Explore the vast range of titles available.

This Commentary is an in-depth critical study of the European Court of Human Rights ruling in . The authors present the facts and the tribunal’s decision against the background of the ECtHR’s previous case law on terminally ill patients. Unlike Polish law, euthanasia and assisted suicide are permissible under Belgian law; thus, for the first time in its existence, the tribunal addressed not so much the permissibility of euthanasia as it examined the circumstances of its use. In this regard, it was critical for the authors to look at the ECtHR reasoning on the interplay between Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in order to answer the question of whether there has been an evolution or a revolution in the interpretation of the two laws. In the case of the rights of terminally ill patients, the issue is the right to make end-of-life decisions in accordance with the patient’s wishes, and whether the paradigm of patient autonomy has become the highest value in the doctor–patient relationship; this hich could also be indicated by recent changes to the International Code of Medical Ethics and the international text of the Hippocratic Oath (the Declaration of Geneva). In this context, it also becomes valuable to analyse the changes made to the Polish Code of Medical Ethics, which came into effect on 1 January 2025.

The number of countries allowing same-sex marriage is gradually increasing. Currently, 37 countries have laws regulating same-sex marriages, specifying their status and/or the possibility of adopting children. These solutions counter discrimination against same-sex couples and are part of the protection of human rights. Against the background of other countries, the pan-European tendency to accept the institution of same-sex marriage is garnering positive attention, although it is still controversial in some countries. Regulations of European law and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Court of Human Rights and the constitutional courts, which play an essential role in anti-discrimination measures and are in favour of respecting human rights, provide crucial support. This article discusses the evolution of the jurisprudence of the ECtHR, the CJEU and the national courts of selected countries (Slovenia, Spain, Portugal, Germany and Austria) concerning same-sex marriage. It highlights how recognising the right to same-sex marriage does not come at the expense of the rights of others or the public interest.

This article addresses the migration crisis on the Polish–Belarusian border. The authors believe that the actions of the Polish authorities violated the requirements set by human rights standards, including the obligations arising from Poland’s membership of the EU and the Council of Europe. This is confirmed not only by legal doctrine and the reports of non-governmental organisations, present on the ground despite all the restrictions, but also by interim-measure orders issued by the ECtHR against the Polish government. In the first part of the text, the authors summarise the situation, recalling the most important events that took place on the Polish–Belarusian border. The second part discusses the most important obligations of the EU arising both from the treaties creating it and also from the secondary legislation adopted on their basis. The juxtaposition of the EU’s actual response and the obligations written on paper may lead to the conclusion that the EU’s actions are insufficient under EU law. Relying on the texts of legal acts and other available information, the authors argue that the EU’s actions, in a certain amount of compromise with political interests, even detract from its credibility as an organisation that also aims to protect human rights externally.

This article examines the protection of whistleblowers through the lens of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), focusing on the articulation of freedom of expression as a structural component of democratic governance. Drawing on landmark cases – from Guja v. Moldova to Halet v. Luxembourg – the study outlines the six criteria developed by the Court for assessing whistleblowing under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Beyond its legal dimension, whistleblowing is analysed as a socio-institutional practice rooted in civic responsibility, organisational ethics, and public accountability. By integrating legal analysis, empirical data, and socio-humanistic perspectives, the article argues that whistleblowing is not merely an individual act of dissent but a vital democratic mechanism that strengthens transparency, institutional integrity, and public trust. The study emphasises the need for effective national frameworks that safeguard whistleblowers from reprisals, ensure access to fair remedies, and encourage responsible reporting in the public interest.

This article concerns the compliance of the institutions of remote trials and remote detention hearings introduced to the CCP by the Polish ‘coronavirus act’ of 19 June 2020 with the ECHR standard on the rights of the accused. In the first part of the article, it is indicated that the ECtHR in its jurisprudence accepts that a trial in the form of a videoconference is not in principle contrary to the ECHR, provided, however, that there are compelling reasons to dispense with the traditional trial (main or appellate) and that the procedure of using a videoconference itself meets the requirements of a fair trial according to Article 6 ECHR and ensures the accused both effective personal participation in the trial and effective use of the services of a defence counsel, in particular the confidentiality of the lawyer’s contact with their client. The Covid-19 outbreak has changed European justice systems, and now videoconferencing in court proceedings is seen not only as an exceptional measure, but as possibly an effective part of the ordinary activity of courts. The analysis of the assumptions of remote trials in ordinary Polish criminal proceedings shows that this institution does not meet the standards of a fair trial, especially the standard of the effective participation of the defence counsel. In contrast, compared to a remote trial, a remote detention hearing in Poland has a wider scope of application and poses serious risks to the standards on deprivation of liberty (Article 5(3) and Article 3 ECHR) and effective defence (Article 6(3) ECHR). The possibility of using both forms of videoconferencing without the participation of a defence counsel and the permanent nature of the changes introduced are particularly worrying.

The two main European courts share a common history. Based on this, it is now natural to talk about what the doctrine calls \"cross-fertilisation\", which leads to the \"unionisation\" of the Conventions and the \"conventionalisation\" of the European Union (Sionaidh Douglas-Scott, 2013, p. 5). However, there is not always uniformity of solutions between the two European courts, so that among them is the national judge, who must comply with both guidelines. This paper aims to explore how the national judge can accomplish this.

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is a key human rights treaty ratified by all EU member states and beyond. Although it does not focus specifically on children, it includes relevant provisions and obliges states to protect the rights of all individuals, including children. Moreover, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN CRC) is ratified by all ECHR member states, which presumably contributed to the greater focus to the increase of child rights reasoning. This paper explores how ECHR provisions – particularly Article 8 on the right to privacy and family life, Article 3 on the prohibition of torture and other forms of cruel, degrading treatment, and Article 14 on non-discrimination – and recent European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rulings contribute to the wider protection of children’s rights, analysing their use as rhetorical arguments in legal reasoning.

Sexgender has become politicized by neo-conservative and populist movements in Europe and elsewhere. This article explores how the sexgender binary is foundational to the social and material construction of the non-heterosexual legal subject and unveils binary hierarchies embedded therein. Furthermore, it develops a new materialist methodology called BinaryTech, which exposes the binary formulas of inequality and difference in the Court’s jurisprudence. This new materialist approach, based on Karen Barad’s agential realism, is used to critically examine how differences are produced as stable features of subjects and objects. The human of the Convention being heterosexual is thereby the result, constructed on material-discursive differentiation of non-heterosexuals. The article concludes by describing how new materialist interventions and Nordic feminist perspectives on law can offer valuable insights within the emerging material turn.

(Public) morals is a specific example of a general clause that bridges the gap between legal norms and a wide array of non-legal rules. The indeterminacy of this clause allows the standard of morals to be construed with due consideration for various criteria, values, principles and local circumstances. At the same time, in a culturally diverse society, difficulties in translating ethical issues into the legal language come to light. Consequently, we have both national and international legislation in which the premise of (public) morals is the legitimate objective/aim for restricting certain freedoms and rights. In turn, judicial bodies such as the European Court of Human Rights, as described in this paper, encounter problems in interpretation and the need to use different interpretative methods to give the right meaning to this concept.

The principle of judicial independence is a fundamental tenet of the rule of law and fair trial standards. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) identifies four criteria for evaluating judicial independence: (a) the manner of a judge’s appointment; (b) the duration of such an appointment; (c) safeguards against external influence; and (d) the appearance of independence. The ECtHR also distinguishes several dimensions of judicial independence, including independence vis-à-vis the executive, parliament, other courts, and parties, as well as independence from judicial councils. Nevertheless, despite the existence of shared European principles on judicial independence, certain countries, particularly those undergoing transitions, encounter challenges such as political interference, corruption, and insufficient safeguards against dismissal. This results in a discernible disjunction between de jure and de facto judicial independence. This article poses the following research questions: What are the main approaches and common challenges for judicial independence in European countries based on the latest case law of the ECtHR? What lessons can be learned by Ukraine, as an EU candidate, from this case law in order to mitigate the gap between de jure and de facto judicial independence?