The remaining carbon budget (RCB) of countries provides a benchmark for evaluating national mitigation efforts and was central to a recent European Court of Human Rights’ ruling. However, estimates of national RCBs are inconsistent with CO2 accounting in national greenhouse gas inventories (NGHGIs). Here, we align RCBs with NGHGI accounting standards. For 2024, NGHGI alignment reduces the 1.5 °C (50%) global RCB by ~100 GtCO2 ( ≈ 50%) and the 2 °C (66%) RCB by ~200 GtCO2 ( ≈ 20%). Thus, we estimate the 1.5 °C (50%) NGHGI-consistent global RCB to be depleted by 2027. We provide NGHGI-consistent national RCBs for common allocation methods and most countries. Following Paris Agreement equity principles, we find that by 2025, 64–85 countries could have exceeded their fair-share RCB for 1.5 °C (50%). While national RCBs depend on normative choices and are unlikely to directly drive negotiations, our framework enables more methodologically robust RCB calculations to track country-level mitigation progress.

The recent advisory opinions on climate change by the International Court of Justice, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, alongside the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in Klimaseniorinnen, extend their legal implications to international tax law. These implications reach well beyond tax measures that directly impact mitigation, such as exemptions for fossil fuels. According to these pronouncements, the obligations under the Paris Agreement, the customary duty to prevent significant environmental harm and other applicable law, oblige states to undertake tax reforms within their national circumstances when necessary to ensure the fiscal adequacy of domestic climate measures. Also, the duty to cooperate requires states to better align international tax rules with climate objectives. Amending tax treaties to reflect climate objectives – such as introducing variable withholding tax rates or capital gains taxing rights based on environmental concerns – deserves consideration. Through the prism of climate legal obligations, the influence of international law – including customary international law previously considered of limited efficacy in constraining tax sovereignty – is substantially strengthened within the tax domain.

A Rights Revolution in the Anthropocene: Reflections on the IACtHR Advisory Opinion on the Climate Emergency

This article analyzes the governance of religious diversity in public employment through the study of Quebec’s Bill 21. It examines how the State uses neutrality to manage religious symbols, focusing on implications for pluralism and fundamental rights within democratic governance frameworks and diversity regulation in plural societies. It situates Bill 21 within Quebec’s longer legal and political trajectory, marked by failed legislative attempts, recourse to the “notwithstanding clause,” and deep social polarisation around the construction of a francophone, secular identity. Methodologically, the study combines doctrinal analysis of Canadian constitutional law with a detailed examination of European Court of Human Rights and Court of Justice of the European Union case law, as well as a critical discussion of the Bouchard–Taylor Commission’s model of “open secularism” and later reinterpretations by Bouchard, Taylor and Maclure. The article finds that Quebec’s lawmakers selectively invoke European jurisprudence and the language of neutrality to justify far-reaching restrictions on visible religious symbols, especially for officials with coercive powers such as judges, police and prison staff, in ways that go beyond typical European practice. It argues that equating impartiality with an appearance of strict neutrality reflects the cultural assumptions of the majority and produces discriminatory effects on religious minorities, limiting both freedom of religion and equal access to public employment. The conclusion contends that neutrality should be assessed primarily through officials’ conduct rather than their appearance and that more inclusive models of secularism—grounded in open secularism and reasonable accommodation—offer better tools for reconciling State neutrality, pluralism and fundamental rights.

The article examines the problem of defining procedural rules (fair trial rules or rules) of the European Court of Human Rights, which it uses in criminal proceedings to assess the fairness and effectiveness of trials in national courts. A study of the practice of the ECHR over more than six decades has shown that the supranational court does not offer a definition of the concept of «rule». One of the difficulties in implementing the procedural rules of the ECHR, the authors established, is the lack of a definition of this concept in the practice of the supranational body. A problem arose in the study of this concept. The first step in solving the highlighted problem was to clarify the legal essence of the concept of «rule» in Ukrainian and foreign dictionaries. The need is also caused by the fact that the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine does not include the concept of «rule» in the list of basic terms, although it is found in the text of individual articles. The following approach was used in the study: the structure of the concept of «rule» in Ukrainian and foreign dictionaries was studied; this structure was used as the basis for a model of the concept of «rule» in criminal proceedings. Based on the content of the components of the concept of «rule» in criminal proceedings and their synthesis, a legal definition of this concept was established. To avoid errors in revealing the content of the proposed definitions, we relied on the general approach to defining any concept offered by the science of «Logic». In addition, the proposed definitions were checked for consistency by comparison. Finally: we managed to propose several legal definitions of the concept of «fair trial rules.» Some of them are as follows. A rule is a set of procedural actions of the court that determine the procedure for conducting a trial in criminal proceedings, aimed at maintaining its fairness based on the balance of evidence for the prosecution and defense. A rule is a set of procedural actions of the court developed by the ECHR to regulate the course of a trial in order to ensure fairness to the parties to criminal proceedings. A rule is a procedural guideline that directs a court, under specific circumstances, to conduct a fair trial in a criminal proceeding.

The cooperating person represents a fully legitimate procedural institute within the Slovak criminal justice system; however, testimony obtained through cooperation is inherently burdened by the individual’s personal criminal-law interest arising from the expectation of procedural or substantive benefits. This structural characteristic raises serious concerns regarding the evidentiary strength, epistemic value, and permissible limits of reliance on such testimony in criminal proceedings. The article examines the conceptual distinction between credibility and truthfulness as fundamental normative attributes of testimony provided by cooperating persons. While credibility traditionally dominates judicial assessment, it does not necessarily guarantee correspondence with objective reality, particularly where testimony is motivated by anticipated advantages. The authors analyse recent legislative developments introduced by Act No. 416/2025 Coll., which amended the Code of Criminal Procedure by transforming truthfulness from a predominantly epistemic criterion into an explicit normative condition governing the admissibility of cooperation-based evidence. Through doctrinal legal analysis, normative interpretation of statutory provisions, and examination of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, the article evaluates whether the Slovak legal framework adequately addresses the evidentiary risks inherent in motivated testimony. Particular attention is devoted to the requirement of independent corroboration and to the interaction between truthfulness as a threshold condition of admissibility and credibility as a subsequent evaluative criterion. The authors conclude that the legislative emphasis on truthfulness constitutes a necessary corrective to the traditional reliance on credibility alone and strengthens safeguards against convictions based on unverified or distorted testimony. At the same time, the article assesses the compatibility of the national regulation with the requirements of a fair trial under Article 6(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and contributes to the broader discourse on the evidentiary limits of cooperation-based testimony in criminal proceedings.

ABSTRACT The decade-long expansion of programs to prevent and counter violent extremism (P/CVE) among Council of Europe Member States has not seen a similar rise in the quantity of P/CVE-related cases reaching the European Court of Human Rights, despite concerns expressed about their compliance with the Convention. This paper seeks to explain this dearth of jurisprudence by likening P/CVE cases to ones involving surveillance, and subsequently argues that the Court should adopt a more relaxed approach to standing to fill this gap.

Abstract This article examines the influence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on intellectual property (IP) law through human rights methodologies. Although Professor Laurence Helfer identified the ECtHR in 2008 as a potential innovation frontier in Europe, some might find it debatable whether this prediction has been fully realised. Scholarly attention has instead focused largely on the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which has come to dominate debates on the relationship between IP and human rights in Europe. Against this backdrop, this article assesses the ECtHR’s actual contribution to, and impact on, human rights-based IP adjudication. Following a brief introduction (I.), it explores reasons for the relative marginalisation of ECtHR case law in European IP discourse (II.). It then analyses the Strasbourg Court’s substantive contribution, arguing that its jurisprudence has played – and continues to play – a significant role in shaping European IP norms, despite limited engagement from the IP community (III.). This analysis focuses first on the Court’s approaches to conflicts between IP protection and freedom of expression (III.1.), and then on its recognition of IP rights as part of the broader human right to property, an area that has expanded notably in recent years (III.2.). The article concludes that the ECtHR has already become a significant – albeit often underappreciated – force in the evolution of IP law in Europe, operating quietly but far more meaningfully than is generally acknowledged (IV.).

This article examines the restitution of ecclesiastical property in Bosnia and Herzegovina as a key test of post-socialist constitutionalism and religious freedom. It outlines the socialist legacy of nationalization and its lasting effects on the legal status of religious communities in the region. In Bosnia, the consociational system created by the Dayton Accords, together with fragmented competences and political resistance, has hindered the implementation of restitution and produced structural inequality. The European Court of Human Rights’ judgment in Orlović and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina illustrates how non-enforcement of property rights undermines both minority protection and confessional pluralism. The article argues that effective ecclesiastical restitution is essential for rebuilding trust, ensuring legal certainty, and consolidating a genuinely pluralist democratic order.

ABSTRACT The ECHR system is often regarded as one of the world’s most effective human rights regimes, with unique mechanisms to ensure compliance with judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Despite this, there is a growing concern about judgment non-compliance, a trend that extends beyond non-democracies to include established and young democracies alike. This article investigates ‘democratic non-compliance’ through a process-tracing analysis of six cases against Lithuania, monitored by the Committee of Ministers (CoM) under the enhanced supervision track. As a young democracy with strong institutions but only a moderate compliance record, Lithuania presents a compelling puzzle. The article argues that certain democratic features themselves — such as electoral competition and legislative veto players — can obstruct the execution of the ECtHR’s judgments. While theoretically young democracies are expected to comply to signal their commitment to international norms, the analysis reveals a more pragmatic and nuanced approach, with material and tangible costs playing a central role for the legislature and reputational concerns for the executive. Meanwhile, the supervision of the CoM, while reliable, is not an independent driver of compliance but a catalyst whose effectiveness is contingent upon favourable domestic conditions.

ABSTRACT Almost all scholars considered sport, grounded in the foundational principle of fair competition, as possessing an intrinsic ethical dimension. This imperative shapes a distinctive adjudicative framework that prioritises sporting integrity, often through strict liability and severe sanctions that can override individual rights. This framework reveals profound systemic flaws. Firstly, a deep normative conflict exists between the collective ethos of sport and established human rights. The contrasting rulings in Semenya v. Switzerland are emblematic: where sports arbitration upheld competitive fairness, the European Court of Human Rights stressed anti-discrimination guarantees, highlighting the tension between lex sportiva and public law. Secondly, the problematic nature of the consensual basis of sports arbitration emerges. Athletes are typically compelled to accept arbitration as a condition for participation, resulting in a form of ‘forced arbitration’ that raises concerns regarding independence, impartiality and fair hearing rights. These procedural weaknesses are compounded by the lack of coercive investigative powers, which limits the system’s capacity to address complex cases such as doping conspiracies or match-fixing schemes. Thirdly, the system’s restorative mechanisms remain inherently deficient. While ex post disqualifications can adjust results, they fail to remedy the irreversible harm suffered by those athletes wrongly excluded from competition, creating a persistent justice vacuum attributable to the unique and unrepeatable nature of sporting events. In conclusion, while sports justice is designed to deliver expert and efficient dispute resolution, its structural architecture reveals profound defects. The autonomy of the lex sportiva generates unresolved tensions with broader principles of justice and human rights. Without substantive reform (enhanced procedural guarantees, independent oversight, and greater alignment with public law values), the legitimacy of sports justice remains fundamentally in question.

Denial of access to sexual and reproductive health services in Europe: an analysis of cases from the European court of human rights (1976–2023)

This article examines the regulation of insanity and the application of medical coercive measures within the context of criminal and criminal procedural law. Individuals who commit crimes while insane or who develop mental disorders after committing an offence are not subject to punishment; instead, special legal and procedural mechanisms apply to them. The Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan contain extensive provisions in this field, yet their practical implementation reveals several challenges. These include the quality of forensic psychiatric examinations, the formal nature of judicial oversight, the ineffectiveness of legal assistance, and the condition of psychiatric institutions. The study compares Azerbaijani practice with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (Winterwerp v. Netherlands, Stanev v. Bulgaria, Rooman v. Belgium) and European legal standards. The results highlight that, although a normative framework exists in Azerbaijani law, practical deficiencies remain. The main directions for future improvement include strengthening enforcement mechanisms, ensuring effective judicial control, and aligning medical coercive measures with human rights principles.

Objective: This article examines the legacy of Ünal Tekeli v. Türkiye and its impact on women’s right to retain their own surnames upon marriage in Türkiye. It aims to trace long term effects of Tekeli and analyze how judicial interventions at the supranational and domestic levels have shaped legal reform processes concerning gender equality and personal autonomy. Methods: The study adopts a qualitative legal analysis based on European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) jurisprudence, Turkish Constitutional Court decisions, legislative developments, and strategic human rights litigation. Relevant legal texts, court judgments, and policy debates are examined through a socio-legal and feminist lens to assess both normative change and implementation practices. Results: The findings demonstrate that while the Ünal Tekeli judgment constituted a landmark international victory for gender equality in Türkiye, its domestic implementation remained delayed and inconsistent for many years. Persistent patriarchal norms, legislative inertia, and administrative resistance limited the transformative potential of the ruling. Although the annulment of Article 187 of the Turkish Civil Code in 2023 marked a significant advancement, subsequent legislative proposals and political discourse reveal continuing resistance and uncertainty in fully recognizing women’s independent legal identity. Conclusion: The article concludes that judicial victories alone are insufficient to secure substantive gender equality. The Turkish experience illustrates the complex interaction between supranational courts, domestic institutions, and political power in translating legal norms into structural and societal change. The legacy of Ünal Tekeli underscores the importance of sustained legal mobilization and political will in achieving meaningful and lasting reform.

Forensic psychiatry assessment and human rights in Ukraine: response to Butenko et al's paper 'Forensic psychiatry misuse in proceedings of administrative offenses' (2023)Type of submission.

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Moldova has been referred several times to interpret the constitutional provision on the presumption of lawful acquisition of assets. At different times, the Constitutional Court was faced with essentially the same issue: whether the Constitution allows for civil confiscation of assets from persons exercising public functions or whether it allows for the reversal of the burden of proof regarding the origin of assets held by public officials. In this regard, the Constitutional Court has often appealed to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. However, the position of the Constitutional Court has not always been the same. First, the Constitutional Court gave a negative answer to the issue raised. Then, the Constitutional Court reviewed its previous jurisprudence and decided that in cases of confiscation of assets it is possible to apply different standards of proof, depending on the type of proceedings (criminal or non-criminal). This latter approach was substantiated in the light of the case of Gogitidze and Others v. Georgia

The legal boundaries of freedom of speech regarding expressions on Palestine have increasingly come to the fore, especially after October 7, 2023, and the subsequent developments in Gaza. The widespread protests, legal actions, and government-imposed restrictions across the Europe have sparked crucial debates about the extent to which political speech can be limited under the pretext of public order or national security. These developments have intensified the debate on how national courts and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) address the fine line between protecting freedom of expression and curbing hate speech. Therefore, it is examined the evolving case law of the ECtHR and precise national court rulings pertaining to freedom of expression on Palestine. Key cases as regards the extent to which restrictions on such expressions comply with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) are analyzed. While national courts often reverberated political sensitivities, the ECtHR has consistently reaffirmed that political activism and discourse -such as calls for boycotts- deserve strong protection in democratic societies. However, distinctions emerge based on the speaker’s identity and the context of the speech. By providing a comprehensive legal analysis, this research highlights the ECtHR’s role in ensuring that freedom of expression remains safeguarded amid contentious political realities.

The article is devoted to a comprehensive analysis of legal liability for violations of constitutional human rights in Ukraine arising from the unlawful use of artificial intelligence. The study outlines the main risks generated by the rapid spread of AI technologies under conditions of martial law, in particular in the fields of copyright protection, personal data protection, intellectual property, and digital security. Based on an analysis of current national legislation, the authors establish the absence of specialised legal norms that would comprehensively regulate the use of artificial intelligence in legal practice, as well as the insufficient adaptation of existing legal mechanisms to emerging digital threats. It is demonstrated that the provisions of the Civil Code of Ukraine, the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offences, the Criminal Code of Ukraine and the Law of Ukraine “On Copyright and Related Rights” do not ensure an effective mechanism for the protection of individuals’ rights in cases of violations committed through the use of AI technologies. The article proposes a classification of participants in legal relations involved in offences committed with the use of artificial intelligence into conditionally “innocent victims” and “marginally oriented offenders”, which makes it possible to gain deeper insight into the subjective element of fault and the limits of legal liability. Landmark examples from international practice are examined, in particular cases in the United States, Brazil, EU Member States, as well as judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. The analysis covers incidents related to the generation of fake judicial decisions, deepfake content and the bad-faith use of AI-generated results in official activities. Particular attention is paid to a case of the Supreme Court of Ukraine concerning procedural abuse through reference to ChatGPT as a source of judicial interpretation. The article separately considers conceptual documents of the Council of Europe, CEPEJ ethical charters, the draft European Artificial Intelligence Act, as well as recommendations of Ukrainian authorities on the responsible use of algorithmic systems. In conclusion, the article substantiates the urgent need to implement into Ukrainian legislation clear definitions, legal standards and rules on liability that directly regulate the use of artificial intelligence in the context of the exercise and protection of constitutional human rights, taking into account European experience, national security challenges and the demands of the digital era.

Informed consent is presented as a fundamental right and principle in modern medical practice. It involves obtaining permission from a patient before any medical procedure, treatment, or research protocol. Although not explicitly recognized as a standalone right in international human rights instruments, informed consent in healthcare is considered a right derived from other rights, such as the rights to health and freedom. The jurisprudence of international human rights courts has permitted the reinterpretation of informed consent beyond just a bioethical principle. This article argues for the normative recognition of informed consent as a self-standing human right, rather than simply a derivative right or an ethical guideline. It does this by analyzing related cases from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to demonstrate how its jurisprudence, though often linking informed consent to related rights like health, personal integrity, and self-determination, supports an understanding of informed consent as a distinct and fundamental right. The source also mentions that its recognition as a right in fundamental laws, such as the Colombian Constitution, should be achieve through the application of these international standards or via the concept of emerging rights.

This article is devoted to the study of the issue of human rights protection in Ukraine in accordance with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well as on the basis of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The author examines the historical development of human rights and their protection in Ukraine, based on the main legal acts in force in different historical periods of Ukraine's development. The relations between Ukraine and the Council of Europe in terms of human rights protection were studied. The author analyses international legal instruments, in particular, individual conventions of the Council of Europe on human rights to which Ukraine is a party (in particular, the main focus is on the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) and their place in the system of Ukrainian legislation, and also examines the issues of national implementation (process and time of accession / succession / ratification) of the Council of Europe conventions on human rights. The author highlights how the obligations to protect human rights arising from the ECHR are reflected in the Constitution of Ukraine. The author analyses the main legislative processes in Ukraine due to the ECHR, as well as the most significant cases considered by the ECtHR against Ukraine, their main points, and how the decisions on the latter affected Ukrainian legislation and human rights and their protection in general. The author concludes that the Council of Europe conventions, in particular the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, have a significant impact on the protection of human rights in Ukraine, as they set common European standards that contribute to the improvement of national legislation and practice. In addition, the ECHR guarantees fundamental rights and freedoms such as the right to life, liberty and security of person, fair trial, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and protection from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. Ukrainian citizens have the right to apply to the European Court of Human Rights in case of violation of their rights guaranteed by the ECHR. This provides an additional level of protection when all national remedies have been exhausted. ECHR judgments against Ukraine often become the basis for changes in national legislation and court practice to bring them into line with the standards of the Convention. Ukraine's ratification of Council of Europe conventions and implementation of their provisions is an important tool for improving the human rights protection system, raising standards of democracy and the rule of law, and adapting national legislation to European norms.