHRI. In addition, the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary received a delegation from the International Rescue Committee, providing them with detailed information on the situation of those fleeing the Ukrainian-Russian conflict and presenting the swift and exemplary initiatives that have been taken to assist refugees since the outbreak of the war.  

Furthermore, the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary hosted high-level diplomatic meetings, as part of which he met with the new rapporteur from the European Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice, and Home Affairs (LIBE), during which they discussed issues related to the protection of human rights and the situation in Hungary. The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief also visited, during which the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary gave a comprehensive overview of the domestic situation concerning freedom of religion and the institution's work in this area. 

The key recommended steps for national authorities are: 

1. Consultative Committees 

Implement the practice of Consultative Committees, as successfully introduced by the Hungarian NHRI (the Civil Consultative Body and the Disability Advisory Board), to enhance the role of Ombudsman institutions as intermediaries between civil society and public authorities. This mechanism fosters constructive dialogue and strengthens collaboration on human rights matters. Notably, several successful cases and reports have originated from civil society organizations participating in the Consultative Body operated by the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary, demonstrating the effectiveness of this approach.  

2. Enhancing Client Service 

• The NHRI of Hungary recommends enhancing client services to ensure comprehensive accessibility and support for complainants, particularly for vulnerable groups. The NHRI highlights its best practices in improving infrastructural and procedural frameworks to serve as a model for national authorities.
• The NHRI recommends the development of modern, fully accessible facilities for human rights defenders and complainants, ensuring physical and info-communication accessibility. The Hungarian NHRI’s headquarters and regional offices provide barrier-free access and are equipped with induction loops and child-friendly reception areas, creating an inclusive and supportive environment for all individuals seeking assistance.
• National authorities should implement continuous legal and sensitivity training for personnel handling complaints, similar to the NHRI’s practice of regular sensitization sessions conducted by the Directorate-General for Equal Treatment (DGET). Such training ensures that staff remain up-to-date with legislative changes and develop a greater awareness of the needs of marginalized communities.
• Dedicated Hearing and Consultation Spaces – The NHRI recommends the allocation of specially designed conference halls for hearings and meetings, ensuring both physical and digital accessibility. The Hungarian NHRI’s practice of holding hearings in an adapted, barrier-free room equipped with an induction loop serves as a model for creating inclusive and professional environments that facilitate effective engagement with civil society actors and human rights defenders. 

These recommendations aim to ensure that civil society representatives and human rights defenders receive the necessary institutional support, accessibility, and professional assistance in their work, ultimately strengthening the protection and promotion of fundamental rights at the national level. 

 The NHRI cannot examine the activities of the courts, which means it does not have direct access to information regarding the exercise of the right to a fair trial within the judicial framework. In accordance with the principle of separation of powers, as enshrined in the Fundamental Law of Hungary and relevant legislative provisions, the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary does not have authority to examine the activities of the courts. This limitation stems from the requirement of judicial independence, which guarantees that the judiciary functions autonomously, free from interference by the legislative and executive branches, as well as from other state institutions, including the Ombudsman. This safeguard ensures the impartiality and integrity of the judicial system, in line with international standards on the independence of the judiciary. 

Submissions pertain to requests for the further expansion of the already existing systems of free legal aid (1, 2, 3). 

In the preceding years, following the adoption of the new civil procedure code, several opinions and inquiries issued have emphasized the justification for extending legal assistance. This is particularly relevant in light of the expansion of mandatory legal representation, leading to an increased demand for court-appointed lawyers, and the stricter, more professional approach required for legal proceedings, especially regarding the drafting of legal submissions compared to previous regulations. 

The Hungarian NHRI undertakes activities to support implementation of the European Courts’ judgments. The Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary, within the framework of the OPCAT National Preventive Mechanism, regularly monitors the conditions of detention facilities. In evaluating these conditions, the Ombudsman also takes into account the requirements set forth in the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). 

The NHRI also monitors European recommendations related to judicial systems, including those found in the European Commission’s Rule of Law Reports, and suggestions made by the Council of Europe and other relevant stakeholders. 

To improve the efficiency and accessibility of judicial proceedings, national and European actors should prioritize the expansion of digital solutions within the justice system. Implementing advanced case management technologies, digital filing systems, and virtual court procedures can significantly contribute to reducing case backlogs, streamlining judicial processes, and increasing transparency. Furthermore, ensuring equal access to digital justice tools, particularly for vulnerable groups, is essential to safeguarding fair and timely legal proceedings, thereby strengthening the overall effectiveness of the justice system. 

In December 2024, the National Assembly has adopted a law that threatens individuals with up to one year of imprisonment for committing online aggression, meaning expressing a desire or intention to commit a violent crime against specific individuals on public online platforms. In Hungary, the National Media and Infocommunications Authority and the Media Council, which operates under it, are responsible for ensuring the independence of the media and overseeing media services. The tasks of the NMHH include promoting press freedom, protecting media pluralism, and regulating the media market to uphold democratic principles. 

The Media Council operates as an independent body and is responsible for tasks such as issuing media service licenses, monitoring balanced information, and investigating and sanctioning any potential violations. The activities of the National Media and Infocommunications Authority and the Media Council are regulated by the media law adopted in 2010 (Act CLXXXV of 2010 on Media Services and Mass Media). 

The linked chart provides a comprehensive overview on Hungarian media statistics as of 2024. 

Access to information of public interest and documents of this nature is closely linked to Act CXII of 2011 on the Right to Informational Self-Determination and the Freedom of Information, as the fundamental aim of the Act is to ensure freedom of information and protect citizens' right to access information. The Act establishes that public interest data and data made public in the interest of the public must be accessible, and it sets out the rules under which access to such data must be provided. 

The NHRI, in most cases, transfers complaints regarding such matters to the National Authority for Data Protection and Freedom of Information for further information. The National Authority for Data Protection and Freedom of Information supports the freedom of mass media by ensuring access to public interest information and protecting freedom of information, while strictly enforcing data protection regulations. 

• Establishing Educational Points: Develop nationwide educational programs modelled on the Mobile Ombudsman’s Office, aimed at bringing citizens closer. These initiatives would enhance public awareness, fostering a more informed and rights-conscious society.
• Organizing University Lectures: Holding regular awareness-raising and informational lectures at universities and other higher education institutions, involving experts and decision-makers. In 2024, the NHRI participated in numerous professional events where it presented its activities and delivered professional lectures. It also organized legal awareness programs for students in higher education.
• Encouraging National and European Cooperation: Promoting the exchange of experiences and sharing best practices within the European NHRI network. 

A significant advancement in anti-corruption measures was the introduction of the whistleblowing system in 2023, which provides special protection for public interest whistle-blowers. The Office of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary actively participates in this process by operating a protected electronic system, which serves as an effective tool in the fight against corruption. The Office continued this activity in 2024, in line with previous practices and the recommendations outlined in last year’s report. The NHRI does not have further information on the outcomes of the subsequent proceedings or the substantiation of the reports, as these fall under the jurisdiction of the respective authorities. 

In 2024, the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary conducted several investigations aimed at enforcing the principles of the rule of law. These investigations primarily focused on access to education, healthcare, and social services, while also monitoring the practical implementation of recommendations made by European actors. 

One report concerned the operation of a so-called "preschool" group in a primary school. The investigation revealed that the practice hindered the lawful progression of students through grade levels and violated their right to education and legal certainty. The Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary recommended reviewing the relevant documentation and taking the necessary actions to enforce the legal provisions. 

In the report regarding the obligation of healthcare providers to investigate complaints, the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary found that in many cases, healthcare providers and their administrators had failed to fulfil their obligation to investigate complaints, which violated patients' right to a fair process. The CFR emphasized that local-level solutions could be more effective during complaint handling procedures and could contribute to preventing further issues. 

Two additional reports (1, 2) examined the operations of nursing homes, during which the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary pointed out areas for improvement in care and services. The investigations highlighted the need for greater attention to the specific needs of patients with dementia and identified opportunities to improve documentation related to care. The Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary emphasized that strict adherence to the principle of the rule of law is crucial for ensuring human dignity, as well as the right to physical and mental health, particularly in the field of social services.  

In 2024, the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary launched an inspection to uncover human rights issues, with a particular focus on political-based discrimination in the field of higher education. In this context, the aim is to ensure the non-discriminatory nature of state-run universities and promote compliance with the requirements of the rule of law. 

Further details and the results of the investigations can be found in the following sources: 1, 2, 3. 

National and European stakeholders are advised to pay increased attention to structural human rights considerations during the legislative and implementation processes, particularly in the fight against discrimination. The exchange of experiences and sharing of best practices in the protection of human rights can contribute to the harmonization and strengthening of European-level protective frameworks. 

At present, Iceland does not have a National Human Rights Institution. In 2019, the Icelandic government opened a public consultation on the establishment of an NHRI. The results of the consultation, alongside a bill drafted by the Ministry of Interior in 2016, served as basis for next steps in the establishment of an NHRI. The government has affirmed on several occasions its intention to establish an NHRI. In 2021, the Icelandic government decided to appoint a ministerial Working Group to explore the current scenario and possible avenues towards the establishment of an NHRI in Iceland. ENNHRI has provided the members of the Working Group with information on the role of NHRIs and the Paris Principles. At the end of 2021, the newly re-elected government included the establishment of an NHRI in its coalition agreement.  

In June 2023, the Icelandic government published a Draft Bill to create the Icelandic Institute for Human Rights. The Draft Bill includes important safeguards for the Institute’s independence and a broad mandate to promote and protect human rights. As part of the public consultation, ENNHRI strongly supported the draft and highlighted a few elements that could be further strengthened in the draft legislation for even further alignment with the UN Paris Principles. In 2024, the Icelandic government passed legislation to establish a NHRI, which began operations on 1 January 2025.  

ENNHRI stands ready to further provide information to the Icelandic NHRI and any relevant authorities on NHRI standards and the accreditation process.   

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission was re-accredited as an “A” status NHRI by GANHRI’s Sub-Committee on Accreditation at its June 2021 session. The SCA commended the efforts of the Commission to promote and protect human rights in the Republic of Ireland and encouraged the Commission to continue these efforts. The SCA made a number of recommendations in relation to the Commission’s human rights mandate; the process for the selection and appointment of members of the Commission; the provision of adequate funding; and term of appointment of members of the Commission. 

The SCA encouraged the Commission to continue to advocate for changes to its enabling law to ensure that all the full range of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights are covered by the Commission’s mandate. At the same time, the SCA has acknowledged that the Commission has argued that a wider definition of human rights should apply to all of its powers but that the government has argued that a wider definition would attract constitutional difficulties and legal challenge.  

Further, the SCA noted that the Commission does not have the explicit mandate to encourage ratification or accession to international human rights instruments; however, it acknowledged that the Commission interprets its mandate broadly to include actions in this regard. The SCA encouraged the Commission to advocate for changes to its enabling law to mandate it with the explicit responsibility to encourage ratification and accession to international instruments.  

Acknowledging that the Commission has engaged with policy-makers, society, and government departments on the ratification of the UN OPCAT and provided views on 3 the establishments of an NPM in the country, the SCA noted that the Commission does not have the explicit mandate to monitor places of deprivation of liberty. Therefore, the SCA encouraged the Commission to continue advocating for an explicit mandate to conduct unannounced visits to all places of deprivation of liberty.  

The SCA noted that while Section 13 of the enabling law provides certain requirements for the selection and appointment process, including on diversity, pluralism, and publicising of vacancies, the law is silent on a permanent selection criteria and process. The SCA encouraged the Commission to advocate for the formalisation and application of a uniform process that ensures the broad participation of civil society in the selection and appointment process, and the assessment of applicants on the basis of predetermined and objective criteria.  

Additionally, the Commission reported that its mandate has expanded, that its responsibilities are increasing and that it would benefit from additional funding for its existing mandate as well as all expanded powers. The SCA encouraged the Commission to continue to advocate for additional funding to ensure that it can effectively carry out the full breadth of its mandate.  

Finally, while acknowledging that in practice, all members of the Commission appointed after its establishment were appointed for five-year terms, the SCA encouraged the Commission to advocate for amendment to its enabling law to provide for a fixed minimum term of appointment for members of the Commission. 

The Commission has been designated an Article 77 body under the EU Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act by the Irish State. With regard to this designation, the Irish State provided that the Commission is not a competent authority for the Act, nor are any obligations, responsibilities or tasks assigned to them under the AI Act. Rather, the Commission will get additional powers to facilitate them in carrying out their current mandates in circumstances involving the use of AI systems. These powers will apply from 2 August 2026. 

The Irish Government published the General Scheme of the Inspection of Places of Detention Bill in June 2022. The purpose of this legislation is to ratify the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture (OPCAT) and to designate National Preventative Mechanisms (NPMs) that will act as national inspecting bodies for places of detention within Ireland. Under the proposed legislation, the Commission will be mandated as the coordinating National Preventative Mechanism. However, the Bill has not yet been published, although the Government Legislation Programme Autumn 2024 listed the legislation as tabled for ‘Priority Drafting’ in the autumn session 2024. The Commission previously issued legislative observations in relation to the General Scheme calling for, inter alia, amendments to the legislation to strengthen the Commission’s role as the co-ordinating NPM. In preparation for this new mandate, the Commission has established a new Monitoring and Compliance Team that will have responsibility for this area of work.  

The EU Directives on Standards for Equality Bodies entered into force in June 2024 and must be transposed into national law by 19 June 2026. The Directives establish the minimum standards and requirements for equality bodies in terms of their mandates, resources, powers and independence. In anticipation of the widened mandate and increased responsibilities that it will have under these Directives, the Commission wrote to the Minister for Finance in June 2024 highlighting that if the Commission, as Ireland’s National Equality Body, is to carry out its mandate with the resources and independence that is required under the new Directives, it is essential that it receive adequate funding to do so, without impacting its ability to carry out its existing statutory functions. 

The Commission continues to hold its roles as:  

• Ireland’s Independent National Rapporteur on the Trafficking of Human Beings (as per Article 19 of the European Union (EU) Anti-Trafficking Directive which legally requires all EU Member States to have National Rapporteurs or equivalent mechanisms).
• The Independent Monitoring Mechanism for Ireland under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (as per Article 33 of the UNCRPD). 

Mandate strengthened to contribute to access to justice 

Strategic litigation before the courts 

The Commission brought proceedings before the High Court in its own name for the first time under the legal power set out in section 41 of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act 2014. The judgment of the High Court contained a helpful analysis of the section 41 power providing clarity on the nature and scope of the power.   

In the proceedings, the Commission sought to address the State’s failure to provide for the basic needs, including shelter, of people recently arrived in Ireland and seeking asylum in circumstances where, since 04 December 2023, not all applicants for international protection arriving in Ireland have been offered State accommodation despite being entitled to receive material reception conditions under EU and Irish law. 

Section 41 of the 2014 Act provides: 

• The Commission may institute proceedings in any court of competent jurisdiction for the purpose of obtaining relief of a declaratory or other nature in respect of any matter concerning the human rights of any person or class of persons.
• The declaratory relief the Commission may seek to obtain in such proceedings includes relief by way of a declaration that an enactment or a provision thereof is invalid having regard to the provisions of the Constitution or was not continued in force by Article 50 of the Constitution. 

The High Court considered the scope and meaning of the Commission’s power under section 41 and in its judgment found, inter alia, that the Commission has an express statutory entitlement to commence proceedings in its own name to seek relief relating to the human rights of a class of persons.  It held that there was no requirement to identify the individual members of the class of persons so long as the class is capable of precise description.  It held that it is not a prerequisite to obtain the consent of the individuals of the class of persons to bring the proceedings. The State has appealed the decision of the High Court to the Court of Appeal.  The appeal was heard on 6 and 7 March 2025 and the decision of the Court of Appeal is awaited.   It is expected that the Court of Appeal decision will also contain detailed analysis of the Commission’s power under section 41.   

NHRI regulatory framework should be strengthened   

As mentioned previously, the Irish Government published the General Scheme of the Inspection of Places of Detention Bill in June 2022. The purpose of this legislation is to ratify the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture (OPCAT) and to designate National Preventative Mechanisms (NPMs) that will act as national inspecting bodies for places of detention within Ireland. Under the proposed legislation, the Commission will be mandated as the coordinating National Preventative Mechanism. The Commission made a submission to the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (‘CPT’) on their eighth visit to Ireland. In this submission, the Commission highlighted again that the Inspection of Places of Detention Bill has been subject to repeated delays and that in its current form, the General Scheme will not satisfy the requirements for OPCAT, adding further delays to ratification. The Commission also recommended that the State provide the NPMs and the co-ordinating body with adequate, multiannual and costed funding to discharge their functions effectively, including to enable long-term planning and specialist staff recruitment and training (see pps. 6-7). The Commission has consistently called for this legislation to be progressed as a matter of urgency.   

NHRI’s mandate, independence and role 

Relevant state authorities do not have good awareness of the NHRI’s mandate, independence and role. 

The Commission wishes to highlight that it has had a significantly expanded mandate since 2014, which has not been matched by annual budgetary increases from the State. The EU Directives on Standards for Equality Bodies provide that multi-mandate bodies must be given the necessary human, technical and financial resources to perform their tasks effectively. Where new mandates are given to equality bodies, it is the view of the Commission that the State should provide the financial and other resources required to effectively exercise its mandates. Such budgetary allocation should be stable and multi-annual, to facilitate covering unanticipated costs; linked to the rising costs of inflation; account for public sector pay agreements and salary increments; and allow a margin of budgetary contingency for responding to emerging human rights issues. (See, Mid-Term Report to the UN Human Rights Council for the Third Cycle of the Universal Periodic Review of Ireland (September 2024), p. 2) 

Access to information and involvement in law- and policy-making and state’s follow-up to NHRI recommendations 

The Commission, as both the National Human Rights Institution and the National Equality Body  for Ireland, plays an important role in promoting and protecting human rights and equality at a national level, including having a statutory mandate to keep under review the adequacy and effectiveness of law and practice in the State (Section 10(2)(c) of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission Act 2014). As part of this mandate, the Commission engages with the Oireachtas’ legislative process. The Commission does this by making ‘Legislative Observations’ on draft legislation and submitting them to the relevant Oireachtas Committee and/or relevant Minister for consideration.  

There are a number of examples in which recommendations have not been implemented and there has been little engagement from the State with the Commission during the legislative process. In addition, the Commission has raised a number of concerns with the State’s approach to the legislative process in the context of its status as Ireland’s NHRI being recognised as “an indispensable element in the system of checks and balances in a healthy democracy” (European Commission, 2022 Rule of Law Report, COM (2022) 500 final, para 2.4).  

Criminal Justice (Hate Offences) Act 2024  

The Criminal Justice (Hate Offences) Act was signed into law in October 2024. This is an area the Commission has been regularly engaged with the State on and has previously flagged a number of human rights and equality issues arising in connection with the legislative and policy responses to incitement to hatred and hate crime. In February 2022, the Commission published its Legislative Observations to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice on the General Scheme of the Criminal Justice (Hate Crime) Bill. In this submission, the Commission welcomed the legislation but made a range of recommendations on the proposed offences of incitement to hatred and hate-aggravated offences, to better align the legislation with human rights and equality standards.  

When the renamed Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill 2022 was published, the Commission conducted an analysis of the Bill to determine how its recommendations had been reflected. In November 2023, the Commission wrote to the then Minister for Justice setting out the substantive issues which remained outstanding in the legislation which should be addressed through amendments to the Bill. In September 2024, the Commission wrote again to the then Minister for Justice regarding comments made by the Taoiseach on the progress of this legislation. In this correspondence, the NHRI noted that its recommendations and submissions had been brought to the attention of senior legislative officials within the Department for consideration and asked for confirmation that these recommendations had been incorporated.  

The legislation has since progressed and as stated above, was signed into law in October 2024. The Commission received no substantive response to its recommendations and correspondence. 

Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) Bill  

The Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) Act was signed into Irish law in December 2023.  

Prior to its enactment, the Commission published its Legislative Observations to the Minister for Justice on the General Scheme of the Garda Síochána (Digital Recording) Bill in April 2022. In this submission, the Commission highlighted a number of specific concerns with the proposals to provide a legislative basis for the deployment and use of body-worn cameras and other recording devices and the extension of the circumstances in which CCTV and Automatic Number Plate Recognition devices may be used.  

The renamed Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) Bill was published on 4 August 2022. The Commission conducted an analysis of the Bill and identified that a number of new provisions were introduced to the legislation (that had not been set out in the General Scheme) and noted that recommendations made in its legislative observations had not been adopted. The Commission continued to monitor the legislation as it advanced through the legislative process to analyse the extent to which our recommendations to improve the compliance of the legislation with human rights and equality standards were addressed, up to its passing in December 2023.  

In February 2024, the Commission wrote official correspondence to the Minister for Justice and, separately, to the Chair of the Joint Committee on Justice outlining a number of substantive issues that raise human rights and equality concerns, which the Commission considers remain outstanding in the legislation. The Commission outlined a number of concerns in the correspondence including, inter alia: Safeguards in the use of technology; Proportionality assessments; Powers provided to members of An Garda Síochána; Covert recording; Notification of recording in a public setting; Recording in a private dwelling; Recording of victims of domestic violence; Access and retention of data; The rights of data subjects; Guarantee of a fair trial and procedural fairness; Transparency; Judicial authorisation; Independent oversight.  

The Commission received no substantive response to its recommendations and correspondence. 

Concerns with the Legislative Process 

The Commission was highly critical of the Government’s plans to amend legislation to revoke Irish citizenship via the Courts, Civil Law, Criminal Law and Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2024 without proper scrutiny. In July 2024, the Commission wrote to the then Minister for Justice Helen McEntee on three occasions to express our significant concerns with the unacceptable haste, right before the summer recess, with which it was proposed to enact the legislation, including the severe limit on the time available for appropriate pre-legislative scrutiny of the proposed amending legislation to ensure that constitutionally compliant safeguards are built into it. 

In September 2024, the Commission wrote to the then Minister for Justice Helen McEntee to seek clarity on comments made by An Taoiseach Simon Harris during a press briefing on the advancement of the Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) Bill. An Taoiseach stated that he wanted to “see hate crime legislation passed in the lifetime of this Government”, adding that the Minister for Justice would be bringing forward amendments to the legislation in the autumn term. Given the uncertainty regarding the date of the forthcoming election, the Commission expressed its concern that that this important legislation may be rushed through the Oireachtas during the autumn term and emphasised to the Minister for Justice that, although the NHRI is eager for this legislation to be passed by the Oireachtas, there must be regard for rule of law requirements and the Government must ensure adequate time and opportunity for appropriate scrutiny of the legislation. 

The Commission wrote to the Minister for Health Stephen Donnelly on two occasions in January and April 2024 regarding the Committee Stage Amendments to the Health (Assisted Human Reproduction) Bill 2022 (See ‘Letter to the Minister for Health, regarding the proposal to regulate international surrogacy amid EU-wide concerns for reproductive exploitation and trafficking’ (January 2024) and ‘Letter to the Minister for Health, regarding revised EU Anti-Trafficking Directive obligations to prevent and combat exploitation of surrogacy and Part 8 of the (Amended) Assisted Human Reproduction Bill – International Surrogacy’ (April 2024)). In these correspondences, the Commission commented on the substantial amendments being proposed at Committee Stage, which it noted had the scale and complexity of a stand-alone Bill. The Commission expressed concern that tabling amendments of this scale and complexity at this stage of the legislative process left limited time for adequate analysis and scrutiny of the amendments and the Bill. The Commission also made reference to this in its recently published Third Evaluation of the Implementation of the EU Anti-Trafficking Directive. 

Adequate resources 

The NHRI does not have adequate resources to carry out the full breath of its mandate. 

Budgetary Needs - 2025 Onwards 

Despite receiving an overall increase of 13% in our Budget for 2025, IHREC still does not have the level of funding required to meet its mandate in full on behalf of the State. While it is normal for a budgetary negotiation process to result in an allocation of a lower amount than requested, IHREC received significantly less budget than was sought to adequately carry out the full breadth of its mandate. For 2026, IHREC will be making the case again that IHREC is not adequately funded, with potential implications on the future delivery of mandates. IHREC does not want to be in a position whereby it has to refuse taking on new mandates, but this risk is growing as it becomes increasingly unfeasible to continue to deliver its work in the context of lack of funding. There is a reputational risk to IHREC, Government and the State if IHREC cannot accept new mandates or deliver to the necessary standards on its current mandates. 

1. The Commission recommends that the State proceed with the immediate ratification of the OPCAT and that it progresses without further delay the Inspection of Places of Detention Bill which is intended to deliver ratification of the OPCAT in Ireland and make its requirements binding in this jurisdiction. In particular, given the gaps in domestic inspection arrangements, the delay in ratifying OPCAT impacts on the effective, independent oversight of police custody, prison transit, court detention, military detention, and for certain types of de facto detention in voluntary settings, such as mental health establishments, and healthcare and residential settings. The Commission further recommends that the State provide the NPMs and the co-ordinating body with adequate, multiannual and costed funding to discharge their functions effectively, including to enable long-term planning and specialist staff recruitment and training.
2. The Commission recommends that the State establish a dedicated Oireachtas Committee on human rights, equality and diversity. A dedicated Oireachtas Committee would have a mandate to examine closely the human rights and equality implications of legislation and policies.
3. The Commission has a significantly expanded mandate since 2014, which has not been matched by annual budgetary increases. Where new mandates are given to equality and human rights bodies, they should receive the financial and other resources to effectively exercise their mandates. Such budgetary allocation should be stable and multi-annual, to facilitate covering unanticipated costs; linked to the rising costs of inflation; account for public sector pay agreements and salary increments; and, allow a margin of budgetary contingency for responding to emerging human rights issues (See, Mid-Term Report to the UN Human Rights Council for the Third Cycle of the Universal Periodic Review of Ireland (September 2024), p. 2)  

The institution’s human rights monitoring and reporting has found evidence of state measures that limit access to funding. The Commission has raised concerns in terms of civil society funding.  

Civil Society Funding  

In its submission to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as part of Ireland’s fourth periodic report, the Commission highlighted concerns with State withdrawing funding support for Irish civil society organisations to attend UN State reviews .  

NHRIs providing specific support to women human rights defenders (WHRDs) or LGBTQ+ human rights defenders: 

As part of the Human Rights and Equality Grant Scheme, the following relevant project was awarded a grant:  

National LGBT Federation - NXF Activist Academy 

The aim of this project is to deliver training to empower a new generation of LGBT+ activists by learning from the experiences of those who have fought for LGBT+ rights in recent decades. Through this intergenerational training programme, participants will gain advocacy skills, increase their understanding of human rights and equality legislation and develop plans for future activism. This will ultimately culminate in the development of strong, supportive networks among activists to advocate for their rights. 

To promote civil society space and human rights defenders, the Commission took the initiative of organising promotion campaigns, joint meetings and/or roundtables and the HREC Grants Scheme; Provision of Event Space for Civil Society; Consultations; Disability Advisory Committee. 

The Commission has a strong and consistent level of engagement with civil society including rights-holder groups. These are as follows: 

• Human Rights and Equality Grants Scheme 

The Commission continued to give support to civil society under its Human Rights and Equality Grants Scheme (established in 2016) with a fund of €350,000. This funding supported capacity building, carrying out research, campaigns and actions to advocate for change. In 2024, the themes of funding were: Advancing Economic Equality; Promoting Access to Rights and Access to Justice; and, Promoting Climate Justice, Environmental Justice and a Just Transition. 24 projects were funded. 

• Consultation on the Commission’s new Strategy Statement 2025-2027 - Invitation for Submissions 

The Commission invited civil society organisations to make submissions to its consultation to inform its new Strategy Statement 2025-27. Of the 64 submissions received, 33 were from a diversity of civil society and rights-holder groups. 

Thought Forums

The Commission organised three Thought Forums (half-day seminars) on areas of strategic interest. These Thought Forums were on the themes of ‘Keeping Hate out of Communities’ in response to rising extremism; ‘AI and Digital Transformation’ and Climate Justice, Environmental Justice and Just Transition’. These events brought together expertise from civil society (including at a European level), academia and other NHRIs on panel. The civil society participants (40-50 at each event) indicated what they felt the Commission and the State needed to achieve in support of civil society. These events also informed civil society’s work and encouraged greater co-operation between organisations across civil society. 

Conversations with Specific Groups

The Commission organised two online conversations with specific groups to inform the strategy statement. The first was with the National Roma Network and the second was with a diverse group of young people supported by their youth organisations/youth workers. 

• Conference on Equality at Work: Promoting Socio-Economic Equality in Employment 

The Commission held a major conference in May 2024, targeting public and private sector employers regarding socio-economic equality in employment. Two-thirds of the 50 plus speakers were rights-holders and representatives of civil society organisations who had the opportunity via panels and to pass on expertise and insights to employers. 

• IHREC at 10 – Marking a Milestone 

The Commission marked its 10th Anniversary in December 2024. The programme included panels of diverse rights holders and civil society organisations that the Commission had worked with over the 10 years to advance their human rights and equality. The three cultural moments showcased human rights messages through music, song and theatre from civil society groups representing the Roma Community, young people of African descent and women who had experience of addiction. 

• Civil Society Events Space 

The Commission has a multi-purpose events space in its building that facilitates in-person and hybrid events. The space is free of charge to civil society organisations promoting human rights and equality to use for building capacity events, seminars or launches of publications. The Commission encourages its grantees to use the space. There were 45 civil society events held in this space in 2024, as well as a range of other joint Commission and Civil Society events. 

NHRI actions to protect civil society space and human rights defenders (HRDs) 

The NHRI has organised consultations, participated in reporting, participated in advisory Committees and was active in public sector duty. 

The most important needs for the NHRI to advance the protection of HRDs nationally 

• Letter to the Minister of Justice on provisions relating to Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation in the General Scheme of the Defamation (Amendment) Bill 2023 - IHREC - Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission 

In February 2024, the Commission wrote to the Minister for Justice regarding provisions relating to Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation in the General Scheme of the Defamation (Amendment) Bill 2023. In this correspondence, the Commission highlighted that robust measures on a legislative, regulatory and policy basis are required at a national level to counter the threat of SLAPPs in order to protect human rights defenders. The Commission recommended that national legislation on SLAPPs should incorporate the measures contained in the EU anti-SLAPP directive, as proposed by the European Commission, going beyond the minimum requirements of the Directive where possible and appropriate in order to provide stronger safeguards against SLAPPs and protect human rights defenders. The Commission further recommended that national legislation incorporate the Council of Europe Draft Recommendation on countering the use of SLAPPs as proposed by the Committee of Experts on Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation. 

• Submission to the Minister for Justice on the General Scheme of the Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) (Amendment) Bill 

In May 2024, the Commission made a submission to the Minister for Justice on the General Scheme of the Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) (Amendment) Bill. This draft legislation proposes the use of facial recognition technologies for use by An Garda Síochána. In this submission, the Commission highlighted that this new type of technology would impact on privacy rights, freedom of peaceful assembly and association, freedom of expression and freedom of movement. The Commission recommended that the Government note the European Data Protection Board and the European Data Protection Supervisor calls for a ban on any use of artificial intelligence for automated recognition of human features, such as faces, in publicly accessible spaces, and a ban on artificial intelligence systems using biometrics to categorize individuals into clusters based on ethnicity, gender, political or sexual orientation, or other grounds on which discrimination is prohibited under Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Commission also highlighted the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ recommendation that states impose a moratorium on the use of remote biometric recognition technologies in public spaces, at least until the authorities responsible can demonstrate compliance with privacy and data protection standards and the absence of significant accuracy issues and discriminatory impacts, and until certain stated recommendations are implemented. 

The Commission further highlighted that there is inevitably a tension between meaningfully vindicating individual rights and permitting law enforcement authorities to use and access technology to address the commission of serious crime. Therefore, any interference with the rights engaged under this legislation must comply with the principles of legality, necessity and proportionality. 

• Anti-Human Trafficking Civil Society Consultations 

The Commission as the independent National Rapporteur on Human Trafficking convened three consultations with Anti-Trafficking specialist civil society organisations in 2024 to share knowledge and discuss key issues in the sector. Civil Society Organisations also inform the Commission’s Evaluation Reports of the Implementation of the EU Anti-Trafficking Directive. 

The involvement of survivors of human trafficking is a cornerstone to the NHRI’s work and it engaged extensively with victim-survivors through a series of survivor consultations. Survivors inform its Evaluation Reports of the Implementation of the EU Anti-Trafficking Directive, including in 2024, and in the high-level launch of the reports as expert speakers. 

With the support of key civil society organisations that provide direct assistance to victims of human trafficking, the Anti-Human Trafficking team engages and consults with Survivors who have received assistance, support and protection in Ireland, for the development of the annual evaluation reports. The information obtained is anonymised and incorporated to the reports in the form of direct quotes and informing the analysis.  

Consultant-Survivors are also invited to participate as speakers in the conferences to launch the evaluation reports, which aim to increase understanding of the lived experiences of victims of human trafficking in Ireland- and key issues. They are free to participate in the launch anonymously or named via recording, online or live, and are accompanied by CSO caseworkers during the occasion. Survivors can at any time of the consultation process withdraw their consent to participate. Survivor engagement and survivor-informed research remains a central tenet of the Commission’s work as National Rapporteur on Trafficking in Human Beings.  

• National Rapporteur on Combating Trafficking in Human Beings  

In September 2024, the Commission published its report ‘Trafficking of Human Beings in Ireland: Third Evaluation of the Implementation of the EU Anti-Trafficking Directive in Ireland’. The Commission engages with civil society organisations working in this space to inform its work on a regular basis and seeks its insights when reporting and making recommendations to the State. In this report the Commission made a number of recommendations regarding the protection of civil society space who provide services in the area trafficking of human beings. These are as follows: The Commission recommends that the State provides sustainable funding to specialist Civil Society Organisations providing services for victims of trafficking and that that dedicated multiannual funding is made available to Civil Society Organisations to develop awareness raising campaigns in their areas of expertise that highlight the specificities of each form of exploitation and/or encourage the utilisation of their expertise in the development of such campaigns. 

• The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights  

In January 2024, the Commission published its submission to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as part of Ireland’s fourth periodic report. In this submission, the Commission made a number of recommendations regarding civil society participation.  

• Advisory Committees 

The Worker and Employer Advisory Committee (‘WEAC’) and the Disability Advisory Committee (‘DAC’) have been established in line with Section 18 of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Act 2014, which provides that the Commission shall establish advisory committees “for the purpose of establishing and maintaining effective co-operation with representatives of relevant agencies and civil society”. 

WEAC: The WEAC was established to advise the Commission on issues in relation to human rights and equality in the workplace and in service provision. The Advisory Committee is made up of worker and employer representatives nominated by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) and by the Irish Business and Employers’ Confederation (IBEC) advise the Commission on fighting discrimination and vindicating rights and establishing a strong collaboration with workers and employers groups to drive equality and human rights. 

DAC: The Commission established the DAC to support its statutory function of monitoring Ireland’s implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. DAC is made up of disabled people who have significant personal and professional experience, and wide expertise in relation to the rights of disabled people in Ireland. The DAC advises the Commission on its work and on how the Commission is fulfilling its mandate to hold the State to account on the rights of disabled people.  

1. The Commission recommends that the State ensure that no barrier under the framework of the Charities Act 2009 (as amended) would prevent charities from conducting relevant political advocacy as part of their work. (See: Ireland and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Submission to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on Ireland’s fourth periodic report, Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, January 2024, p. 17.
2. As the Independent Monitoring Mechanism for the UNCRPD, the NHRI note that the State has specific obligations under Article 4.3 on the participation of disabled people, including through their representative organisations, in the implementation and monitoring of their rights. (See: United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, General comment no. 7 on the participation of persons with disabilities, including children with disabilities, through their representative organizations, in the implementation and monitoring of the Convention (2018)). The Commission recommends that the State support the establishment and work of local and national DPOs, including through increasing and reorienting funding to allow for the genuine inclusion of disabled people. (See: Ireland and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Submission to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on Ireland’s fourth periodic report, Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, January 2024, p. 17.
3. As Ireland’s National Rapporteur, the Commission recommends that the State ensure that specialist civil society organisations with expertise of trafficking are fully supported, and their role formalised within the reformed National Referral Mechanism. This includes the State providing sustainable funding to specialist civil society organisations providing services and support to victims of trafficking. (See: Trafficking in Human Beings in Ireland – Third Evaluation of the Implementation of the EU Anti-Trafficking Directive, Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, September 2024, p. 27).  

Access to legal aid and timely and effective execution of national courts’ judgments are reported to be significant challenges affecting access to justice and/or effective judicial protection. 

Delays in court proceedings 

The Commission has experience from its casework of delays before the equality tribunals (Workplace Relations Commission, Labour Court, etc) – some cases obtain hearing dates quite quickly while in other cases it can take a long time to be allocated a hearing date. Also, these bodies do not tend to schedule cases for a number of days (e.g., a three-day hearing will usually not take place across the three consecutive days and instead further days need new scheduling dates resulting in cases taking a year or more to be heard). 

Access to legal aid 

The Commission is concerned that the blanket exclusion of some areas of law, and the preclusion of legal representation before quasi-judicial tribunals, from the remit of the Scheme will deny some individuals their right of access to justice. The Commission has also noted issues with delays in being granted legal aid where this is available and raised concerns regarding the financial eligibility and merits tests associated with the Civil Legal Aid Scheme which could result in people of insufficient means being unfairly excluded from the Scheme and from accessing justice. (See Submission to the Independent Review of Civil Legal Aid Scheme at pp. 17, 33, 62.) 

In its submission to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights the Commission highlighted that the operation of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003 has significant implications for the Traveller community as they are frequently refused admission to licenced premises, including for family events, and are more likely to require redress. Section 19 of the 2023 Act requires people claiming discrimination against licensed premises to apply to the District Court rather than the informal, more accessible Workplace Relations Commission. The transfer of jurisdiction to the District Court creates more adversarial conditions and imposes onerous obligations on claimants.  In particular, formal rules, burden of proof requirements and technical documentation create a procedurally complex system which is more costly than the Workplace Relations Commission, with negative impacts for access to justice. The Commission recommended that jurisdiction for discrimination cases against licensed premises is returned to the Workplace Relations Commission by repealing section 19 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003. At p.46. 

• Irish government breaches Article 1 of the CFREU by failing to provide accommodation to International Protection applicants. 

On 1 August 2024 the Irish High Court ruled that the Irish government had failed in its duty to provide for basic needs of international protection applicants (“IPAs”), breaching their right to dignity under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. 

These judicial review proceedings were brought by the Commission, in its own name, against the State. They were brought in respect of a class of persons, in this case IPAs who were not offered accommodation when they made their asylum claim. When the Commission began these proceedings, in December 2023, 259 IPAs were unaccommodated by the State. The hearing took place in May 2024. At that stage, between December 2023 and 10 May 2024, 2,807 IPAs had not received an offer of accommodation and 1,715 IPAs remained unaccommodated by the State. 

The Commission sought declarations from the High Court that the failure to provide for the basic needs of IPAs breached their human rights. The Commission also sought mandatory orders from the High Court to compel the State to fulfil its legal obligations to provide for the basic needs of IPAs. This includes the provision of accommodation, food and access to basic hygiene facilities. 

The High Court ruled that the State’s response to the needs of IPAs who were acknowledged to be without accommodation was inadequate to the point that the rights of the class of person concerned in the proceedings under Article 1 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (the right to human dignity) had been breached by the State.  

The High Court accepted that the evidence provided to it from a sample of unaccommodated IPAs, taken with the general evidence from the Commission and NGO witnesses, established that the consequences of an inability to access basic needs, particularly housing and hygiene services, was that those persons were left in a deeply vulnerable and frightening position that undermined their human dignity. 

The High Court was satisfied by the grant of the declaration was sufficient to remedy the human rights breaches and considered that it was not necessary to grant the mandatory order. 

The State has appealed this judgment to the Court of Appeal and the appeal is scheduled for early March 2025. As of 14 January 2025, 3220 IPAs are awaiting an offer of accommodation from the State. 

Impact on women and marginalised groups   

In its submission to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights the Commission also highlighted that at present, victims and survivors of domestic, sexual and gender based violence (‘DSGBV’) who require legal assistance in areas such as housing, eviction, social welfare and workplace sexual harassment are not entitled to legal aid under the Civil Legal Aid Scheme. Similarly, the current Scheme does not extend to facilitate participation of victims in all relevant criminal proceedings. For proceedings within the scope of the Scheme, there is an inconsistent approach to contribution charges, with contributions of between €30 and €150 payable in some cases. There are also issues with delays due to under-resourcing of legal aid boards throughout Ireland, which have a particularly negative impact on those involved in family law proceedings. The Commission recommended that review of the Civil Legal Aid Scheme is progressed as a matter of priority, to address pressing issues relating to scope, affordability and delay for victims and survivors of DSGBV. At p.100 

Implementation by state authorities of European Courts’ judgments 

The Commission has continued its work on Ireland’s failure to implement the ECtHR judgment in O’Keeffe v. Ireland [GC 35810/09], which was handed down by the Grand Chamber 11 years ago. The case relates to the State’s failure to protect Louise O’Keeffe from sexual abuse by her teacher, while she was a pupil in a State-funded national school in the 1970s. The Irish government had successfully denied responsibility in the Irish courts, on the basis that it was not the employer of the teacher/abuser, even though it paid his salary, set the national curriculum and inspected his work. 

The ECtHR ruled that Ireland violated Article 3 of the ECHR as regards the State's failure to fulfil its obligation to protect Ms O’Keeffe.  It further ruled that there was a violation of Article 13, taken together with the substantive aspect of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of the lack of an effective remedy as regards the State's failure to fulfil its obligation to protect her. 

In the intervening 11 years, the State has persistently failed to implement this judgment, due to its failure to introduce a fair and accessible redress scheme for survivors of historical sexual abuse in schools. 

The Commission continues to call on the State to introduce, without any further delay, a fair and accessible scheme that provides redress to survivors in accordance with the Grand Chamber judgment, that is to say: a new redress scheme that:  

1. Respects the O’Keeffe v. Ireland Grand Chamber judgment;
2. Does not include unreasonable or arbitrary conditions to admission;
3. Avoids further re-traumatising of survivors;
4. Is made available immediately; and
5. Recognises the stand-alone responsibility of the State to survivors. 

The Commission has now made eight rule 9 submissions on this case to the Committee of Ministers, including two such submissions in 2024.   

Furthermore, representatives from the Commission, together with Louise O’Keeffe, made a presentation to the Member States’ Permanent Representations to the Council of Europe in May 2024, requesting their support to have this case transferred from ordinary to enhanced supervision, due to Ireland’s ongoing failure to implement the ECtHR judgment. This meeting was facilitated by the European Implementation Network. The Commission representatives also met with the European Commission on Human Rights and Council of Europe’s Department for Execution of Judgments.   

In April 2024, the Commission was also granted leave by the High Court to intervene as amicus curiae in litigation taken by a survivor of historical sexual abuse, who challenged his exclusion from State redress. This was a lead case. with a further 9 cases pending before the High Court. In June 2024, the State conceded all ten cases and paid a total of €840,000 to the ten survivors, which is the equivalent of the total of the sum that each would have received had they been admitted to the State redress scheme. 

Separately, the Commission is currently providing legal representation to approximately two dozen survivors of historical sexual abuse in schools, who have not been able to access redress from the State (including some survivors who attended the same school as Louise O’Keeffe). 

NHRI actions to support implementation of the European Courts’ judgments 

Rule 9 Submissions 

Between 2022 - 2024, the Commission has prepared four Rule 9 submissions. On 31 May 2024, the Commission, represented by Commissioner Noeline Blackwell, presented a briefing at the Council of Europe on the ongoing failure by Ireland to fully implement the O’Keeffe v. Ireland judgment, which was delivered by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) 10 years ago. 

This briefing was hosted by the European Implementation Network (‘EIN’), based in Strasbourg, who also arranged for Louise O’Keeffe to attend and speak to delegates.  EIN advocates for the full and timely implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and facilitates engagement with the Council of Europe’s structures. At this exceptional hearing, consisting of Permanent Representations of the Council of Europe, Commissioner Noeline Blackwell briefed delegates on the State’s failure to implement this judgment. She advocated again for the Committee of Ministers to increase its supervision of the implementation of the O’Keeffe judgment (to what is known as the ‘enhanced’ supervision procedure).  

Engagement with a national coordinator of the execution of judgments  

The Commission met with the national coordinator of the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in May 2024. The Commission also briefed the Permanent Representative to the Council of Europe in 2024 regarding the continued failure of State to implement the O’Keeffe v. Ireland judgment. 

Awareness raising of the general public 

In December 2024, the Commission hosted a public webinar on the O’Keeffe v. Ireland judgment. 

1. The Commission recommends that the Irish State commit to a clear time bound implementation plan for the O’Keeffe judgement to ensure the provisions of an adequate and effective redress scheme. The Commission further requests the Committee of Ministers to transfer the O’Keeffe case to enhanced supervision so that that the process of execution may be more closely followed by the Committee of Ministers, with such supportive interventions for domestic execution process as may be deemed appropriate.
2. Civil Legal Aid: In June 2022 the Minister for Justice established an Independent Review Group to review the Civil Legal Aid Scheme. The Commission made a submission to the review in 2023. The Commission’s 2022-2024 Strategy Statement specifically highlights the need to broaden access to Legal Aid in order to fulfil our human rights obligations and this submission reiterated that equal access to justice is a cornerstone of a fair democracy. The Commission outlined key recommendations required to bring the current system into line with best human rights and equality policy. However, the report of the Independent Review Group has not yet been published. The Commission recommends that review of the Civil Legal Aid Scheme is progressed as a matter of priority.
3. The Commission recommends that jurisdiction for discrimination cases against licensed premises is returned to the Workplace Relations Commission by repealing section 19 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2003. 

The NHRI reports misinformation and/or disinformation as the significant challenges affecting media freedom in Ireland. 

The Commission made a submission to the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance as part of Ireland’s 6th Monitoring Cycle. In this submission, the Commission highlighted the rise in racism, discrimination and intolerance, unfolding both online and in communities. The growth of far-right ideology, leading to events like the Dublin riots, has been facilitated by systemic gaps in the protection against racism and intolerance in Ireland, including due to the absence of adequate regulation, online misinformation and disinformation driven by far-right groups (see p. 7).  

In addition, the Commission highlighted that countering hateful narratives and misinformation is especially vital in times of political uncertainty and that public and private sector regulation of election-related misinformation, disinformation and conspiracy, as well as strict enforcement of community guidelines on political and other fundraising, will be critical safeguards to limit the spread of hateful ideas (see pps. 9-10).

The Commission recommends that the Department of the Taoiseach develops and implements an action plan to prevent the spread of hate and intolerance in election campaigns, which recognises the role of the Electoral Commission, Coimisiún na Meán, the Standards in Public Office Commission, mainstream political parties, digital platforms and community development organisations.

The Commission would like to reiterate its concerns with the Government’s approach to the legislative process. The European Commission has stated that “the rule of law is an essential safeguard for the well-functioning of our democracies, the protection of individual rights, and hence for the vitality and prosperity of our societies and economies” (see, European Commission, 2024 Rule of Law Report, p.1). It is in this context that the Commission echoes the European Commission’s statement that “an open legislative process and attention to the quality of law-making has a long-term effect on the ability to ensure the rule of law.” (see, European Commission, 2024 Rule of Law Report, p. 30).  

The Commission has repeatedly highlighted the shortfalls in equality data in Ireland, including the difficulties in measuring outcomes for minority ethnic groups, the impact of State polices and schemes, and the overall extent to which the State is meeting its human rights commitments.   The Commission welcomes the State’s work to develop an Equality Data Strategy, which would be the first in Europe. However, it is concerned about the failure to complete, publish and implement the Equality Data Strategy. 

The Commission recommends that the State prioritise the immediate publication, promotion and implementation of the National Equality Data Strategy, including through the adequate resourcing of Government Departments and public bodies to deliver on its strategic approach and actions. 

The Commission recommends that the State proceed with the immediate ratification of the OPCAT and that it progresses without further delay the Inspection of Places of Detention Bill which is intended to deliver ratification of the OPCAT in Ireland and make its requirements binding in this jurisdiction. 

The Commission reiterates that equal access to justice is a cornerstone of a fair democracy and recommends that review of the Civil Legal Aid Scheme is progressed as a matter of priority. 

Despite several initiatives over many years, a National Human Rights Institution has not yet been established in Italy. Other state bodies, such as the National Authority (Garante nazionale) for the rights of persons deprived of liberty carry out important human rights work in the country. However, they do not have a broad human rights mandate and do not fulfil other criteria under the UN Paris Principles to be considered an NHRI.  

In November 2019, at the occasion of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Italy, delegations from over 40 countries included in their recommendations the establishment of an NHRI in Italy, in compliance with the UN Paris Principles. As a result, the Italian government reaffirmed its commitment to establish an NHRI.  

Multiple actors, including ENNHRI, have been calling for the establishment of an Italian NHRI in compliance with the UN Paris Principles. In January 2019, ENNHRI addressed the Italian Chamber of Deputies to underline the importance of establishing an NHRI in Italy and how it would differ from other existing national mechanisms. This message was reiterated later that year during a roundtable in Italy, organized by ENNHRI with Amnesty International, which brought together representatives from Italian civil society, European NHRIs and regional organisations.  

In October 2020, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs of the Italian Chamber of Deputies adopted a unified text version based on three draft proposals for the establishment of an Italian NHRI. The unified proposal aimed to serve as a basis for the discussions on the establishment of an Italian Commission on human rights an anti-discrimination. As far as ENNHRI is aware, after a governmental crisis in February 2021, the draft bill has not been rescheduled for discussion in the Chamber of Deputies.  

In January 2021, ENNHRI intervened in a conference organised by the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency and a group of leading academics on the establishment of an Italian NHRI. ENNHRI highlighted that an Italian NHRI, in compliance with the UN Paris Principles, will contribute to greater promotion and protection of human rights in Italy.  

In 2023, ENNHRI was informed that there are several legislative proposals for discussion at the level of the Chamber of Deputies.  

As of 2025, ENNHRI is aware of the several legislative proposals under discussion, including the one that considers extending the mandate of the NHRI to the Italian Data Protection Authority (DPA), and has engaged in public events organised by academia and civil society in Italy to support the debate. However, these proposals have been pending for years and there continues to be no clear indication of a legislative proposal establishing an NHRI being close to adoption.   

ENNHRI is closely monitoring developments in the country and stands ready to provide its expertise on the establishment and accreditation of NHRIs to relevant stakeholders in Italy, including the legislature, government, academics and civil society organisations. 

* This designation is without prejudice to positions on status and is in line with UNSC 1244 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo Declaration of Independence.

Due to the specific international standing of Kosovo, the Ombudsperson Institution is unable to seek accreditation before GANHRI’s Sub-Committee on Accreditation, organized under auspices of UN OHCHR. The Institution is a non-accredited, associate member of ENNHRI. It has worked for the promotion and protection of a wide range of human rights issues in Kosovo.

Due to the specific international standing of Kosovo, the Ombudsperson Institution is unable to seek accreditation before GANHRI’s Sub-Committee on Accreditation, organized under auspices of UN OHCHR. The Institution is a non-accredited, associate member of ENNHRI. It has worked for the promotion and protection of a wide range of human rights issues in Kosovo.

Over the years, the Ombudsperson Institution of Kosovo (OIK) has built strong cooperative relationships with the European Union, the Council of Europe, and various international human rights organizations operating in Kosovo. These organizations have consistently served as strategic partners to our institution. As a result, the work of our NHRI has been regularly reflected in the European Union’s benchmarks for Kosovo, playing a key role in strengthening our institution and ensuring alignment with international human rights standards. This collaboration has contributed to the establishment of a resilient institution dedicated to the promotion and protection of human rights, thereby advancing democracy and the rule of law in our country.

According to the EU Country Report for Kosovo, inter-institutional coordination on human rights has improved, with enhanced cooperation between the Ombudsperson Institution (OIK) and the Office of Good Governance under the Prime Minister’s Office. The OI remains crucial in promoting and enforcing human rights, and safeguarding its independence in line with the Paris and Venice Principles is essential. While the OI’s annual report indicates a slight increase in the implementation of recommendations, the overall rate - particularly on equality and non-discrimination - remains low. The Assembly is urged to strengthen its oversight role, while the government must ensure continuity in human rights policies through timely follow-up on policy documents.

Following the publication of this report, the issue of the follow up on the implementation of the recommendation by OIK has been included in the National Plan for Development 2025-2027, which lists two measures which will implement the Office of Good Governance within the Prime Minister’s Office and one of them are related to the oversight role of the parliament, through plenary sessions and motions, and additionally in the National Plan for European Integration 2025 and the Strategy and Action Plan for Public Administration Reform 2022-2027.

The national regulatory framework governing OIK has remained unchanged since 2015. The institution continues to exercise its mandate effectively, as outlined in the Constitution, Law on the Ombudsperson and additional legislation.

The OIK’s mandate to contribute to access to justice has remained unchanged and the institution has continued in exercising its competences without any obstacle. Since 2022, the institution has reinforced its role in ensuring access to justice, particularly through improvements in complaints handling and awareness-raising. The efficiency of case processing has improved, with faster response times and enhanced mechanisms for tracking complaints. Additionally, outreach efforts have expanded to inform the public - especially vulnerable groups - about their rights and available remedies.

While the institution does not provide direct legal assistance, it has strengthened cooperation with civil society organizations and legal aid providers. This has contributed to broader advocacy efforts, leading to policy recommendations aimed at improving access to justice.

On 22 October 2024, The OIK has published an Ex. Officio Report No. 436/2023 on the Respect for Human Rights in the Recognition and Verification Process of Victims of Sexual Violence During the Kosovo Liberation War, and the Obstacles to Accessing Legally Defined Benefits. This Report analysed the legal framework governing the procedures for recognizing and verifying the status of victims of sexual violence during the Kosovo Liberation War. It also seeks to address the need for responsible and competent bodies to take actions to improve and further refine these procedures, ensuring better organization of the verification process. The ultimate goal is to guarantee the protection and respect of the fundamental rights of individuals undergoing this procedure. This Report also draw the attention of relevant institutions to the need for concrete actions to ensure that victims whose status has been recognized can fully access the benefits defined by law, on equal terms with other categories provided for in the law, and without procedural obstacles.

The institution’s regulatory framework is considered in line with international standards and should not be strengthened. The institution already operates under a highly advanced legal framework that fully aligns with the Paris Principles and the Venice Principles. Furthermore, its status as an independent institution is constitutionally enshrined in the Republic of Kosovo as a special category, ensuring its autonomy and strong mandate. This comprehensive framework provides a solid foundation for the institution to effectively fulfil its role in protecting and promoting human rights.

State authorities in Kosovo generally exhibit a good level of awareness regarding the Ombudsperson Institution’s mandate, independence, and role. Throughout 2024, the Ombudsperson remained committed to carrying out various activities aimed at raising awareness and educating the public about human rights and fundamental freedoms. In cooperation with and supported by the OSCE and civil society organizations, the Ombudsperson, during 2024, organized 14 roundtables in different municipalities across Kosovo, with particular emphasis on those inhabited by non-majority communities. 

The purpose of these meetings was to raise awareness about the role and mandate of the OIK, the importance of implementing its recommendations, and to strengthen cooperation with local public institutions and civil society organizations. The roundtables were attended by mayors, representatives from municipal directorates, officials responsible for human rights, gender equality, and communities, civil society representatives, as well as citizens from non-majority communities.  Raising awareness about the importance of implementing OIK recommendations with the goal to ensure the protection and respect of human rights in the country and increase their level of implementation, remains still a challenge. 

During 2024, special attention was also given to strengthening cooperation with central-level public institutions. In this regard, the Ombudsman organized 16 thematic roundtables where the findings from various published reports were presented, along with the recommendations addressed to the institutions and the importance of implementing these recommendations to advance the protection and respect of human rights in the country. Participants in these roundtable discussions included high-level representatives of public institutions in Kosovo, including the presidency, the executive and the judicial and prosecutorial system. These meetings covered a wide range of topics, including the protection of women's property rights, the advancement of language rights in the country, the protection of individuals' rights during the process of recognizing and verifying the status of victims of sexual violence during the war in Kosovo, the promotion of tolerance and the fight against hate speech, the protection of children's rights, transitional justice issues - determining the fate of the missing persons, healthcare services for citizens, and more.

Nevertheless, the involvement of the National Human Rights Institution (NHRI) in the legislative policy-making process remains limited, as authorities do not consistently adopt a proactive approach in this regard. While the Ombudsperson is informed about the drafting of legal and sub-legal acts in certain instances, this is not a uniform practice. Nonetheless, there are positive examples where institutions overseeing human rights-sensitive areas actively seek the NHRI’s opinion on specific matters. Furthermore, the government maintains the Public Consultation Platform, which provides an opportunity for all stakeholders to review and comment on draft acts before their final adoption.

The Law on the Ombudsperson guarantees financial independence. In particular, Article 35 of this law provides that “Regardless of the provisions of other Laws, the Ombudsperson Institution prepares its annual budget proposal and submits it for approval to the Assembly of the Republic of Kosovo, which cannot be lower than the previous year approved budget. Budget may be lowered only by the approval of the Ombudsperson.“ In 2025, the Assembly approved the budget proposal submitted by the Ombudsperson. It envisaged a slightly higher budget for the institution, compared to 2024. 

Moreover, since 2022, efforts have been made to strengthen mechanisms for monitoring and ensuring timely responses and implementation of the recommendations of the Ombudsperson Institution. A key legal basis for this process is Law No. 05/L-021 on Protection from Discrimination, specifically Article 10, paragraph 1.2, which obligates the Office of the Prime Minister/Office for Good Governance to continuously monitor the implementation of the Ombudsperson’s recommendations.

To further enhance this process, the Office for Good Governance has developed a matrix for tracking the implementation of the Ombudsperson’s recommendations, which allows for systematic monitoring, evaluation, and reporting on the status of each recommendation addressed to ministries and municipalities. This tool strengthens accountability and ensures better institutional follow-up.

Furthermore, the importance of implementing the Ombudsperson’s recommendations has been reinforced through their inclusion in key strategic documents, such as: The National Development Plan 2025 -2027, The National Plan for European Integration 2025, The Strategy and Action Plan for Public Administration Reform 2022-2027.

These frameworks emphasize the weight of this process and formalize the obligations for coordination and quarterly reporting on the implementation of recommendations.

With regards to the enjoyment of functional immunity, the Constitution, in Article 134, paragraph 4, guarantees immunity for the head of the institution, whereas the Law on the Ombudsperson, article 12, paragraph 1 guarantees functional immunity for the head of institution, his/her deputies and the institution’s staff. The functional immunity continues even after the end of office.

Threats faced by the NHRI

The legislative framework of the Ombudsperson Institution is in line with Paris Principles and Venice Principles and provides strong guaranties with regard to its independence. This was concluded also by a recent EU Peer Review Mission on Independent Oversight Bodies in Kosovo which state that the “Ombudsperson Institution of Kosovo (OIK) is a constitutional and legal body with a broad mandate, which upholds human rights and fundamental freedoms, founded under a democratic parliamentary legitimacy and in accordance with Paris and Venice Principles.”

However, the voting against of the Ombudsperson’s Annual Report 2022, by Kosovo Parliament in its plenary session held on May 23, 2024, posed a significant threat to the independence and effectiveness of the institution in carrying out its mandate, but also represented a political pressure on the independence of the institution, which is guaranteed by the Constitution and law. While the Ombudsperson Institution, has already submitted also the Annual Report 2023, within the legal requirements, the Parliament with delay “discussed” and rejected the annual report for the previous year (2022), despite the fact that it was unanimously adopted beforehand in the relevant parliamentary committees.

The Ombudsperson institution has consistently emphasized that the primary purpose of submitting the Annual Report to Parliament is to ensure that the issues it raises - particularly the state of human rights and freedoms in the country and their observance by public authorities -become subjects of parliamentary discussion and action. As the legislative body, Parliament has the authority and responsibility to advance the Ombudsman’s recommendations by holding public authorities accountable whenever necessary. A vote in favour or against the report does not alter the reality of human rights and freedoms in the country. Furthermore, approving annual reports without meaningful parliamentary debate or follow-up actions that improve the protection of citizens' rights renders the process ineffective.

This action is in contrary to the regional and international standards applicable to NHRIs and Equality Bodies. This was recalled also by the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI) and European Network of Equality Bodies (Equinet) in a reaction letter addressed to Kosovo Parliament and Office of the President and also in a public reaction from Human Rights Network, a network of main civil society organizations in Kosovo. 

In addition, on July 9, 2024, the main international organizations operating in Kosovo also sent a joint letter to the Speaker of the Assembly of the Republic of Kosovo, urging respect for the independence of the Ombudsperson Institution. In this letter, they referenced established international standards and called on the Assembly to review the Ombudsperson’s annual reports in a timely manner, in accordance with the law. They also emphasized the importance of considering the institution’s findings and recommendations and ensuring their implementation is in line with the Paris Principles and the Venice Principles. This action was also condemned by the Human Rights Network (HRN), through a public statement which said “This behaviour of the Assembly - failing to hold any parliamentary debate regarding the OIK report, not voting on the report, and reviewing the report with about a one-year delay - clearly represents a lack of respect for human rights. This approach, marked by the Assembly’s easy vote against the approval of the report, demonstrates a tendency to interfere with the independence of the OIK’s work as well as it could be interpreted as a tendency to exert pressure on an independent constitutional mechanism like the OIK.”

The OIK recommends national authorities to:

• Ensure timely and reasoned response to NHRI recommendations and to not vote on annual report.
• The Assembly should exercise effectively its oversight role by taking concrete actions to monitor and support the implementation of NHRI recommendations.

It is assessed that the freedom of association in the Republic of Kosovo is generally respected. The European Commission's report on Kosovo for 2024 highlights that the Constitution and laws guarantee this right, and their implementation is satisfactory. The Law on Freedom of Association aligns with international human rights standards. Freedom of association is protected and regulated by the Constitution of the country, specifically Article 44, as well as by Law no. 04/L-011 on the Organization of Trade Unions in Kosovo and Law no. 06/L-043 on the Freedom of Association in Non-Governmental Organizations. These laws are in line with international human rights standards.

To address challenges in this area, the Ombudsperson organized a roundtable with representatives of trade unions from various sectors such as education, police, healthcare, and administration. During the discussions, the lack of social dialogue with the government was emphasized as a major concern. As a result, it was agreed to organize a meeting with the relevant authorities to address these issues.

A specific case concerns workers at Limak Pristina International Airport, who claimed discrimination and dismissal following a three-day strike in 2019. In the Opinion published on May 13, 2024, the Ombudsperson concluded that hindering trade union activity and dismissals due to union involvement constitute a violation of the freedom of association. Authorities were recommended to take measures to ensure genuine dialogue and prevent discrimination against workers involved in union activities.

During the reporting year, the Ombudsperson received two complaints related to this category. One of the complaints concerned the alleged restriction of freedom of association and obstruction by employers to participate in trade union activities. This complaint was filed by the Kosovo Health Trade Union Federation, on behalf of its members, against the University Hospital and Clinical Service of Kosovo. However, the investigation into this issue concluded due to the lack of sufficient and supporting documentation to substantiate the claims made by the parties. The other complaint was filed by four employees of the Kosovo Health Trade Union Federation, alleging the immediate termination of their employment relationship, without respecting the procedures outlined in the Labour Law. This complaint is under investigation, and a decision has not yet been issued regarding it.

Throughout the reporting year, aside from these isolated cases, no other violations of this right were identified.

NHRI’s support to women human rights defenders (WHRDs) and LGBTQ+ human rights defenders facing unique challenges

The Ombudsperson, in accordance with the Law on the Ombudsperson and the Law on Gender Equality, acts as a mechanism for promoting, monitoring, and supporting equal treatment without discrimination.

On March 1, 2024, the Ombudsperson received a complaint from several NGOs regarding the discrimination of the LGBTQ+ community by the Kosovo Assembly during a session held on March 16, 2022. After analysing the complaint and referring to the Ombudsperson’s Report on Public Discourse and the State's Obligations to Guarantee Freedom of Expression and Prevent Hate Speech, the Ombudsperson, on October 17, 2024, submitted an amicus curiae brief to the Basic Court of Pristina, highlighting the importance of freedom of expression, while also noting its limitation when used to incite discrimination and hatred.

On June 10, 2024, defending the right to diversity and tolerance, the Ombudsperson through a reaction statement condemned the vandalism of LGBTQ+ symbols placed on "George Bush" street in Pristina in honour of "Pride Week" and called for authorities to investigate the incident.

A complaint was also received against the Kosovo Police for failing to inform about a report made regarding a threatening comment on social media. After the intervention of the Ombudsperson, the police took measures to investigate the case and contact the complainant.

In December 2024, the Ombudsperson published a report on the implementation of the Law on Gender Equality, noting the dominance of men in public positions (77.1%) and the lack of effective measures to ensure gender representation. 

The Ombudsperson observed mismanagement in two recruitment processes, which negatively affected women's employment, and in another case, an employer exceeded their authority in dismissing a woman before the completion of her mandate.

The Ombudsperson continues efforts to protect human rights, promote equality, and prevent discrimination in all its forms, cooperating with relevant institutions and taking concrete actions in identified cases.

In its monitoring and reporting activity, the OIK found evidence of verbal attacks, in fact, on March 1, 2024, the Ombudsperson received a complaint against the Assembly of the Republic of Kosovo, alleging discrimination and a violation of the dignity of LGBTIQ+ persons during the Assembly’s plenary session on March 16, 2022. The complaint, submitted by five non-governmental organizations, was accompanied by a lawsuit (C.nr 2993/2024) filed with the Basic Court of Prishtina. The allegations center on the Assembly’s handling of the first review of the Draft Civil Code, particularly the debate surrounding provisions on registered civil unions for same-sex couples.

After analysing the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsperson decided to submit an Opinion to this court, in the capacity of the friend of the court (amicus curiae), on October 17, 2024. In this opinion, the Ombudsperson emphasized the importance of freedom of thought and expression, and it highlighted that every individual has the right to express personal opinions and positions, which constitutes the foundation of a free democratic society. However, the right to freedom of expression, regardless of how ideas and positions are expressed or published, should not be a justification for discrimination. Therefore, the expression of positions and beliefs that violate the dignity of persons or groups of persons and damage the reputation and the guaranteed rights of others cannot be justified by the right to freedom of expression.

Initiatives, frameworks, or policies for the protection of human rights defenders existing at the national level

With regards to the existence of specific strategies to protect human rights defenders and their inclusion in human rights action plans, the Government of the Republic of Kosovo, in 2019 established the Council for Cooperation between the Government and Civil Society. The Council was established with the aim of strengthening government cooperation with civil society, promoting and supporting the strengthening of the civil society sector and ensuring the coordination and monitoring of the implementation of the Government Strategy for Cooperation with Civil Society 2019-2023. The Council in its composition has created four working teams, each focusing on a specific objective of the Strategy. Strategic Objective Team I “Increase the participation of civil society in policy-making”, Strategic Objective II Team “Improving the institutional framework for financing the sustainability of CSO programs and projects in the public interest”, Strategic Objective Team III “Development of practices and procedures for contracting CSOs for the provision of public services” and Strategic Objective IV Team “Increasing and promoting volunteerism in programs of public interest”. 

In 2024, the Working Group began for drafting the Strategy for Cooperation with Civil Society for the period 2024 - 2029.

Also, according to Kosovo Progress Report 2024: “Civil society organizations (CSOs) in Kosovo operate in a largely enabling environment. Civil society remained active and diverse, playing a meaningful role in designing, implementing and overseeing EU-related reforms. Kosovo has taken specific action to increase the transparency and accountability of public funding for CSOs, but challenges remain on the reporting and assessment of the effectiveness of allocated funds”.  In addition, mechanisms for involving civil society in decision-making are in place and most proposals, including draft laws, strategies and concept documents, were accessible for public consultation on an online platform. Nonetheless, consultations with civil society fall short of the relevant regulation. The government needs to comply with the consultation period, provide full information to enable participation, provide feedback, and publish all updated draft proposals and final reports.

There is no specific law in force for the protection of human rights defenders. Nevertheless, the Republic of Kosovo does have in force Law no. 06/l-043 on Freedom of Association in Non-governmental organizations, which sets out the rules for the establishment, registration, operation, suspension, termination, prohibition of activities, and deregistration of non-governmental organizations in the Republic of Kosovo. According to the provisions of Article 13 of this Law: “The NGO exercises its activity independently from state institutions. Public institutions support and promote the activity of NGOs. Public institutions shall treat NGOs with full respect, equality and non-discrimination. Public institutions provide adequate environment and apply good practices, where NGO can exercise its activities in accordance with its objectives and activities. Public institutions shall protect the NGO from third-party interventions. Public institutions shall not interfere with the NGO’s rights and freedoms, and to the persons exercising their right to freedom of association. Public institutions shall make public all forms of cooperation and support of NGOs.”

In 2024, the OIK continued its cooperation with civil society through the implementation of various human rights projects. Within the framework of implementation of joint projects, in cooperation and with the support of NGO ACDC, five roundtables were organized in different regions of Kosovo, especially those inhabited by non-majority communities. The purpose of these roundtables was to raise awareness about the role and mandate of the OIK, as well as to strengthen cooperation with local institutions and civil society. The OIK has also been supported by NGOs such as Community Development Fund (CDF) and Group for Legal and Political Studies (GLPS), with the assistance of experts to address important issues in the field of human rights.

On July 17, 2024 the Ombudsperson hosted a meeting with Civil society organizations, where they presented and discussed with the Ombudsperson their report on the state of human rights for 2023. Representatives of non-governmental organizations assessed as very important the fact that the Ombudsperson has addressed a number of issues raised in their report.

The OIK, through its activities, actively protects civil society space and human rights defenders (HRDs) by monitoring, complaint handling as well as by providing recommendations and opinions to the relevant authorities. 

Additionally, as it was reported also in the recent ENNHRI reports, in October 2021, by the initiative of the OIK the Forum for Dialogue between the Ombudsperson Institution of Kosovo (OIK) and Civil Society Organizations (CSO) was established, aiming to set up a structured cooperation between the OIK and CSO representatives. This initiative gathered a considerable number of active civil society organizations dealing with human rights in different fields and perspectives. The goal of the forum is creating a common platform for the active involvement of both parties, OIK and CSOs, to enhance cooperation in field of identifying challenges and human rights violations in Kosovo, as well as the development of joint activities for better promotion and protection of human rights in Kosovo; to address collectively systematic human rights violations; to coordinate joint activities for better human rights promotion and education and to promote the work and the role of the Ombudsperson Institution and Civil Society in protecting and promoting  human rights in the country.

In 2024, the Forum has held 3 regular meetings, discussing current issues and challenges with regard to human rights protection and promotion in the country. Also, in close cooperation with CSOs adopted the Action Plan of the Forum for 2024/2025, that contains joint initiatives and activities to strengthen human rights promotion and protection in the country.

Lastly, human rights defenders (HRDs) and cooperation with civil society has been one of the priorities of the Ombudsperson Institution of Kosovo. Therefore, during the reporting period, given the crucial role HRDs play in advancing, protecting, and promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as the fact that collaboration between HRDs and NHRIs is crucial to improving the efficacy of human rights protection at national level, the OIK and Youth Initiative for Human Rights, co-organized a regional conference on the topic “Enhancing Partnerships between Ombudsman Institutions and Civil Society for the Protection and Empowerment of Human Rights Defenders”, which was held on 3rd of April 2025. This one-day conference brought together Ombudsman institutions, CSOs and HRDs explored the potential for cooperation and to develop practical strategies for addressing the challenges faced by HRDs in the region. The conference provided a platform for sharing best practices, generating actionable policy recommendations, and reinforcing regional and international solidarity in defence of human rights.

This regional conference concluded with a strong commitment to institutionalize cooperation between Ombudsperson Institutions and civil society organizations across the Western Balkans. Participants agreed on several key actions: strengthening structured national dialogue and joint initiatives; reinforcing the independence and visibility of Ombudspersons; enhancing protection for human rights defenders against threats such as SLAPPs and hate speech; actively promoting legal reforms aligned with European standards; and institutionalizing the Regional Conference as an annual platform for monitoring progress and fostering collaboration. These conclusions reinforce a shared vision for a more inclusive, accountable, and rights-respecting regional framework.

The OIK recommends national authorities to:

• Foster dialogue and collaboration between national authorities and CSOs, in order to promote an open and constructive dialogue, ensuring a more inclusive and effective approach to civil society organisations and human rights defenders.
• Facilitate access to information and uphold freedom of expression.
• Engage Civil Society in the Initial phases of policy and law-making processes.

The OIK recommends European actors to:

• Promote an inclusive environment for Civil Society participation.
• Provide greater financial and technical support for CSOs.
• Strengthen the implementation of Anti-SLAPP initiatives across Europe.

Based on its monitoring and reporting, the OIK identified challenges with regard to delays in court proceedings, respect for fair trial standards and timely and effective execution of national judgements that affect access to justice and effective legal protection in Kosovo.

The Ombudsperson may provide general recommendations regarding the functioning of the judicial system; however, the Ombudsperson does not intervene in cases or other legal procedures currently being processed in the courts, except in cases where there is a delay in the proceedings.

The Ombudsperson has received a significant number of complaints regarding lengthy procedures and has addressed approximately 49 reports with recommendations to the relevant courts for improving the situation. Delays in judicial procedures at all levels of the courts negatively impact the right to a fair and impartial trial within a reasonable time frame.

The reports highlight the need for measures to improve the efficiency of the judiciary and ensure the right to a fair process within a reasonable time.

Regarding access to legal aid, the Ombudsperson evaluates that the Law on Amendments and Supplements to the Law on Free Legal Aid has brought progress in providing free legal aid. According to this law, free legal services are offered to categories such as victims of sexual violence during the war, victims of domestic violence, minors, children in care institutions, journalists, and individuals whose rights have been violated through acts or omissions that constitute discrimination. The services include legal advice, document preparation, and representation in criminal and civil procedures, ensuring the protection of the rights of individuals in these affected groups.

However, the Ombudsperson assesses that representation in judicial proceedings remains unsatisfactory, particularly in cases related to discrimination.

Regarding the publication of judgments, there has been progress in recent years through the Case Management Information System. However, there are still delays in the publication of judgments, and there are cases where judgments are missing.

With regards to challenges in access to justice disproportionately impacting women or marginalized groups, the Ombudsperson has identified at least one case where the delay in judicial proceedings regarding the division of matrimonial property after the divorce has had a negative effect on the woman, to whom the children were entrusted in this specific case. Furthermore, issues related to alimentation and the non-enforcement of final judgments have been identified, which primarily negatively affect women.

Implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights

Kosovo, in its Constitution, has given direct effect and supremacy over its domestic laws to nine international human rights instruments. These instruments include the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and its protocols, the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (Framework Convention) and the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention). 

Furthermore, Article 53 of the Constitution of Kosovo provides that all "Fundamental human rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution shall be interpreted in accordance with the judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights". 

However, due to political obstacles, Kosovo is still not a member of the Council of Europe and therefore citizens cannot file application to the European Court of Human Rights. Despite the advanced Kosovo’s legal infrastructure, citizens have no further effective remedy in case they feel their rights have been violated or not effectively adjudicated by authorities in Kosovo and cannot submit a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights.

Measures taken to follow up on the recommendations concerning justice systems, issued by European actors 

The Kosovo Judicial Council (KJC) has undertaken significant reforms to strengthen Kosovo’s justice system in response to recommendations from the European Commission and other organizations.

Fight against organised crime and corruption

The KJC has prioritized the fight against organized crime and corruption, a central recommendation from the European Commission - Kosovo Report. To this end, the KJC has implemented two strategic plans:

1. Strategic Plan for the Effectiveness in the Handling Cases of Corruption, Abuse of Office, and Organized Crime (2025-2027)): This strategy aims to build a judicial system capable of addressing these cases with efficiency, professionalism, and transparency.
2. Strategic Plan for Improving Access to Justice (2022-2025).This strategy focuses on enhancing the efficiency of the judicial system and prioritizing cases, including retrials, high-priority cases, and long-pending cases requiring urgent action.

Additionally, the KJC has established a Commission to monitor the implementation of these strategic plans. Composed of Supreme Court judges, the Commission ensures the unification of judicial practices and adherence to Supreme Court guidelines, further strengthening the judicial system.

To improve case processing, the KJC has strengthened the Special Department at the Basic Court in Pristina and the Court of Appeals by increasing the number of judges and support staff. This has led to faster and more efficient handling of cases related to corruption, organized crime, and other serious offenses.

Reform of the Judicial Administration

In line with the 2024 Kosovo Report, the KJC has implemented significant reforms to improve judicial administration. Key measures include:

• Training Programs: The KJC has adopted Regulation No. 17/2023 to provide training for judicial administration employees, enhancing their efficiency and professionalism. A Training Commission has been established, and a comprehensive training module plan is being developed.
• Action Plan for the Efficiency of the Judicial Administration (2024-2026): This plan outlines steps to streamline administrative processes and improve overall system performance.
• Electronic Platform: An electronic platform for managing case files of administrative staff has been established, further modernizing the judicial administration.

Transparency and Accountability

The KJC has taken concrete steps to enhance transparency and accountability, critical components for ensuring access to justice. Key initiatives include:

• Communication Strategy: The KJC's Communication Strategy aims to strengthen transparency and accountability by incorporating recommendations from international reports.
• Public Engagement: Council meetings, Assembly of Court Presidents meetings, and court presidents' reports are live-streamed on Facebook, ensuring public access to judicial proceedings.
• Online Transparency: The KJC website publishes information on judicial performance, appointments, promotions, disciplinary decisions, court rulings, statistical reports and other relevant information related to the KJC and court activities. A monitoring mechanism for individual cases and an open data platform have also been established.

Strengthening Case Management and Digital Systems

The KJC has made significant steps in digitizing court operations to improve efficiency and transparency:

• Case Management Information System (CMIS): This system has been fully integrated across all levels of the judiciary (Basic Courts, Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court). It enables real-time case registration and electronic management of all case-related actions.
• Strategic Plan for IT (2024-2029): Aligned with the European Commission's CEPEJ framework, this plan focuses on implementing digital justice tools.
• Courtroom Technology: With donor support, the KJC has installed audio and video recording equipment in courtrooms. A system for conducting hearings with protected witnesses has also been implemented, ensuring safer and more efficient proceedings.

Through these efforts, the KJC has demonstrated a strong commitment to reforming Kosovo's judicial system, aligning it with international standards and improving access to justice for all citizens.

The OIK recommends national and regional authorities to:

• Create a mechanism for compensating victims of violations of the right to a fair and impartial trial and judicial protection of rights.
• Strengthen continuous training and capacity-building programs for judges to improve their ability to handle discrimination cases effectively and uphold fundamental rights.
• Establish a systematic approach for recording and maintaining data on discrimination cases to enhance transparency, facilitate monitoring, and support evidence-based policymaking.

Based on the OIK’s human rights monitoring, reporting, and meetings with various stakeholders, verbal threats and attacks against journalists remain the most significant challenges affecting media freedom. Furthermore, during meetings between the Ombudsperson’s institution and various stakeholders, it was concluded that misinformation and disinformation remain significant challenges to media freedom in Kosovo, particularly due to the rapid growth of unregulated online media. In recent years, there has been a proliferation of news portals that prioritize sensationalism over journalistic integrity, often publishing unverified or false information solely to attract clicks and generate revenue. This trend undermines public trust in credible media and contributes to the spread of harmful narratives, especially on social media platforms where such content circulates widely without fact-checking.

The security and justice bodies should be more effective in tackling such cases in order to create peaceful environment for journalists to perform their duties. There is also an urgent need to amend the law on public broadcaster, Radiotelevision of Kosovo (RTK) that would create, among other things, financial sustainability. It would also create stability in management and board level. Last year, RTK faced a number of resignations among top management and board members. 

Measures taken to follow up on the recommendations concerning media freedom, issued by European actors

A new law regulating the Independent Media Commission (IMC) has been adopted, however, opposition parties have referred it to the Constitutional Court for review. In accordance with the Law on the Ombudsperson, the Ombudsperson has the authority to provide opinions on the contested legislation. In this context, the Ombudsperson has analysed Article 18, which governs the dismissal of the Chairperson and Members of the IMC, and has emphasized the need for a more cautious approach to dismissal procedures. Specifically, the Ombudsperson has raised concerns regarding the provision allowing the dismissal of the Chairperson or Members of the IMC by a simple majority vote in the Assembly, as this may create an increased risk of political influence over the institution’s leadership that the possibility of dismissing the Chairperson or Member of the IMC by a simple majority by the Assembly, apparently reveals a much easier possibility of political influence on the Chairperson or Member of the IMC. The Ombudsperson emphasizes that in this case, establishing the method of dismissal with a higher majority than the simple majority, would bring greater security to the Chairperson or Member of the IMC, in the exercise of their functions. However, the dismissal by 2/3 of all deputies should not be seen as a guarantee through which the chairman or member of the IMC can abuse the duties and responsibilities with which they are charged. 

The OIK recommends national and regional authorities to:

• Review the Law on Radiotelevision of Kosovo (RTK) to ensure its financial sustainability while safeguarding its independence.
• Ensure the Independent Media Commission and the Press Council have adequate human, financial and professional resources to operate effectively.
• Enhance Journalists’ Protection and Working Conditions by promoting stronger legal safeguards, fair labour conditions, and safety measures for journalists, including mechanisms to prevent threats, harassment, and undue pressure, while supporting independent journalism initiatives.

The Ombudsperson Institution considers the delay in the appointment of the Chief State Prosecutor by the competent authorities as a matter of concern, potentially undermining the rule of law and the system of checks and balances. Additionally, judicial backlogs– delays in court proceedings, particularly in human rights-related cases, continue to obstruct justice. Therefore, strengthening judicial efficiency, enforcing court decisions, and improving case management systems are crucial to restoring public trust in the judiciary.

Furthermore, as regards measures to follow up on recommendations concerning anti-corruption, the Assembly of the Republic of Kosovo has adopted key legislative measures aimed at strengthening the rule of law and combating corruption, including:

1. Law No. 08/L-322 on the Verification and Confiscation of Unjustified Assets – Intended to improve mechanisms for asset recovery and address illicit wealth, in line with European Commission recommendations on anti-corruption efforts.
2. Law No. 08/L-323 on Amendments to the Law on the Special Prosecution – Aimed at enhancing prosecutorial capacity to handle high-profile corruption and organized crime cases, addressing concerns about the effectiveness of law enforcement institutions.
3. Law No. 08/L-333 on Amendments to the Law on the Prevention of Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism – Aligning Kosovo’s legal framework with EU and international standards on anti-money laundering (AML) and countering the financing of terrorism (CFT).

However, these laws have been referred to the Constitutional Court by the two largest opposition parties, delaying their implementation. 

Within its activities the OIK also noticed the following persisting structural human rights issues impacting the national rule of law environment:

• Weak Enforcement of Human Rights Protections – Despite legal safeguards, decisions from human rights institutions, including the Ombudsperson’s recommendations, are not implemented in a satisfactory level, thus undermining institutional accountability and public trust.
• Impact of Economic Crisis on Vulnerable Communities – Rising economic instability has disproportionately affected marginalized groups, including low-income families, persons with disabilities, and minority communities. Limited access to social protection, rising unemployment, and inadequate housing conditions have exacerbated social inequalities and deepened economic hardship.
• Barriers to Accessing Justice – Delays in court proceedings and the absence of a compensation mechanism for fair trial violations restrict effective access to justice. 

The OIK recommends national and regional authorities to:

• Enhance Institutional Independence and Effectiveness by ensuring that national human rights institutions (NHRIs) and oversight bodies operate with full independence, adequate resources, and strengthened mandates in line with international standards, including the Paris and Venice Principles.
• Strengthen the Implementation of Human Rights and Rule of Law Standards by improving the enforcement of human rights judgments and recommendations from international and regional mechanisms, ensuring systematic follow-up by national authorities and European institutions.
• Foster Meaningful Participation and Public Consultation by promoting inclusive and transparent policymaking and guaranteeing the active involvement of NHRIs, civil society, and other stakeholders in legislative and policy development processes, particularly on issues impacting fundamental rights and democratic governance.

The Ombudsman of the Republic of Latvia was reaccredited with A-status in December 2020. Among the recommendations, the Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA) was of the view that the selection and appointment process enshrined in the Ombudsman Law was not sufficiently broad and transparent. It noted that the Latvian NHRI has proposed amendments to its enabling law to provide for the advertisement of vacancies and the ability for all interested candidates to submit their application prior to the proposal being made by the members of Parliament. The SCA encouraged the NHRI to advocate for the formalisation and application of a broad and transparent process.  

With regard to the provisions on dismissal of the Ombudsman, the SCA took the view that the process does not provide sufficient procedural safeguards to ensure that it could not be undertaken for political reasons. It encouraged the Latvian NHRI to advocate for appropriate amendments to its Law to ensure an independent and objective dismissal process. Further, the SCA noted that the enabling Law is silent on the number of times the Ombudsman can be re-appointed. It encouraged the Latvian NHRI to advocate for amendments to its enabling law to provide for limits on the term of office.  

Finally, the SCA encouraged the NHRI to advocate for the inclusion in its founding legislation of express provisions that clearly establish the functional immunity of the Ombudsman for actions taken in his or her official capacity in good faith. 

The SCA will consider the reaccreditation of the Latvian NHRI in its second session in October 2025. 

The national regulatory framework applicable to the Ombudsman’s Office has changed since January 2024. Amendments to the Ombudsman Law were adopted on 6 March 2025 and entered into force on 2 April 2025. The amendments include two main issues: including the function of the National Preventive Mechanisms in the Ombudsman Law and formalizing the procedure of accessing information and data included in the Court Information System, particularly with regard to rights and obligations for data security for the employees of the Ombudsman’s Office.  

Relevant state and local authorities have good awareness of the mandate, independence and role of the NHRI. Regarding steps taken to ensure prompt implementation of the Ombudsman’s recommendations by public authorities: on average, implementation of Ombudsman’s recommendations constitutes to 72% and above, which is also included in Ombudsman’s Annual Report to the Parliament and the President as one of the most characteristic performance indicators. 

Access to information and policy makers 

The Ombudsman, in carrying out the tasks and functions assigned by the Law, needs access to information and data of the Court Information System. Thus, a draft law on the amendments to the Ombudsman Law is now open to formalize the procedure of accessing the information (including rights and obligations for data security for the employees of the Ombudsman’s Office). 

Resources to carry out the full breath of the NHRI’s mandate 

The Ombudsman’s Office of Latvia has adequate resources, including for the performance of tasks of the national preventive mechanism, discrimination prevention and foreseeable monitoring of the implementation of the AI legislation.  

Measures to ensure timely and reasoned responses to NHRI recommendations 

As reported previously, on average, implementation of Ombudsman’s recommendations constitutes to 72% and above.  

Since 2022, there have been two cases initiated before the Constitutional Court following the applications of the Ombudsman: one regarding provision for the enrolment of six-year-olds to 1st Grade in Riga municipal schools only in the event of free places; the other – on the right of Latvian students studying abroad to receive the social scholarship.  

Measures to protect and support the NHRI 

As regards measures to protect and support the NHRI, heads of institution and staff against threats and harassment, Criminal Procedure Law states that only the Prosecutor General shall initiate criminal proceedings against the Ombudsman. The ombudsman may be held criminally liable or arrested only with the consent of the Parliament. A decision on placing the Ombudsman under arrest, conveyance by force, detention, or subjection to a search shall be taken by a specially authorised Supreme Court judge. If the Ombudsman has been apprehended in the committing of a serious or especially serious crime, a decision on conveyance by force, detention, or subjection to a search shall not be necessary, but the specially authorised Supreme Court judge and the Prosecutor General shall be informed within 24 hours. 

In December 2024, a working group coordinated by the Ministry of Justice started working on draft legislation to transpose the EU’s Anti-SLAPP directive. 

Initiatives to promote civil society space and human rights defenders 

The Ombudsman has taken several initiatives in 2024 to promote civil society space and human rights defenders. 

On 7 March 2024, the Ombudsman in collaboration with the Riga Graduate School of Law and the Nordic Council of Ministers’ Office in Latvia organised a conference on business and human rights “Human Rights as the New Fuel for Business”. Speakers of the conference shared their experience in integration of human rights principles in the everyday work and life of business, experts explained the meaning and role of the human rights due diligence and its realisation into practice.   

On 5-6 July 2024, the Ombudsman’s Office organised a discussion on the rights of inhabitants to favourable environment and the impact of environmental noise; as well as participated in discussions on violence in the workplace (mobbing and bossing) and problems of small schools in the rural regions and their role within the local community in the conversation festival “LAMPA” in Cēsis. 

On 27 November 2024, the Ombudsman’s Office organised a discussion on aggressive behaviour towards recognizable women (including journalists) in Latvia. With an analysis of practical examples, it looked at the negative impact of aggressive behaviour on the internet on respect for human rights, as well as how available and appropriate the existing redress mechanisms are. 

On 4 December 2024, the Ombudsman, in cooperation with the Association of Disabled People and their Friends “Apeirons” and the National Library of Latvia (LNB), organised an inspirational conference, “Human and Value”, an event for CSOs representing people with disabilities to share their experience and challenges and held the 10th consecutive ceremony of the “Annual Award for Supporting People with Disabilities”.  

On 10 December 2024, the Ombudsman presented research results and organised a discussion on the temporary protection of victims from violence in civil proceedings with the participation of representatives from courts, police, local governments, including Social Services, Orphan and Custody courts, lawyers and attorneys, and civil society organisations.  

In October, the Ombudsman had an info campaign on patient rights explaining different situations in healthcare as myths and reality.  

Initiatives to protect civil society space and human rights defenders 

The Ombudsman has also taken several initiatives in 2024 to protect civil society space and human rights defenders. 

For example, in June 2024, representatives of the Ombudsman’s Office participated in observation of the elections to the European Parliament by visiting the state social care centres and polling stations visited by the clients of the care centres (accessibility of the polling stations, access to information). 

Within the framework of the National Preventive Mechanism, the Ombudsman performed monitoring visits to out-family care institutions for children, social care centres, day-care centres and group home for people with mental health difficulties, psychiatric hospitals, prisons, etc.  

A new separate Discrimination Prevention Division within the Ombudsman’s Office started operating since the beginning of 2024. Its main tasks set for the previous year were not only examining submissions but also doing base-line research on different aspect of possible discrimination in Latvia, as well as cooperation with the media answering their requests and participating in various broadcasts.  

In 2024, the Ombudsman in cooperation with survey companies did research on topics like carer’s leave, accessibility on websites and mobile applications of public institutions, accessibility of banking services for people with restricted capacity, on rights of persons with disabilities – a survey of general public and people with disabilities; term ‘discrimination’ in Latvian media; accessibility of taxi services for people with disabilities and parents of young children; AI systems and discrimination aspects; survey of employees and employers on requirement to know a foreign language; compliance with the principle of non-discrimination in employment of parents of young children; survey of students, employees and academic staff of Latvian higher education institutions on sexual harassment in higher education institutions, and the experience of higher education institutions with artificial intelligence in the study process.  

The Ombudsman also did several public opinion polls to get an insight into topics under examination: an online survey of parents of school children (pupils) about the start time of classes and how students get to school; an online survey of students and employees of higher education institutions (universities and colleges) on sexual harassment in close cooperation with the Student Union of Latvia. 

On 27 January 2025 the Constitutional Court has initiated a case based on the Ombudsman’s application regarding the right of Latvian students studying abroad to receive a social scholarship. The Ombudsman has previously called on the Parliament to eliminate this deficiency. Currently, the social scholarship for large families is awarded only to those studying at universities in Latvia, but not for those studying abroad. The Ombudsman considers this to be violating the principle of legal equality. 

The Ombudsman recommends to the Parliament of Latvia: 

1. To eliminate the deficiency created regarding the right of Latvian students studying abroad to receive a social scholarship. 

Based on the Ombudsman’s human rights monitoring and reporting, the Ombudsman identified significant challenges affecting access to justice and/or effective judicial protection in several areas. 

Shortage of judges in the judicial system and challenges concerning the remuneration of the court staff 

There is an alarming tendency regarding the judicial system as there may be a shortage of judges in the coming years. State Audit Office audited the development of human resources in the courts of Latvia and, inter alia, concluded that each year, a number of judge vacancies increases. At the end of 2023, 54 or 10% of the approved judge positions were vacant. Moreover, the number of judges over the age of 61 is increasing, thus more than 28% of the current judges may retire in the coming years. Court employees, including assistants of judges, are underutilized and undervalued, resulting in unacceptably high turnover. Also, the President of the Supreme Court has indicated that shortage of judges is an increasing concern.  

On 4 February, President Edgars Rinkēvičs met with the President of the Supreme Court Aigars Strupišs and discussed the work of the Latvian judiciary in 2024 and addressed current priorities, including the quality and remuneration of court staff. 

Changes to the legal aid system 

On 8 January 2025 judges of the Constitutional Court met with the Minister of Justice and discussed possible solutions to make the state legal aid in the preparation of a constitutional complaint more available to those socially less protected persons, whose possible violation of fundamental rights would be seen as a perspective of a favourable judgment of the Constitutional Court. The discussion on this solution will be continued with the Council of Sworn Advocates of Latvia, the Ministry of Justice and the Judicial Administration. 

Election of a Latvian judge to the European Court of Human Rights 

On 16 April 2024, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, by an absolute majority of votes cast, elected Artūrs Kučs as Judge to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Latvia. 

Ombudsman’s actions to support the implementation of the European Courts’ judgments 

The Ombudsman initiates translation of the ECtHR rulings, especially those regarding Latvia, into Latvian, and informs relevant stakeholders on Court’s argumentation, e.g., in the CASE OF E.K. v. LATVIA regarding contact rights of parents and children.

There are positive policy developments regarding protection of journalists. During 2024, several interdisciplinary working groups took place to discuss and improve the measures concerning the media space. Ministry of Culture coordinated a working group focusing on journalist safety and additionally concluded the work on Media Policy Guidelines for 2024-2027. Representative of the Ombudsman’s Office participates in this working group. 

In Summer 2024, the Public Electronic Mass Media Council approved the new Public Media Ombudsman. Soon after his approval he initiated a meeting with the Ombudsman’s Office, and we have been collaborating on several occasions and topics.  

On 27 September 2024, the Annual Public Media Ombudsman’s conference "Latvian Public Media and Society 2024: Listen, See, Understand" took place. As part of the conference, an expert conversation was held on the most vivid examples of content in public media in 2024 and their impact on trust in public media in general. Representative from Ombudsman’s Office took part in this Conference and spoke about the use of personal data and the presumption of innocence when journalists discuss sensitive events. 

Moreover, representative of the Ombudsman’s Office participated with legal expertise in the conference on development of a stronger and more modern public media enterprise with wider reachability organised by the Public Electronic Mass Media Council.  

On 27 November 2024, the Ombudsman’s Office also organised a discussion on aggressive behaviour towards recognizable women (including journalists) in Latvia. With an analysis of practical examples, it looked at the negative impact of aggressive behaviour on the internet on respect for human rights, as well as how available and appropriate the existing redress mechanisms are. 

In December 2024, a working group coordinated by the Ministry of Justice started working on draft legislation to transpose the EU’s Anti-SLAPP directive. A representative from the Ombudsman’s Office is also a member of the working group. Additionally, Latvian Public Media has positively referred to an increase in their budget.

The Liechtenstein Association of Human Rights (Verein für Menschenrechte in Liechtenstein; VMR) is a non-accredited, associate member of ENNHRI since September 2019. It was founded in December 2016 by 26 non-governmental organisations through the Liechtenstein Human Rights Association Act. It serves as an Ombuds body with a broad mandate to protect and promote human rights in Liechtenstein. The institution also acts as the Ombuds Office for Children and Young People and as the Monitoring Mechanism under Article 33 (2) UN CRPD. 

ENNHRI will be supporting the Institution to seek accreditation by reference to the UN Paris Principles. The VMR Board wrote to the SCA in 2024 to request it be considered for accreditation. 

The accreditation status of the VMR will be considered by the SCA during its second session of 2025. 

NHRI follow-up on the recommendations concerning their institution, issued by European actors 

As an EEA-member, Liechtenstein is obliged to implement EEA-relevant EU law regarding human rights. Furthermore, Liechtenstein is committed to the CoE Ministers Recommendation 2021/1 on NHRIs and all applicable rulings of the UN. The VMR has submitted the recommendations to the government and discussed their implications. 

Gender perspective 

The government is currently developing a national gender equality strategy on the basis of a CEDAW-recommendation from 2017. The VMR is part of the development process and will also implement actions in its own work. 

Changes in regulatory framework

In the context of the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) (ratified in January 2024), the VMR has been appointed as the responsible body to implement a monitoring mechanism according to Art. 33 (2) CRPD. In the process the VMR Act (Article 1 Para. 2 Lit. b, Article 4, and some minor changes) has been adapted accordingly. 

To be able to fulfil this task, the VMR has been granted additional financial resources (see Government’s Report and Proposal No. 100/2023, page 63 and pages 71ff., Government’s Report and Proposal No. 74/2023, pages 24ff. and pages 42f.). 

Mandate strengthened to contribute to access to justice

In terms of strategic litigation before courts:

The mandate hasn’t changed since 2022, but in 2024, the VMR launched a pilot project on strategic litigation with private funding. The goal is to obtain more human rights case law in Liechtenstein. 

In terms of providing legal assistance to individuals:

The mandate hasn’t changed since 2022, but the VMR offers initial legal assistance to individuals in human rights cases. If a consultation produces critical legal questions the VMR cannot answer itself, it provides initial legal assistance. For these cases, the VMR has agreements with law firms in Liechtenstein. In the context of strategic litigation, the VMR offers legal assistance not only initially, but also for the whole procedure under the following criteria: 

• It falls under Liechtenstein jurisdiction;
• It is a litigable human right;
• It is a natural person;
• VMR has the affected person‘s consent.

The VMR is currently searching for more private funding for legal assistance. 

NHRI regulatory framework should be strengthened

Establishing a right of associational appeal for NHRIs would improve access to justice for individuals and strengthen VMR’s position in a grievance.

There is a comprehensive anti-discrimination penal code, but there is no comprehensive anti-discrimination law in the civil law in Liechtenstein. In its monitoring report 2023 (p. 18), the VMR addresses the need for such a law in Liechtenstein. 

Consequently, there is also no official Equality Body in Liechtenstein. Even though the VMR fulfills most of the conditions for an Equality Body, it obtained no such mandate. In the context of a comprehensive anti-discrimination law in Liechtenstein, the mandate of an Equality Body as well as its membership to Equinet should also be discussed.

State authorities’ good awareness of the NHRI’s mandate, independence and role

The relevant state authorities are aware of the VMR’s mandate, independence and role. 

Due to the detailed legal basis of the VMR, the mandate, independence and role of the institution is well documented and clear. The competences and role of the VMR are regularly discussed during annual meetings with members of the government and regular meetings with all national parties represented in the parliament. 

Access to information and involvement in legislation and policy-making processes

The VMR has adequate access to information and to policy makers and is involved in all stages of legislation and policy making with human rights implications. The VMR is informed about all legislative projects of the government via newsletter and, since 2021, also about all upcoming public court hearings. 

Timely and reasoned responses to NHRI recommendations

The addressees of the VMR’s recommendations are not legally obliged to provide a timely and reasoned reply and to respond to the institution’s recommendations. It would be helpful to include a corresponding obligation in the founding act of the VMR. However, the recommendations are published in the VMR’s annual report, forming some public pressure for implementation. So far, though, cooperation between the institution and state authorities has been satisfactory.

Functional immunity / Measures to protect NHRI staff 

No gaps in the protection and support of the VMR – head of institution and staff – regarding threats and harassment or any other forms of intimidation (including SLAPP actions) have been identified, so far. There is no immunity or specific penal code provisions concerning the protection of the Institution, its head and staff.

Adequate resources

In the context of the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) (ratified in January 2024), the VMR has been appointed as the responsible body to implement a monitoring mechanism according to Art. 33 (2) CRPD. In the process the VMR Act (Article 1 Para. 2 Lit. b, Article 4, and some minor changes) has been adapted accordingly. 

To be able to fulfil its additional mandate, the VMR has been granted more financial resources since 2024 (see Government’s Report and Proposal No. 100/2023, page 63 and pages 71ff., Government’s Report and Proposal No. 74/2023, pages 24ff. and pages 42f.). Nevertheless, the VMR needs further resources to implement and coordinate an independent and participatory monitoring mechanism by including experts and persons with disabilities. For 2025 the VMR plans to forward this issue to the government.

As a general rule, the VMR stresses the importance of ensuring enough state funding to enable the institution to carry out its mandate.

The independence and effectiveness of the VMR could be strengthened by establishing a right of associational appeal for the NHRI - the right for the NHRI to intervene in court cases (submit appeals) in its name as a party to the proceedings, on behalf of individuals. This would also improve access to justice for individuals, lead to more case law on human rights and therefore to more effective implementation of human rights in Liechtenstein.

NHRI initiatives in 2024 to promote civil society space and human rights defenders

Joint meetings and/or roundtables

The VMR organises and coordinates annual roundtables on the asylum situation and on gender equality. At these roundtables, NGO/HRD as well as state actors discuss their positions and exchange views. This is a means to strengthen NGO/HRD and make their voices heard. Other sporadic roundtables e.g. on child custody or LGBTQ+ rights have been initiated as a reaction to current developments or needs. 

NHRI actions to protect civil society space and human rights defenders (HRDs)

Monitoring

According to Art. 4 (2) of the VMR act, the VMR monitors the human rights situation in Liechtenstein in general and publishes an annual monitoring report (Monitoring report 2023). The VMR does not specifically monitor the protection of civil society space and human rights defenders. 

Complaints handling

According to Art. 4 (2) lit. b) of the VMR Act, the VMR handles complaints regarding human rights violations. In 58 consultations to the VMR in 2024 no consultation/complaint concerned the protection of civil society space and human rights defenders. 

Legal assistance

Since its foundation, the VMR has not identified the necessity of legal assistance regarding the protection of civil society space and human rights defenders.

Recommendations & opinions

According to Art. 4 (2) lit. d) and 3) of the VMR Act, the VMR may give recommendations to public and private organisations, and present its opinions to government proposals. In 2024 the VMR made 5 recommendations to the government or public authorities and wrote 2 opinions on government proposals (guardianship law and implementation of EU-directive 2022/2381 on improving the gender balance among directors of listed companies).

Capacity building

VMR provides capacity building and training of civil society observers for asylum interviews. 

Examples of NHRI engagement in this area with international and regional mechanisms in support of human rights defenders and civil society

Since 2022, the VMR has been visited by GREVIO, GRECO and Congress of Local and Regional Authorities from the Council of Europe, as well as CRC and UNICEF (child friendly cities initiative) and UNCHR Office for Switzerland and Liechtenstein by the UN. The VMR organized an exchange between the UN-High Commissioner on Human Rights, Volker Turk, and 16 NGO/HRD in January 2024. The exchange not only provided the possibility for NGO/HRD to express concerns and wishes. The UN Commissioner also supported, strengthened and motivated the NGO/HRD to continue their work and make their voices heard. 

The VMR fosters the exchange with the state working group on the implementation of international human rights’ recommendations in Liechtenstein. The VMR thereby takes into account and promotes NGO/HRD views towards the state working group. 

As VMR is an association, the VMR gathers most civil society human rights organizations as members. According to Art. 4 (2) f) of the VMR act, the VMR fosters cooperation and information among them. This is also a means of strengthening NGO/HRD. 

NHRIs providing specific support to women human rights defenders (WHRDs) or LGBTQ+ human rights defenders:

All civil society organisations and networks who defend women or LGBTQ+ rights are members of the VMR. The VMR coordinates an annual round table on gender equality with state and non-state actors. It maintains regular communication and cooperation with women and LGBT+ organisations and supports their work in content and resources (See the VMR Annual Report 2024, page 15).

• Actively seek the dialogue with NGO/HRD
• Publicly acknowledge the work of NGO/HRD for human rights and an inclusive society. 

Significant challenges affecting access to justice and/or effective judicial protection

Independence and impartiality of judiciary

In February 2023, the Government has issued a proposal for a judiciary reform for public consultation. The proposal has been debated in the parliament in the form of a Government’s Report and Proposal in June 2024 and adopted in November 2024 according to the government proposal 105/2004. 

In the process, the VMR released a public statement against the decrease of judicial authorities and held conversations with representatives of the judiciary system as well as the bar association. 

After initial criticism by the parliament and other organizations when the government proposed to decrease the number of judicial authorities from three to two, the government changed its proposal. The main changes in the judiciary system are: 

• Integration of the Administrative Court into the Supreme Court.
• Full-time judges for the Supreme and Constitutional Court.
• Temporarily continued employment after retirement age and the possibility of part time employment for judges and prosecutors.
• New learning and evaluation process (probation period) for judges at the Court of Justice.
• Installation of a so-called “pool of judges” at level of the Court of Appeal to ensure topical expert committees and more flexibility. 

Challenges affecting media freedom

Decline in media pluralism 

There are two media types in Liechtenstein: Private media that may be subsidised by the state with the media funding law, and media under public law (fully funded by the state). Private media is bound to the media law. All but one media outlet are private media (One daily newspaper: Liechtensteiner Vaterland, one television channel: 1FLTV, online news platforms, e.g. Landesspiegel and several topical publications that are published periodically). The only media under public law (Liechtenstein broadcast act) is Radio Liechtenstein. In addition, the state offers the «Landeskanal» as electronic medium for public information. The Liechtenstein municipalities also use such a form of public information (“Gemeindekanal”). 

It’s noteworthy, that after one of the two daily print media outlets had to go out of business in 2023, there is only one daily newspaper left in Liechtenstein (see also the government’s press release). Hence, the government made a proposal to promote the media diversity in Liechtenstein. The amended proposal, granting more financial support to media has been adopted by the parliament in December 2024. The revised act on media subsidy will enter into force in May 2025. 

In October 2024, the political party «Demokraten pro Liechtenstein» launched a petition for a referendum to repeal the Liechtenstein Broadcast Act by the end of 2025. As the referendum was successful and the consecutive popular in favour of the referendum the only radio station under public law, Radio Liechtenstein, will not be supported from the government under public law anymore. Hence, there will be no media outlet under public law in Liechtenstein anymore, other than the “Landeskanal”. 

Although these developments pose no urgent threat to human rights, the VMR is still concerned that this is a limitation of media diversity as well as plurality of public opinions in Liechtenstein. 

Independence and effectiveness of media regulatory bodies

Government proposal No. 143/2024 foresees an amendment of the Media Act (p. 21ff.). Besides the possibility to contact the Swiss Press Council, the government intends to create an independent ombudsperson, responsible for alleged violations of: media content, journalistic diligence or the Journalism Code (Journalistenkodex).

Access to public interest information/documents

The VMR perceives the access to information on vulnerable and marginalised groups as a particular challenge. Government agencies, as well as the VMR, have little data on vulnerable or marginalised individuals or groups. Comprehensive research as a basis for long-term inclusion strategies would be needed here.

In its fourth evaluation round, GRECO published its interim compliance report for Liechtenstein in March 2024, which covers the topic of corruption prevention in respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors. GRECO concluded that Liechtenstein has implemented or dealt with in a satisfactory manner six of the sixteen recommendations of the Fourth Round Evaluation report. Additionally, eight recommendations have been partly implemented and two have not been implemented.

The Parliamentary Ombudsperson’s Office of the Republic of Lithuania was last reaccredited A-status by the Sub-Committee on Accreditation in May 2024.  

The SCA noted that despite the recent increase of the Lithuanian NHRI’s budget, it is not sufficient to properly carry out its broad mandate. Therefore, the SCA recommended further advocacy for an adequate level of funding to effectively carry out the full breadth of its current and additional mandates effectively, especially the mandate to promote human rights.  

Additionally, the SCA noted that the participation of civil society in the selection & appointment process is not formalized. In this regard, the SCA recommended that the NHRI continues to advocate for the formalization and application of a process which includes requirements to publicize vacancies broadly and to promote broad consultation and/or participation of civil society organizations in the application, screening, selection and appointment process.  

Further, the SCA noted that the grounds for Parliament to initiate a no-confidence vote are not explicit in the enabling law. It recommended the NHRI to advocate for amendments to the enabling law to provide for an independent and objective dismissal process, including by providing express criteria on the no-confidence vote against the Ombudsperson or to remove this ground for dismissal.  

Finally, the SCA encourages the NHRI to continue interpreting its mandate in a broad manner and to advocate for amendments to its enabling law to have an explicit mandate encouraging the ratification or accession to regional and international human rights instruments.

There are no relevant updates concerning the SCA recommendations since the Parliamentary Ombudspersons’ Office’s (hereinafter referred to as “the NHRI”) reaccreditation with “A” status in 2024. The NHRI observes that the SCA recommendations were submitted in June 2024, and the parliamentary elections were held in October 2024, so this issue was not a priority for politicians. In addition, it was reasonable to wait until the new composition of the parliament was clear. However, the SCA recommendations were presented during the meeting of the Parliamentary Human Rights Committee on 11 December 2024. 

As regards the follow-up on the recommendation concerning the NHRI, the NHRI notes that the 2024 EU Rule of Law report concluded that there has been significant progress in providing adequate financial resources for the NHRI, taking into account European standards on resources for Ombuds institutions and the UN Paris Principles. No new recommendations directly related to the Office were submitted.

The national regulatory framework applicable to the NHRI has changed since January 2024. 

On 7 November 2024, the Parliament adopted the Law on the Parliamentary Ombudspersons No VIII-950 amending Articles 1, 3, 4, 24 and Section III of the Law on the Parliamentary Ombudspersons and supplementing the Law with Article 19-3, which provides that from 1 January 2025 the NHRI  will take on the role of National Rapporteur on trafficking in human beings. The 2025 budget allocates funding for two additional positions to support the implementation of the new mandate. 

Otherwise, the NHRI’s mandate to contribute to access to justice for individuals has not been strengthened since 2022 (see 2022 national baseline report).  

However, the NHRI highlights that the SCA recommendations should be implemented. In the 2024 Report, the SCA noted that the formal participation of civil society organizations in the application, screening and selection of Ombudsperson is not enshrined in the Law on the Parliamentary Ombudspersons nor in any other binding administrative documents. Considering this, the SCA recommended that involvement of civil society organizations should be formalized, for example by directly soliciting proposals from civil society; or allowing civil society to directly participate in the evaluation process.  

As it was mentioned, the grounds for Parliament to initiate a vote of no-confidence in the Parliamentary Ombudspersons are not explicit in Article 9 (1) of the Law on the Parliamentary Ombudspersons nor is such ground specified in the Parliament (Seimas) Statute. The SCA highlighted that the grounds for dismissal must be clearly defined and appropriately confined to those actions that impact adversely on the capacity of the members to fulfil the institution’s mandate. Where appropriate, the legislation should specify that the application of a particular ground must be supported by a decision of an independent body with appropriate jurisdiction. The dismissal must be made in strict conformity with all the substantive and procedural requirements as prescribed by law and it should not be based solely on the discretion of the appointing authorities.  

It is also important to mention that the NHRI carries out activities relating to encouraging ratification of human rights instruments. However, the Law on the Parliamentary Ombudspersons does not explicitly vest the Parliamentary Ombudspersons with this function. The SCA encouraged the Parliamentary Ombudspersons to continue interpreting its mandate in a broad manner and to advocate for the appropriate amendments to its enabling law to have an explicit mandate to encourage ratification or accession to regional and international human rights instruments.

According to the NHRI, the relevant state authorities do not have good awareness of the NHRI’s mandate, independence and role. Members of the Parliament and politicians confuse the NHRI with the National Audit Office of Lithuania, and the title “Parliamentary Ombudsperson” in Lithuanian is misleading (“Controller of the Parliament”, whereas the Lithuanian name for National Audit Office is “State Controller”). Executive authorities are often unaware of the specifics of the Parliamentary Ombudspersons’ Office’s status and do not understand that it is not an executive authority, but, as the Constitutional Court has clarified, a body that is neither the legislative, executive nor judicial. The NHRI is formed based on civil service, and the same rules and requirements apply to it as to the executive authority institutions. State authorities are often unaware that the Parliamentary Ombudspersons’ Office is also an NHRI, this function is believed to be held by non-governmental organizations (the Lithuanian Human Rights Centre and the Human Rights Monitoring Institute). Therefore, the NHRI experiences difficulties in obtaining information about relevant human rights related initiatives. To improve the situation, awareness-raising campaigns could be organized, but funding is never allocated for this. 

Furthermore, the NHRI does not have adequate access to information and to policy makers and is not involved in all stages of legislation and policymaking with human rights implications. The NHRI notes that in general, it is necessary to take a proactive interest, asking for information about ongoing reforms, working groups, etc. As regards participation in the legislative process, the NHRI can obtain information on the consideration of draft legislative acts from the social partners working in specific areas, and it is also possible to find this information on the Internet. Only very occasionally is the Office notified about the prepared draft laws by the parliamentarian committees. The Office can then issue an opinion, commenting on the draft legislation under consideration. These comments are discussed in parliamentary committees. Involvement in the decision-making process largely depends on the personal relations that have been established with the decision-makers; since the composition of the Parliament has changed, all contacts have to be renewed. The national regulation (Seimas Statute) currently does not provide for the mandatory opinion of the Parliamentary ombudspersons (or NHRI) when considering issues related to human rights. Article 138 (3) of the Statute only provides for the non-binding general possibility, after registering the draft law to request that other institutions (not specifying which institutions might be addressed) present to the Seimas their conclusions on the draft under consideration. According to Article 147 (7) of the Statute, the appointed responsible committee to consider a draft law forwards the draft law to interested state institutions and, where necessary, to public organisations, local authorities, and political parties to send their evaluations. However, there is no provision obliging such a committee to take into account the opinions provided. 

Moreover, the NHRI does not have adequate resources to carry out the full breath of its mandate, as there are no resources allocated to NHRI’s promotion mandate, as state authorities do not fully understand its significance and necessity. However, from 2025, additional funding has been allocated for the mandate of the national rapporteur on combating trafficking in human beings (2 new positions covered).  

The NHRI notes that there were no changes in legislation, state measures or practices to ensure timely and reasoned responses to NHRI recommendations. However, the NHRI also notes that such legislative changes are not necessary, as the NHRI almost always receives replies from the bodies to which recommendations have been made, following the obligation enshrined in the article 20, par. 3 of the Law on Seimas Ombudspersons, stating that “Seimas Ombudsperson shall be informed forthwith upon the adoption of the decisions on measures to be taken in the light of the proposal (recommendation) of the Seimas Ombudsperson, but not later than within 30 days from the receipt of the proposal (recommendation)”. If necessary, information on the implementation of specific recommendations can be requested again, follow-up actions are carried out and meetings are initiated. 

As regards the issue of functional immunity, the NHRI notes that the leadership and staff do not enjoy functional immunity, however, there are sufficient measures to protect and support the NHRI, heads of institution and staff against threats and harassment and any other forms of intimidation in place.  

Neither the Constitution nor the Law on the Parliamentary Ombudspersons provide for functional immunity for Parliamentary Ombudspersons or the employees of the NHRI. At the same time, it is important to emphasize that since the beginning of the activities of the Parliamentary Ombudspersons in 1995, and even more since the accreditation of the Parliamentary Ombudspersons’ Office as a NHRI in 2017, there were no attempts to interfere in the activities of the Ombudspersons nor in any other ways the independence of Ombudspersons was jeopardized. Regular procedural guarantees enshrined in the Constitution and the laws are considered to be sufficient in order to protect the independence of the Ombudspersons. It should also be noted that immunity is also not applicable to specialised Ombudspersons, i. e. Equal Opportunities Ombudsperson, Ombudsperson for Children’s Rights and Intelligence Ombudsperson, nor to other independent control or supervisor institutions or state officials, for instance, to the Auditor General, members of Central Electoral Commission, etc. 

The NHRI also highlights that it has not faced threats in the form of intimidation or harassment. The only threats faced by the NHRI were related to inadequate resources. However, this threat was addressed by the Government after strong recommendations on the issue were included in the European Commission’s 2023 EU Rule of Law Report.

1. The NHRI highlights that it remains important to follow up on the recommendations to allocate adequate financial and other resources, especially for the mandate of human rights promotion and awareness raising, also to allocate adequate resources if the new functions are attributed to the Office.
2. The NHRI recommends formalising the involvement of civil society organisations in the application, examination and selection of the Ombudspersons, and to clearly establish in law the grounds for Parliament to initiate a vote of no confidence in the Parliamentary Ombudsperson, or to abolish the no confidence procedure as such.
3. The NHRI recommends that the NHRI should always be informed about amendments to legislation related to human rights being considered in the Parliament. 

While the NHRI’s human rights monitoring and reporting found no evidence of laws, policies and/or state measures that negatively impact freedom of association, freedom of assembly or freedom of expression, or challenges faced by women human rights defenders (WHRDs) or LGBTQ+ human rights defenders, the NHRI notes that should any unique challenges faced by WHRDs or LGBTQ+ human rights defenders be identified, the NHRI is ready take appropriate measures, e. g. bringing the issues to the attention of competent authorities and institutions including the Parliamentary Human Rights Committee, as well as raising these issues in public. The NHRI maintains close ties with NGOs operating in the relevant areas, e. g. in 2024 the Office has carried out a project on implementation of LGBTQ+ rights by Lithuanian municipalities in partnership with Lithuanian Gay League (“Lietuvos gėjų lyga”) – a nongovernmental organization in Lithuania representing the interests of the local LGBTQ+ community. The Office also participates in relevant events and actively supports all initiatives aimed at improving the situation of the mentioned groups. 

Participation of NGOs in decision-making 

The Seimas Ombudspersons’ Office initiated a rapid survey of non-governmental organizations regarding their participation in decision-making processes. The survey revealed that, in some cases, Lithuanian non-governmental organizations are insufficiently involved in decision-making processes, particularly at the local government level. Municipalities are not always inclined to consult with the public and non-governmental organizations when making important decisions, regarding, for instance, decisions related to the rights of people with disabilities and ethnic minorities. Moreover, there are cases where non-governmental organizations are only formally included in the decision-making processes at the government level, such as being given an extremely short deadline to submit comments on draft legislation or where the comments are completely disregarded. As indicated by some survey participants, the reason for this could be that the law does not provide for an obligation to proactively consult with non-governmental organizations operating in the relevant field when considering legislation, nor does it require providing reasons when submitted comments are not taken into account.  

The NHRI’s human rights monitoring and reporting found no evidence of practices that could negatively impact on civil society space and/or reduce human rights defenders’ activities, such as negative attitudes/campaigns towards/perceptions of civil society and/or human rights defenders by public authorities and the general public, online and/or offline threats or harassment, as well as intimidation, harassment or violence before, during or after protests. 

On 29 March 2024, the Ombudsperson issued conclusions in the investigation into the incident when counter-protesters disrupted a peaceful assembly organised by an LGBTQ+ rights organisation and the police did not intervene in September 2023 (incident reported in the 2024 ENNHRI Rule of Law Report). The Ombudsperson found that police officers failed to ensure the right of the LGBTQ+ community to hold a peaceful protest in front of the Parliament building in Vilnius. The inadequate reaction of the police officers did not guarantee the right to peaceful assembly of the participants of the gathering organised by the Lithuanian Gay League. The Ombudsperson issued a recommendation to the Police Commissioner General to take measures to ensure that in all cases the participants who have obtained a permit to organise an assembly are guaranteed a practical and effective exercise of their right to peaceful assembly, especially when the actions of provocateurs or hostile persons threaten the full enjoyment of this right. 

Incidents have also occurred during the 2024 LGBTQ+ Pride event which took place on 8 June 2024 in Vilnius. A pre-trial investigation was launched into the incident when an individual set on fire a flag representing the LGBTQ+ community during the LGBTQ+ march. The pre-trial investigation was closed due to the absence of sufficient evidence to establish a criminal offence of incitement to hatred against any national, racial, ethnic, religious or other group of people, however, it was considered to hold the individual administratively liable. The same individual burnt an LGBTQ+ community flag again in front of the building of the Parliament on 18 July 2024. 

Negative attitudes towards LGBTIQ+ community were also expressed by a public official. In July 2024, a mayor of the Širvintos municipality circulated a public video in which she tore a letter asking for information about services provided to LGBTIQ+ people, sent by researchers of the project implemented by Kaunas Technological University in partnership with the Lithuanian Gay League, the NHRI and Vilnius city municipality. In the publicly circulated video, the mayor of Širvintos, before tearing the letter, read out the names of the organisations participating in the project and made comments alleging that LGBTQI+ community demands some kind of exceptional privileges, asked ‘why LGBTQI+ people cannot be like other people’, and said that ‘the municipality will not participate in the project’. Eventually, after repeatedly requested by the NHRI in September 2024, the municipality submitted the answers to the questionnaire. 

In February 2024 a prominent HRD and politician Tomas Vytautas Raskevičius announced a submission of a complaint to the Prosecutor’s General Office based on a comment calling for violence against LGBTQI+ people. While the exact scale of online threats is unknown there have been at least several instances when HRDs have publicly announced a submission of a complaint to Prosecutor’s General Office in reaction to online comments inciting violence. 

Intimidation was observed not only in the context of LGBTQI+ rights. In October 2024 around 100 people marched in the centre of Vilnius in support of Palestinians and Lebanon and against the actions of the Israeli military in Gaza. The march was initially blocked by several pro-Israel protesters who were repeatedly asked to leave by the police but eventually continued to walk in front of the participants of the march while making hostile replicas and chants. No pre-trial investigation was initiated. 

In June 2024, the exhibition RESONANCE BEYOND ESCAPE: QWORKAHOLICS ANONYMOUS III, curated by Party Office (Vidisha-Fadescha), opened at the Nida Art Colony (NAC) of the Vilnius Academy of Arts (VDA). The exhibition included statements such as “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free” and “Pro BDS Only,” as well as the flag of Palestine. Following pressure from the Embassy of Israel in Lithuania and the Jewish (Litvak) Community of Lithuania, who accused the organizers of anti-Semitism and complained to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who involved the Ministry of Culture that had provided the funding for the exhibition, these statements and the flag of Palestine were removed in August 2024. During the pressure campaign, the director of NAC was questioned by the police due to complaint that the exhibition incites hatred, but the investigation was discontinued. 

The NHRI notes that threats or attacks specifically against human rights defenders are usually categorized as hate crimes and/or hate speech and carried out by non-state actors. However, the problem of hate speech towards vulnerable groups remains a pressing one. Victims of hate crimes or hate speech often lack adequate assistance and representation, do not trust law enforcement, and do not know where and how to seek help. The personal attitudes of law enforcement officers can hinder the recognition of hate crimes, influence decisions to refuse to classify an act as a hate crime, discontinue an investigation and increase the risk of secondary victimization. 

Moreover, the NHRI’s monitoring also found evidence of transnational repression of human rights defenders. On 12 March 2024 a prominent Russian political activist and outspoken critic of the current regime in Russia, Leonid Volkov, was attacked near his home in Vilnius by an unknown person with a hammer and briefly hospitalised. Lithuanian and Polish authorities subsequently made statements alleging that the attack was ‘organised by Russia’. In April 2024, Lithuanian Prosecutor General’s Office confirmed that several Polish citizens had been detained in connection to the attack by the Polish authorities and added that the attack was fuelled by Mr Volkov's ‘beliefs and his views. In the immediate aftermath of the attack, the State Security Department, Lithuanian politicians and experts blamed it on the Kremlin regime and the Russian special services. 

According to the NHRI, the most important gap in the protection of HRDs nationally is that there are no specific initiatives, frameworks, or policies namely aiming for the protection of HRDs. In the case of HRDs, only general provisions apply, including anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) rules (which are also not targeting HRDs specifically) provisions, introduced by the amendment of the Lithuanian Code of Civil Procedure on 22 December 2022 (with the amendments coming into force on 31 December 2022) in article 95.  

The NHRI is ready to advocate for the improvement of the current legal framework and adoption of HRDs-oriented protections in cooperation with ENNHRI, in case relevant best-practices would be identified and published. 

The NHRI has taken several initiatives in 2024 to promote civil society space and human rights defenders, particularly in the form of organization of joint meetings and roundtables. The NHRI regularly organizes and (or) participates in meetings and roundtable discussions with civil society and representatives of NGOs operating in relevant fields. For example, in August 2024 the NHRI organised a discussion on LGBTQ+ rights protection, while in December 2024 - a meeting with the organisations fighting against human trafficking and providing support to the victims. During such meetings the objective is to address both relevant issues and developments in the field as well as issues and obstacles the NGOs and civil society representatives encounter while carrying out their activities. The NHRI also contributed (by providing funding and human resources) to the organisation of the National Human Rights Forum 2024 – the biggest annual event gathering academic, governmental and non-governmental sectors including HRDs and civil society to discuss selected human rights topics in Lithuania. Within the framework of the forum, Parliamentary Ombudspersons participated in panel discussions titled “Is there a place for LGBTI+ people in municipalities?” and “Lithuania in international organisations. What have we done in the field of human rights?” 

In addition, the NHRI also protects civil society space and human rights defenders (HRDs) by monitoring, complaints handling, issuing recommendations & opinions and capacity-building. 

The NHRI conducts regular monitoring of the human rights situation in Lithuania and issues annual reports on selected topics. In 2024 the Parliamentary Ombudspersons issued a Report on monitoring the human rights situation in Lithuania 2023. 

The Parliamentary Ombudspersons also investigate complaints falling within the scope of the right to good public administration and related to actions or inaction by public state and municipal institutions. The NHRI encourages civil society organizations and HRDs to submit complaints if, for example, they are not included in public decision making, are prevented from accessing information or face other issues, also to inform Parliamentary Ombudspersons on the issues requiring attention and intervention. 

Recommendations are issued by the Parliamentary Ombudspersons when it is identified that draft laws under consideration in the Parliament of the Republic of Lithuania may have an impact on civil society space, as well as in connection to the investigated complaints or investigations carried out on the initiative of the Parliamentary Ombudspersons. 

In September 2024 the Parliamentary Ombudspersons in cooperation with UNHCR office in Lithuania organized a training event on the European Migration Pact, aimed at capacity building and better understanding of ongoing legislative and policy changes related to the implementation of the Pact. The event gathered representatives of NGOs and civil society operating in the field of migration in Lithuania. 

Moreover, the NHRI notes that it does not engage very actively with international or regional mechanisms in support of human rights defenders and civil society due to the lack of resources devoted to such activities.

1. The NHRI recommends to national authorities to create opportunities for the civil society, NGOs, and HRDs to be involved in the decision-making. In that context it would be useful to conduct surveys gathering information on the main challenges and needs faced by the civil society, NGOs and HRDs. The involvement of non-governmental organizations should be formalized - the law should provide for an obligation to actively consult with non-governmental organizations when making relevant decisions and considering legal acts, as well as to provide reasons when the submitted comments are not considered.
2. The NHRI further recommends to national authorities to respond effectively to threats, harassment and crimes against civils society and HRDs, including through legal recourse and creation of a climate of intolerance against HRD harassment.
3. The NHRI also recommends to European actors to issue guidelines or recommendations on the design of national measures aimed at HRD protection. 

Challenges affecting access to justice 

Based on the NHRI’s human rights monitoring and reporting, the NHRI identified significant challenges affecting access to justice and/or effective judicial protection in the area of access to legal aid. In general, the NHRI does not monitor access to justice in Lithuania. However, on 30 May 2024 the Parliament of the Republic of Lithuania passed Law No XIV-2673 (coming into force on 1 January 2025) amending, among other provisions, section 71 § 1 (4)  of the Law on the Legal Status of Foreigners and providing that asylum seekers no longer have a right to state-guaranteed legal aid when appealing against a decision of a court of first instance on asylum application, thus restricting access to justice for the asylum seekers. 

An additional challenge to the administration of justice that has been consistently raised by the courts themselves is a serious lack of resources for judicial assistants and court staff (who are not judges), as it undermines both expeditiousness and the quality of the decisions. The issue of low and uncompetitive wages of the court staff was most recently raised by Dr. Danguolė Bublienė, President of the Judicial Council in December 2024. 

Follow-up and implementation by state authorities of European Court’s judgments 

On 12 December 2024, the Parliament of the Republic of Lithuania passed a Decision No. XV-58 on granting state recognition to the Ancient Baltic Religious Community "Romuva" thereby implementing ECtHR judgment of 8 June 2021 in the case of Ancient Baltic religious association Romuva v. Lithuania (Application no. 48329/19). 

On 18 December 2024, The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania issued a judgment No. KT101-N15/2024 on the compliance of section 4 § 2 (16) of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Protection of Minors against Negative Effects of Public Information (version of 22 December 2009) with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. The Constitutional Court found that the mentioned provision is unconstitutional thus depriving it of any legal effect. The constitutional decision contributed to the implementation of ECtHR judgment of 23 January 2023 in the case of Macatė v. Lithuania (Application no. 61435/19) where measures taken on the basis of section 4 § 2 (16) of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Protection of Minors against Negative Effects of Public Information were found to be in violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 

The Lithuanian authorities took actions in implementing the decisions of Abu Zubaydah v. Lithuania (Application no. 46454/11) and al-Hawsawi v. Lithuania (Application no. 6383/17). In particular, Lithuanian authorities continued bilateral consultations with the U. S. authorities and requested information from the U. S. Department of State regarding the situation and humanitarian concerns over Mr Abu Zubaydah and sought clarifications from the U. S. Department of State concerning the plea deal in the military commission proceedings in respect of Mr al-Hawsawi. Concerning an obligation to conduct an effective domestic investigation, Lithuanian prosecuting authorities have sought assistance from EUROJUST, which enabled a coordination meeting with their Polish counterparts to take place. Nevertheless, the pre-trial investigation, previously found by ECtHR to be ineffective, is still ongoing. The just satisfaction awarded by the Court in the al-Hawsawi case has been paid, respectively, on 30 April 2024 to the applicant’s representatives. In October 2024 Lithuania submitted an Action plan regarding the execution of the judgment in al-Hawsawi v. Lithuania and updated information regarding the execution of the judgment in Abu Zubaydah v. Lithuania. 

The full implementation of judgments by the ECtHR, especially concerning issues perceived as "sensitive" by conservative politicians and requiring legislative actions, usually is very complicated. This is a persisting rule of law issue. It is worth mentioning that, in the previous parliamentary term, the Parliament explicitly voted against draft laws that were introduced with the aim of implementing Court judgments in the cases of the Ancient Baltic Religious Community “Romuva” v. Lithuania (refusal by the Parliament to grant state recognition to a religious community despite a positive conclusion by the Ministry of Justice, violation of Article 9) and Macatė v. Lithuania (censorship of a book with fairy tales including same-sex couples, based on the Law on Protection of Minors against Negative Effects of Public Information, violation of Article 10).  

Taking this into consideration, the NHRI also undertakes actions to support the implementation of the European Courts’ judgments, namely through referring to the judgments of European Courts’ in the reports and recommendations to state authorities, engagement with a national coordinator of the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, awareness raising of the general public, human rights education. In October 2024 the Parliamentary Ombudspersons met with the delegation of ECtHR visiting Lithuania to discuss the measures of implementation of ECtHR judgments.  

The NHRI regularly references relevant ECtHR judgements in its publications including reports on the human rights situation, reports issued under OPCAT mandate and findings of conducted investigations (for instance, concerning the duty if the institution to provide all relevant information requested by the lawyer). 

The NHRI communicated with the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights during the visits, also the NHRI has expressed its readiness to provide information related to the implementation of the ECtHR decisions in Lithuania. 

The NHRI raised awareness through publishing reports on human rights situation and repeatedly emphasising the importance and necessity of implementing the ECtHR decisions which the Ombudspersons have also mentioned during the National Human Rights Forum 2024. 

In addition, the NHRI held two training sessions for staff of social care homes in 2024, emphasising the importance of the State's obligations under the ECHR and addressing the risks of discrimination and ill-treatment of care home residents, as well as measures to prevent such violations in places of deprivation of liberty. 

1. The NHRI recommends to national authorities to provide adequate financial resources to the wages of the court staff (who are not judges) such as judicial assistants and other court employees as this has a significant impact on the efficiency and quality of the judicial system.
2. The NHRI also recommends to national authorities to take necessary steps to implement ECtHR judgments more effectively.

Pushbacks of migrants 

In 2024 the provisions to the law on State border and its protection that legalised the pushbacks of migrants at the border during a state of emergency and state of national emergency were still in force and the pushback policy continued despite the flow of migrants from the Belarusian border decreased. Consequently, pushbacks of migrants pose a risk of denying the right to seek asylum and violating the principle of non-refoulement.  

In 2024 the NHRI requested a leave to submit a third-party intervention in the ECtHR case C.O.C.G. vs Lithuania (app. no. 17764/22), related to the situation of migrants at the Lithuanian – Belarus border, concerning the conditions in the places of detention of foreigners. The ECtHR decision in that case is anticipated in 2025. 

The NHRI recommends to national authorities to reconsider the legislation in force concerning the push-back of migrants.

The Luxembourgish NHRI was last reaccredited with A-status by the Subcommittee on Accreditation (SCA) in March 2022. In its latest review, the SCA recommended that the NHRI advocate for amendments to relevant legislation to limit the number of times that members of the Commission may be reappointed and the President may be re-elected. Moreover, the SCA encouraged the NHRI to advocate for changes to its enabling law to provide for remunerated full-time members in its decision-making body. Further, the SCA encouraged the NHRI to advocate for relevant changes to provide the explicit power to table reports directly in the legislature, rather than through the Executive, and in doing so to promote action on them. It also recommended the institution to advocate for its reports to be discussed by Parliament. Additionally, the SCA called on the institution to continue to conduct systematic follow-up activities to ensure that its recommendations are implemented by the relevant authorities, in order to fulfil its protection mandate. While acknowledging that the Luxembourgish NHRI has received increases in its budget in recent years, the SCA also encouraged the institution to continue to advocate for an appropriate level of funding to carry out its mandate effectively and independently. 

Legislative reform regarding the NHRI  

The work regarding the administrative attachment of the Consultative Human Rights Commission of Luxembourg (hereafter “CCDH”) to the Parliament is still ongoing. In June 2024, the Prime Minister confirmed this attachment in its State of the Nation address. On 14 February 2025, the Government submitted a legislative proposal consisting of a single article providing only for the administrative attachment of the CCDH to Parliament: “A Consultative Commission on Human Rights of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is hereby established (…). The Commission is attached to the Chamber of Deputies”. However, the administrative attachment is part of a broader effort to undertake a more thorough reform of the CCDH, with several other issues still to be addressed. It is therefore highly likely that Parliament will complete the rest of the reform. In the light of the above, it is not yet known what aspects of the current functioning of the CCDH will be reformed, nor to what extent the reform will enhance the CCDH’s compliance with the Paris Principles. The CCDH is collaborating with the Government and the Parliament, however it is unclear to what extent the authorities will take the CCDH’s recommendations into account. The CCDH will very likely issue an opinion on the legislative proposal. 

Follow-up on NHRI recommendations

Furthermore, the CCDH is also considering requesting lawmakers to introduce a requirement for the authorities to respond to its recommendations in a timely manner. While the follow-up of its opinions by policymakers remains very limited, the CCDH is aiming to improve its own assessment of this follow-up. Regarding the recommendation to table the annual reports directly before Parliament, this will take effect as soon as the CCDH is formally attached to Parliament. 

Adequate funding

Finally, the CCDH sincerely hopes that the last recommendation, i.e. that of adequate funding, will be respected in order to effectively carry out its mandate. The CCDH will advocate for it in the context of the reform and is currently already asking for more funding (i.e. human resources) whenever possible.

Follow-up on European actors’ recommendations

In terms of measures taken to follow-up on the recommendations concerning the CCDH, issued by European actors, the EC recommended in its country chapter on Luxembourg that the latter should “improve the legislative decision-making process notably at the level of Parliament by increasing the transparency and involvement of stakeholders in the public consultations”. The CCDH has not observed any improvements in this regard. 

Since 2023, the CCDH systematically offers to meet with public officials and Ministers and since 2024, it sends questionnaires to the government asking for explanations on the extent to which its recommendations have been or are going to be taken into account in the legislative process. It is planning to publish information about the follow-up in its future annual reports. As mentioned, the CCDH is also considering requesting lawmakers to introduce a requirement for the authorities to respond to its recommendations in a timely manner, as recommended by GANHRI’s Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA).

The national regulatory framework applicable to the NHRI has not changed since January 2024.

Human rights expertise in the field of AI

In 2024, the CCDH was approached by the Ministry of Justice which intended to confer a new mission upon the CCDH in the context of the EU AI Act (national authority to oversee fundamental rights). This could have allowed the CCDH to provide human rights expertise in the field of AI while, ideally, increasing its capacities and powers. However, following an interpretive note issued by the European Commission, the government ultimately decided not to confer this task to the CCDH. The reason for this change in position is that the European Commission's interpretative note specifies the types of bodies that can be appointed under Article 77 and that the CCDH only has advisory functions. The CCDH regrets that the designated authoritie(s) do not have specific expertise in the field of human rights, which is a key element of Article 77 under the AI Act. It is worth noting that ENNHRI addressed a letter to the European Commission in order to clarify and highlight the importance of NHRIs in the context of the AI Act. It is unclear whether the European Commission has taken into account the information provided by ENNHRI. It is also unclear whether the possibility of conferring the required additional powers and means to the CCDH was taken into consideration by the government, and if so, why it was rejected. The CCDH contacted the government to seek further explanations.

CCDH’s staff nationality requirement

In June 2023, the CCDH sent a letter to the Minister of Public Service regarding the current regulatory requirement of Luxembourgish nationality for all the employees of the Secretariat of the CCDH. According to the Ministry of State, this requirement originates from the grand-ducal regulation of 12 May 2010, which specifies which administrations/jobs/positions involve direct or indirect participation in the exercise of public authority, and are therefore reserved exclusively to persons of Luxembourgish nationality. The CCDH underlined the principle of free movement of workers inside the EU (also see the report of the CET and the University of Luxembourg, p. 34) and argued that the provisions were in any case inapplicable to the CCDH, especially considering its particular status as a NHRI, which cannot be compared to a public administration. In May 2024, the Minister of Public Service responded by stating that the Luxembourgish nationality is a requirement for every person recruited by the CCDH. The Minister only referred to national legislation and did not address the question of its compatibility with relevant EU law or the CCDH’s particular status as a NHRI. 

NHRI regulatory framework

The work on the reform of the CCDH is still ongoing and an internal working group has been tasked to suggest modifications that will strengthen the CCDH’s conformity with the Paris Principles. As a result, it is still too early to present concrete proposals to improve the regulatory framework of the CCDH. 

However, some ideas to consider in the reform process include changes to the appointment procedure to strengthen the CCDH’s independence, an increase in the allowances granted to members, a limit on the number of times a member’s mandate can be renewed, the introduction of jurisdictional immunity, the granting of amicus curiae competence, the obligation for the Government and the Parliament to respond and justify their (in)actions (at the very least give a timely and reasoned response), and ensuring that the CCDH is granted access to data and information required to fulfil its mandate.

Presentation on CCDH reports in Parliament

It might be worth mentioning that in December 2024, Parliament unanimously adopted a resolution to invite the CCDH to present its reports on human trafficking to all the relevant parliamentary committees. Currently the report is only presented to the legal committee, in presence of the president of the Parliament. The resolution also calls for a presentation and debate on the CCDH’s report on trafficking in human beings (which is published every two years) in a similar way to the debate on the Ombudsman's activity report. A second motion however, calling for the implementation of the CCDH’s recommendations from said report, was rejected by the members of Parliament from the governing political parties and the members of a far-right political party.

CCDH access to disaggregated data

The problem raised in last year’s ENNHRI rule of law report persists – the CCDH still faces challenges in relation to access to disaggregated data, for instance in the justice area. This impacts the work of the CCDH as a limitation to relevant data hampers its abilities to assess human rights impacts and state (in)actions. It also renders evidence-based decision making by public authorities quite difficult.. The CCDH continues to raise this issue with relevant state authorities but no progress was made to address it by state actors.

Functional immunity for CCDH staff

The NHRI’s leadership and staff do not enjoy functional immunity nor are there specific measures in place to protect and support the NHRI, heads of institution and staff against threats and harassment and any other forms of intimidation.

Until now, additional measures were not needed in practice as there have not been any or very few attempts to threaten or intimidate the CCDH. However, it might be useful to consider additional measures as verbal attacks from a far-right political party, occasionally challenging the CCDH’s independence and impartiality, are on the rise. In this context, and in accordance with the SCA’s recommendation to provide jurisdictional immunity for NHRIs, the CCDH will likely advocate for this immunity for its members and the staff of the Secretariat as part of its ongoing reform.

Threats against NHRI

The CCDH has not received threats of violence. However, a member of Parliament of the far-right political party “ADR” called the President of the CCDH an “enemy of real freedom of opinion and direct democracy”, claimed that its members are “clearly left ideologists,” and that the CCDH was not needed. Some political parties subsequently condemned these remarks. During a parliamentary debate, this issue was addressed, but the members of Parliament from the governing political parties largely remained silent. However, Parliament unanimously adopted a motion defending the importance of the CCDH. Commissioner Didier Reynders addressed this topic (28:00 and 33:00) during his visit related to the rule of law report. He encouraged politicians to “refrain from any personal criticism of representatives [of the CCDH, Ombudsman, judicial authorities, etc]. Of course, we can have a debate on the substance (...) but we really need to make a strong appeal to politicians to refrain from entering into personal debates and personal attacks on people who are trying to carry out their duties”. The Prime Minister also intervened in support of the CCDH. There were no consequences for the member of Parliament in question.

In a subsequent public intervention on a major national radio station, the same member of Parliament suggested that political parties should be represented in the CCDH. This would however constitute a violation of the CCDH’s independence and political neutrality. It is therefore of utmost importance to provide safeguards in the current negotiations regarding the CCDH’s attachment to Parliament. 

The political party of the abovementioned member of Parliament systematically attempts to weaken the independence of public institutions (Equality body, public schools, museums, …) by accusing them of violating their “obligation of neutrality” whenever they intervene publicly in order to promote or defend human rights. The party becomes particularly vocal regarding LGBTIQA+ related topics. It frequently misconstrues the concept of “freedom of speech” for its own political goals and attempts to silence those with opposing views. 

• Attach the CCDH to the Parliament, while making sure that it remains in line with the Paris Principles, especially concerning the nomination procedure which needs to guarantee the independence of the CCDH. An overhaul of the CCDH’s resources and functioning could further improve its ability to carry out its mandate effectively and independently.
• Legally oblige the Government and the Parliament to respond to the CCDH’s recommendations or requests, and justify their (in)actions (at the very least give a timely and reasoned response).
• Improve data collection and access to information requested by the CCDH.

The NHRI’s human rights monitoring and reporting has found evidence of laws, policies and/or state measures that may negatively impact on freedom of assembly and freedom of expression as well as create barriers in access to information and law and policymaking processes. 

Access to information

Recent refusals by public authorities to disclose documents illustrate the obstacles that stakeholders such as NGOs or journalists may face when trying to access information. In a case opposing the municipality of Luxembourg City and an NGO, the administrative tribunal held that the documents requested by the NGO should be disclosed. The municipality appealed the first instance ruling. The administrative court’s ruling is still pending at the time of writing. 

Journalists have faced similar obstacles when asking for official documents held by Ministries. The Ministry of internal affairs’ refusal to communicate information about the cooperation between Luxembourg and Frontex prompted the « association luxembourgeoise des journalistes professionnels » and the journalist who asked for the disclosure of the documents, to refer the case to the administrative tribunal. The case is still pending at the time of writing.

Freedom of speech and NGO independence

Obstacles to the freedom of speech and the independence of NGOs cooperating with public authorities have recently been highlighted by journalists. The municipality of Luxembourg City appears to contractually oblige an NGO it is collaborating with that “any communication of the association with the press about [their project] must be done in consultation with the City of Luxembourg”.

Freedom of assembly

The government is currently drafting an “avant-projet de loi” aimed at creating a legislative framework for public assemblies such as protests. While the CCDH commends the Ministry in charge for its participative approach – it has repeatedly sought the CCDH’s input on previous drafts – the tightness of the deadlines imposed on the CCDH rendered its work quite difficult. It also remains to be seen whether or not the final version of the draft law will be in line with international and European human rights law. The CCDH remains vigilant and keeps reminding the government that it should first and foremost strengthen the right to protest, instead of creating unnecessary barriers and sanctions. 

Enabling framework for civil society

The recent developments related to one of Luxembourg’s largest civil society organization (Caritas Luxembourg) are seen by other NGOs as a blow to the enabling framework for civil society. Criminal proceedings for misappropriation of funds are ongoing. The NGO’s activities have stopped and been taken over by a newly created NGO (HUT - “Hëllef um terrain”). It remains to be seen how this new NGO will position itself in the Luxembourgish civil society landscape. The Government’s and Parliament’s handling of this case was subject to criticism (also see this statement of a collective of NGOs). This case might have negative impacts on the public’s perception of civil society in Luxembourg and impact their financial independence. There are also fears that more and more critical civil society voices might disappear. A collective of NGOs are attempting to fill the void left by the disappearance of one of the critical voices/political advocacy in Luxembourg.

The CCDH is concerned that the current developments/framework might discourage NGOs collaborating with the government to criticize the latter. In a press release published in October 2024, a collective of NGOs “noted a growing lack of listening and dialogue on the part of the government, which is increasingly inclined to reduce civil society players, their critical voices and their experience to mere service providers”. For instance, access to a program offering shelter to people during the winter months has recently been limited to people who can prove that they have been in Luxembourg for at least 3 months (except if the temperatures are below 0°C). The NGOs in charge of this project (Croix-Rouge, the newly created HUT and Inter-actions) do not seem to question this highly problematic decision announced by the government. In addition, the responses of the competent Minister to 4 parliamentary questions on this decision (QP1554 ; QP1535 ; QP1522 ; QP1555) do not answer all of the questions raised, especially regarding its conformity with relevant European law. The decision-making process lacks transparency and seems to be rather arbitrary and discriminatory. 

Support for HRDs from minority groups

The far-right political party “ADR” attempts to silence HRDs, especially when they are addressing LGBTIQA+ rights.

Important gaps in the protection of HRDs nationally

The gaps remain largely the same as in previous years. Access to justice and protection programs needs to be improved (for instance, there is still no legal framework for a witness protection program). The “Shelter cities” project for foreign human rights defenders, which aims to set up a procedure for the reception of individual human rights defenders in Luxembourg for a predetermined rest period, has still not been put in place. 

In 2024, the CCDH participated in joint meetings and/or roundtables to promote civil society space and human rights defenders. 

The CCDH has met with human rights defenders and NGOs, helped organise meetings and/or roundtables with ministries and NGOs and supported NGOs wherever it could. 

For instance, it met with HRDs from Mexico, Brazil and South Africa who reported serious violence committed against human rights defenders, environmental degradation, and adverse effects on local communities, including indigenous people that took place in the value chain of Luxembourg based companies. The CCDH raised this topic in a meeting with public officials and repeatedly urged the government to improve its business and human rights policies as fast as possible – including improving access to justice and improving the protection of victims and witnesses (see the CCDH’s 4th report on human trafficking, pp. 117-131). 

It also organised a roundtable on the topic of freedom of speech and hate speech.

The CCDH publishes reports done by GANHRI and ENNHRI on its website.More generally, the CCDH issued recommendations and options as a way to protect civil society space and human rights defenders.

The CCDH refers to the protection of civil society space and HRDs in its opinions and recommendations. For instance, it criticised the “avant-projets de loi” related to the government’s decision to, first, widen the possibility to issue removal orders (e.g. persons that the authorities see as a “nuisance” for public safety or tranquillity), and second, to limit the freedom of assembly. The opinions of the CCDH are not publicly available yet because the “avant-projets de loi” are unofficial documents of the Ministry in charge until the official legislative proposal is submitted. 

The CCDH believes there should be better follow-up on its’s recommendations and opinions. 

Furthermore, the legal framework for civil society space and HRDs needs to be improved, especially regarding access to justice, in particular in cases of transnational human rights violations committed within the value chains of businesses.

The lack of resources and the NHRI’s mandate limitations prevented it from engagement in this area with international and regional mechanisms in support of human rights defenders and civil society.

• Improve access to justice (e.g. create a legal framework for an effective witness protection programme, empower NGOs to support victims before the courts, invest human rights institutions such as the equality body with the power to go to courts, strengthen the training of justice professionals such as lawyers, judges and public prosecution, improve remediation and reparation);
• The “Shelter cities” project for foreign human rights defenders, which aims to set up a procedure for the reception of individual human rights defenders in Luxembourg for a predetermined rest period, should be developed;
• Make sure that securitisation laws are based on human rights and in line with the State’s positive obligations. For instance, regulatory measures on freedom of assembly should first and foremost be focussed on the promotion of this human right, instead of primarily restricting and criminalising it. 

There have not been any notable improvements since the CCDH’s contribution to last year’s ENNHRI rule of law report and CCDH recommendations issued therein. The CCDH continues to identify the same challenges affecting access to justice and/or effective judicial protection in of the areas of professionalism, specialisation and training of judges, respect for fair trial standards and delays in and/or a lack of publication of judgments.

In terms of undertaking actions to support implementation of the European Courts’ judgments, the CCDH referred to the judgments of European Courts’ in the reports and recommendations to state authorities, raised awareness to the general public. The CCDH regularly refers to judgments of the CJEU and ECtHR, in all of its work (legal opinions, reports, position papers, etc). Its recommendations are addressed to Parliament, the government and specific ministries or administrations. The CCDH also organises press conferences aimed at raising awareness within the general public.

Authorities should improve access to justice. For instance, they can: 

• Create a legal framework for an effective witness protection programme.
• Empower NGOs to support victims before the courts.
• Invest human rights institutions such as the equality body with the power to go to courts.
• Strengthen the training of justice professionals such as lawyers, judges and public prosecution and improve their resources.

The CCDH reports on issues concerning the independence and effectiveness of media regulatory bodies, harassment, threats and attacks against journalists and media outlets, as well as access to public interest information/documents, which may amount to significant challenges affecting media freedom.

A media outlet has reported a rise in SLAPP suits, see for instance this article of reporter.lu. 

Recently, the press council voiced criticism about a decision of the court of appeal forbidding journalists to mention the name of a person who was convicted in 2007 because he embezzled approximately 14 million euros. The journalists consider this as an unjustified restriction of freedom of expression. The judges found that “the public must be primarily interested in the event in question, while the addition of the name (...) does nothing to inform the public, but aims to discredit his person and causes him disproportionate suffering, even though he has served his sentence”. The press council argues that “cases in which the ECHR has prioritized freedom of expression over the protection of privacy were not even considered by Luxembourgish judges.” At the time of writing, the ruling is not legally binding yet.

Follow-up of European actors' recommendations on media freedom

The EC recommended that Luxembourg should “take forward the reform of the legal framework for the disclosure of official documents, taking into account European standards on access to official documents.” In July 2024, draft legislation 8421 on the promotion of professional journalism and democratic debate was tabled by the Ministry of Justice. While the CCDH has not done a full assessment of this legislative proposal yet, it has reservations regarding its potential to genuinely improve access to official documents, as an initial analysis suggests that the proposed changes may be rather superficial or cosmetic in nature. It is worth mentioning that the association of professional journalists voiced concerns regarding the effectiveness of the access to official documents.

Following the government’s decision to change the selection procedure for the director of the “Autorité luxembourgeoise indépendante de l’audiovisuel” (ALIA), the president of its managing board at the time, also President of the “Cour supérieure de justice”, resigned his position. His decision was, among others, linked to disagreements over the selection process for a new director of ALIA. Concerns about political meddling in the selection process were raised. The Ministry for Justice was summoned by the Parliament and denied any meddling and defended their decision.

• Improve the legal right to access to information for journalists

In the past years, national, regional and international stakeholders have called on Malta to establish a NHRI. This recommendation has featured prominently during the Universal Periodic Review of Malta. On July 2019, the Bill on the Human Rights and Equality Commission was presented to the Maltese Parliament, which would establish an NHRI. ENNHRI, alongside civil society organisations and other actors, has supported the establishment of a Maltese NHRI and advised national actors in their efforts. Prior to the submission of the bill to Parliament, the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission published its Opinion on the draft bill.  

On the 20 February 2022, Parliament was dissolved, and Malta went to a General Election.  This fact had the legal consequence that all bills that were pending before Parliament prior to the General Election, including the Equality Bill and the Human Rights and Equality Commission Bill, lapsed. Before the current Parliament, there are to date no bills relating to equality and human rights. 

In February 2024, the Office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman of Malta joined ENNHRI. In doing so the institution is committed to taking proactive steps towards accreditation as an NHRI compliant with the Paris Principles. In the following months, the Office of the Ombudsman significantly intensified its efforts to establish a fully-fledged NHRI in Malta. The Office of the Ombudsman proposed to the Malta Government how to integrate NHRI functions within its existing framework, regulated by the Ombudsman Act 1995, suggesting an extension of its current mandate to encompass a broader spectrum of human rights responsibilities. ENNHRI provided technical support to the Office of the Ombudsman on the institution’s founding legislation and compliance with the Paris Principles.  

To streamline the legislative process, in October 2024, the Office of the Ombudsman drafted a new, comprehensive Ombudsman Bill aimed at expanding its existing mandate, in compliance with the UN Paris Principles. The Bill was subsequently presented to the Prime Minister of Malta for consideration in November 2024. 

Further detail on the proposal by the Office of the Ombudsman is included below.  

ENNHRI is closely monitoring developments in the country and stands ready to support its member institution as well as to provide its expertise on the establishment and accreditation of NHRIs to relevant stakeholders in Malta.

The establishment of the National Human Rights Institution in Malta 

The 2024 Rule of Law Report by the European Commission highlighted the fact that there was no progress in the establishment of a National Human Rights Institution (NHRI) in Malta. The 2023 report had already stressed on the need for Malta to establish such an institution in line with the UN Paris Principles. 

The Office of the Ombudsman has long advocated in favour of the establishment of an NHRI in Malta. The Office has also made its position clear in the sense that its house is in order to become the NHRI for Malta should its present mandate be extended by legislation. 

In November 2023, the Office of the Ombudsman submitted a clear proposal to the Prime Minister with its credentials. The proposal outlined the benefits of using the existing institutional framework, thereby avoiding the need for a separate institution to serve as the NHRI for Malta. 

The existing infrastructure, experienced staff, and established procedures of the Office already provide a solid foundation for a broader human rights mandate. This reachable approach would enable the swift implementation of NHRI functions while reinforcing public trust through the Ombudsman’s already proven and respected role. 

The Prime Minister was quick to refer the proposal for further discussion to the Parliamentary Secretary for Reforms and Equality. 

A meeting was held in February 2024, where the Ombudsman explained the rationale behind the proposal.  

Unfortunately, the meeting was completely inconclusive in the sense that the Parliamentary Secretary stated that the Government was still exploring the best way forward and had not adopted a definitive position.  

To date, no developments have been made public from the side of the Executive on this matter. 

European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI) Associate Membership 

In February 2024, the Office of the Ombudsman submitted a formal application for Associate Member Status of the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI). 

In the application, the Office stated that, given the lack of progress on establishing a standalone NHRI after the dissolution of Parliament in 2022, it had again proposed integrating NHRI functions within the already functionally present Ombudsman structure.  

The ENNHRI board officially accepted the application, and the Office of the Ombudsman became an Associate Member of ENNHRI. 

Following its acceptance as an Associate Member of ENNHRI, the Office sought assistance from ENNHRI itself, in an effort to review the Ombudsman Act to ensure full alignment with the Paris Principles. 

Between April and May 2024, ENNHRI conducted a detailed review, identifying key areas for improvement, including: 

• Expanding the mandate to include promoting and protecting human rights.
• Strengthening the selection and appointment process to ensure transparency and pluralism.
• Enhancing the Office’s independence and securing adequate resources.
• Engaging more actively with civil society. 

A proposal for a new Ombudsman Bill 

In response to these findings, the Ombudsman drafted a new fully-fledged Ombudsman Bill rather than resort to fragmented and piecemeal amendments to the present law. 

In October 2024, the draft Bill was forwarded to ENNHRI for further review. In that same month, during the ENNHRI General Assembly, the Ombudsman participated in a parallel meeting with ENNHRI representatives to discuss the proposed Bill and explore potential improvements. 

ENNHRI commended the efforts of the Office to align with the Paris Principles its wish for an extended mandate as an NHRI and noted that significant amendments to the draft proposal had been introduced to support this mandate, including: 

• A broad human rights remit, covering the protection and promotion of human rights through awareness-raising, education, advising on national legislation, and reporting on the national human rights situation.
• A comprehensive definition of human rights, incorporating rights set out in international, regional, and domestic instruments, as well as those recognised by national and international courts.
• Strengthening the Ombudsman’s authority to follow up on recommendations made to national authorities.
• Reinforcing the Ombudsman’s independence by expressly stating that the Ombudsman shall not be subject to direction from any other person or authority. 

ENNHRI provided additional technical advice, which the Ombudsman reviewed and adopted where appropriate. These measures are included in the proposed new Ombudsman Bill. 

The new Ombudsman Bill was formally presented to the Prime Minister of Malta for his consideration and of the Cabinet of Ministers on the 19 November 2024.  The Bill offers a resource-efficient solution for establishing a National Human Rights Institution in Malta. By expanding the existing framework of the Office of the Ombudsman, it seeks to ensure compliance with the Paris Principles while addressing the pressing need for a strong and independent NHRI. This proactive initiative reflects a clear commitment to safeguarding and promoting fundamental human rights and freedoms in Malta. For the record, to date, there has not been an official response from the Prime Minister of Malta. Since no feedback was forthcoming by government by 31 January 2025, the Office of the Ombudsman published the new Ombudsman Bill on its website on the 1 February 2025.  

The national regulatory framework applicable to the Office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman has not changed since January 2024 but it should be strengthened. 

Malta remains without a National Human Rights Institution (NHRI). Since 2022, no substantive steps have been taken by the Government to strengthen the mandate of any institution to contribute to access to justice for individuals, nor has there been any consultation on the best model to adopt for establishing an NHRI. Furthermore, no bills related to the establishment of an NHRI have been presented in Parliament. 

As stated, in November 2024, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, following an extensive review and consultation process, proposed a new Ombudsman Bill to the Government. This proposed legislation seeks to expand the mandate of the Ombudsman to include the promotion and protection of human rights, in alignment with the Paris Principles. The proposal aims to address Malta’s long-standing gap in NHRI compliance by leveraging the existing framework of the Office of the Ombudsman, ensuring a resource-efficient and practical approach to safeguarding human rights and access to justice. To date, the Government has not provided feedback on this proposal. 

The Office of the Ombudsman in the 2024 and 2025 made the following key recommendations to strengthen the independence and effectiveness of the institution: 

1. Expand its mandate to include Human Rights promotion and protection: Introduce a broader human rights remit for the Ombudsman, enabling activities such as awareness-raising, education, advising on national legislation, and reporting on the state of human rights at the national level.
2. Parliamentary oversight of unimplemented Ombudsman recommendations: Establish an ad hoc Select Committee of Parliament to debate final reports and recommendations submitted by the Ombudsman that remain unimplemented. This mechanism would ensure greater accountability and facilitate the improvement of public administration services by addressing systemic issues highlighted in the Ombudsman’s reports.
3. Address prescription-related issues and concurrent proceedings: In the Ombudsplans 2024 and 2025 highlight critical issues concerning the six-month non-renewable time-bar for judicial review of administrative actions against the Government. Unlike other civil actions, these time limits are not subject to legal interruption. Moreover, Maltese law prevents concurrent proceedings before the Ombudsman and judicial or quasi-judicial bodies, with the latter taking precedence. The Office has proposed that these prescription periods be suspended during ongoing Ombudsman investigations. Implementing this reform would improve access to justice, ensuring individuals are not disadvantaged by the time needed to complete investigations and promoting fairness and accountability in public administration. 

Based on the Office of the Ombudsman’s human rights monitoring and reporting, the areas  in which significant challenges affecting access to justice and/or effective judicial protection are identified are delays in court proceedings, timely and effective execution of national courts’ judgments and the transposition of Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights into National Legislation. 

The inclusion of Protocol 12 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the European Convention Act (Chapter 319 of the Laws of Malta) 

The Protocol 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights introduces a general prohibition of discrimination. In the Ombudsplan for 2025, tabled in Parliament on 4 October 2024, the Ombudsman reaffirmed his concern that Protocol No. 12 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was not transposed into the European Convention Act (Chapter 319 of the Laws of Malta) despite that Malta ratified Protocol No. 12 on 8 December 2015, and came into effect on 1 April 2016. This means that although Malta is bound by the Protocol, persons are still unable to seek redress before the Maltese courts and have to proceed directly to the Strasbourg Court. 

The failure to incorporate Protocol No. 12 into Chapter 319 is a serious matter. The anomaly was highlighted by the Constitutional Court in May 2023, where it was stated that although Malta had ratified the Protocol, it could not be enforced before the Maltese Courts because it was not included in Chapter 319. 

The Office is committed to urging the Government to address this matter without further delay. It is not enough for Malta to ratify Protocol No. 12 without allowing Maltese Courts to hear and rule on lawsuits. The Office reiterates its call for an amendment to Chapter 319 of the Laws of Malta for the inclusion of Protocol No. 12 in the Schedule to the European Convention Act.  

Through the appropriate amendment to the European Convention Act persons would have wider access to justice where non-discrimination and equality are concerned.