Conflicts of Interest at the ECHR: The Situation Improves Slowly but Remains Problematic

In 2020, the ECLJ published a report entitled “NGOs and the Judges of the ECHR, 2009-2019,” revealing the existence of a structural conflict of interest problem within the Court. It showed that between 2009 and 2019, 18 judges had ruled 88 times on cases brought or supported by seven NGOs of which they had previously been directors or collaborators. Among these NGOs, the Open Society Foundations stands out because the majority of the judges in question are linked to it, and it finances the six other NGOs.

In 2023, the ECLJ published a second report entitled “The Impartiality of the ECHR - Problems and Recommendations” in order to assess the situation, deepen the analysis, and draw up a list of specific recommendations. This report found that cases of conflicts of interest between judges and NGOs had not decreased. On the contrary, there were 54 such cases in 2020, 2021, and 2022, 18 of which concerned Grand Chamber judgments.

In response to these reports, the ECHR and the Council of Europe undertook to correct certain aspects of the system and to propose measures to improve the selection, independence, and impartiality of the Court's judges, as well as the transparency of the NGOs' actions. An assessment of the institutional consequences of these reports was published in 2025.

The ECLJ continued to monitor visible conflicts of interest at the ECtHR during the period 2023 and 2024. This monitoring focuses only on cases in which NGOs that had ties with ECtHR judges, act explicitly and transparently involved in the cases, i.e., as applicants or third parties. Lawyers who are members of or funded by NGOs rarely disclose this funding or interest link to the ECtHR.

Over the last two years, we have identified 13 cases in which one or more judges with close links to NGOs ruled on a case in which “their” NGO intervened as a third party. Of these 13 cases, four concern cases heard by the Grand Chamber. The list of these cases is published below.

Therefore, there has been a decrease in the number of cases of clear conflicts of interest between judges and NGOs compared to previous years. This is certainly the result of the Court's “awareness” of this problem and the resulting decline in the number of judges elected from NGOs engaged in strategic litigation at the ECHR.

That said, many problems remain. The most glaring of these is the Court's persistent refusal to require its judges to publish declarations of interest. Added to this is the problem of the low qualifications of some judges and the low level of professional commitment they show within the Court. Another related problem is that of nepotism and favoritism in the recruitment process for judges to the Court, due to the links between certain judges and members of governments. Finally, there remains a lack of transparency regarding the composition and functioning of the Court's registry, as well as the real independence of judges from the registry, and the manner in which the President of the Court exercises his or her powers.

LIST OF CASES OF DIRECT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST FOR THE YEARS 2023-2024

1. GC - FEDOTOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA 17 January 2023 (Applications nos.40792/10,30538/14, and 43439/14)

Name of judges - Name of NGO with which the judge had a connection

Iulia Antoanella Motoc - International Commission of Jurists

Tim Eicke - Aire Centre

Third Parties: Aire Centre / International Commission of Jurists

2. A.M. v. POLAND AND 7 OTHERS APPLICATIONS 8 June 2023 (Application no.4188/21)

Gilberto Felici - Amnesty International

Third Party: Amnesty International

3. GC - CASE OF HURBAIN v. BELGIUM 4 July 2023 (Application no.57292/16)

Yonko Grozev - Helsinki Foundation

Jolien Schukking - Netherlands Helsinki Committee

Third Party: Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights

4. CASE OF TULEYA v. POLAND 6 July 2023 (Applications nos.21181/19and 51751/20)

Gilberto Felici - Amnesty International

Third Party: Amnesty International

5. CASE OF LAPUNOV v. RUSSIA 12 September 2023 (Application No.28834/19)

Jolien Schukking - International Commission of Jurists

Third Party: The International Commission of Jurists

6. GC - CASE OF YÜKSEL YALÇINKAYA v. TURKEY 26 September 2023 (Application no.15669/20)

Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer - International Commission of Jurists

Third Party: International Commission of Jurists

7. CASE OF WA BAILE v. SWITZERLAND 20 February 2024 (Applications Nos. 43868/18 and 25883/21)

Darian Pavli - Open Society Foundations

Third Party: Open Society Justice Initiative

8. GC - CASE OF VEREIN KLIMASENIORINNEN SCHWEIZ AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND 9 April 2024 (Application No. 53600/20)

Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer - International Commission of Jurists

Third Party: International Commission of Jurists

9. MATTHEWS AND JOHNSON v. ROMANIA 9 April 2024 (Applications nos.19124/21 and 20085/21)

Tim Eicke - Aire Centre

Third Party: Aire Centre

10. CASE OF LAZĂR v. ROMANIA 9 April 2024 (Application No. 20183/21)

Tim Eicke - Aire Centre

Third Party: Aire Centre

11. K.B. v. POLAND AND K.C. v. POLAND 27 June 2024 (Applications nos.1819/21 and 3639/21)

Gilberto Felici - Amnesty International

Third Party: Amnesty International

12. CASE OF H.T. v. GERMANY AND GREECE 15 October 2024 (Application no. 13337/19)

Tim Eicke v. Aire Centre

Third Party: Aire Centre

13. CASE OF M.Ș.D. v. ROMANIA 3 December 2024 (Application No. 28935/21)

Tim Eicke - Aire Centre

Third Party: Aire Centre

2025 – (to be continued)

1. CASE GIRGINOVA v. BULGARIA 4 March 2025 (Application No. 4326/18)

Darian Pavli - OSF

Applicant: Ms. Girginova, Director of the Center for Forensic and Investigative Journalism (CJI), funded by the Open Society Institute – Sofia

Lawyer: Aleksandar Kashamov. This lawyer is a member of the Board of Directors of the Open Society Institute in Sofia

2. GC - CASE OF SEMENYA v. SWITZERLAND 10 July 2025 (Application No. 10934/21)

Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer - International Commission of Jurists

Jolien Schukking - International Commission of Jurists

Third Party: International Commission of Jurists

Research conducted by Louis-Marie Bonneau.