EIN Civil Society Briefing December 2025 – Bulgaria, Hungary, North Macedonia and Poland

/

On November 21st, 2025, EIN held its latest civil society briefing for Permanent Representations of the Council of Europe, ahead of the 1545th Committee of Ministers Human Rights Meeting which will be held from 2nd to 4th December 2025. The briefing focused on the following cases: 

  • Elmazova and Others v. North Macedonia, by Mustafa Asanovski, Human Rights Monitor and Project Coordinator, European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) and Anastasija Muratovska, Junior Legal Associate, Commission for prevention and protection against discrimination (CPPD);  

 

This group of cases concerns Bulgaria’s repeated refusals, between 1999 and 2015, to register associations seeking to advocate for the recognition and protection of the Macedonian minority, which the authorities justified on grounds of national security, public order, the rights of others, alleged separatism, and a constitutional ban on political associations, as well as technical registration requirements. The Court found these reasons unjustified and disproportionate, noting that the organisations had never promoted violence or undemocratic methods, and therefore concluded to a violation of Article 11 on freedom of association. 

Recommendations for the implementation of United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria group of cases 

In light of recent adverse developments in United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria, the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee stresses that closing this group of cases at this stage would be premature. Given the ineffectiveness of prior measures, the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee urges the Committee of Ministers to call on the Bulgarian authorities to implement the following legislative reforms: 

  1. Broaden the scope of recommendations that the Registration Agency can issue; 

  2. Enable courts to request additional evidence during proceedings; 

  3. Reassess the “full review” doctrine; 

  4. Limit the grounds for refusal of registration strictly to those specified in Article 11, and ensure that refusals are applied only in accordance with these legal criteria. 

 

The full extent of civil society arguments and recommendations can be found in their Rule 9.2 communication submitted ahead of the December 2025 CM/DH: 

1545th meeting (December 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (BHC)) (21/10/2025) in the UMO Ilinden and Others group of cases v. Bulgaria (Application No. 59491/00) 

DOWNLOAD THE PRESENTATION

The Alhowais v. Hungary case concerns the ineffective investigation into the death and alleged ill-treatment of the applicant’s brother, a migrant who drowned during a 2016 border control operation at the Hungarian-Serbian border. The Court found a procedural violation of Articles 2 and 3 due to the authorities’ failure to properly examine the circumstances of his death and the allegations of ill-treatment. It also held that the border authorities did not act quickly or decisively enough to take the operational measures reasonably expected to protect his life, leading to a substantive violation of Article 2.

The Shahzad v. Hungary (no. 2) case concerns the ill-treatment of a Pakistani migrant by Hungarian law-enforcement officers in 2016 during his forced return to the Serbian side of the border fence and the authorities’ failure to investigate his allegations. The Court found a substantive violation of Article 3, noting that the authorities offered no plausible explanation for his injuries. It also held that the investigation was ineffective — given the failure to interview the applicant, obtain a forensic assessment, or resolve key factual inconsistencies — resulting in a procedural violation of Article 3.

The M.H. and S.B. v. Hungary case concerns the authorities’ failure to act promptly and in the children’s best interests after the asylum-seeking applicants stated in 2016 that they were minors. Despite these claims, the applicants remained in detention for three and two months, which the Court found was not in good faith and amounted to arbitrary detention in violation of Article 5§1. The Court criticised the lack of justification for rejecting less coercive options and for delays in age assessments, and found it especially problematic that authorities presumed the applicants to be adults and placed on them the burden of proving otherwise — an unreasonable expectation for detained asylum seekers, especially children. 

Recommendations for the implementation of the Alhowais v. Hungary, Shahzad v. Hungary (no. 2), and M.H. and S.B. v. Hungary cases 

Concerning the Alhowais v. Hungary and the Shahzad v. Hungary (no. 2) cases, the Hungarian Helsinki Committee requests the Committee of Ministers to call on the Hungarian authorities to:  

  1. End the practice of collective expulsions, including the operational arrangements that enable them;  

  2. Equip all vehicles used for border patrols and “deep border control” operations with video-recording systems, ensuring transparency and accountability in the conduct of law enforcement officers; 

  3. Adopt and disseminate a zero-tolerance policy toward abusive practices by law enforcement, making clear that misconduct will not be tolerated and will entail consequences; 

  4. Direct available EU funding toward improving both staffing levels and material resources for rescue operations; 

  5. Develop a comprehensive plan to remedy the investigative shortcomings identified in Alhowais, as well as in the Gubacsi and Shahzad groups, grounding this plan in the required general measures, prior Committee of Ministers decisions, and civil society expertise. 

Concerning the M.H. and S.B. v. Hungary case, the Hungarian Helsinki Committee requests the Committee of Ministers to call on the Hungarian authorities to: 

  1. Establish an identification mechanism for unaccompanied and separated children; 

  2. Adopt a Protocol for age assessment that follows the appropriate methods as recommended in the EUAA Practical Guide and that fully respects the applicant’s dignity; 

  3. Provide an independent remedy for age assessment; 

  4. Ensure that the age assessment is conducted ex-officio without delay and that the benefit of the doubt and the children’s best interest are applied, when a person detained claims to be a minor; 

  5. Ensure that the burden of rebutting the presumption of majority is not put on the applicant; 

  6. Provide effective legal assistance to migrants and asylum seekers in immigration detention; 

  7. Ensure that the immigration authority only orders detention after an individual examination and with adequate justification for the application of a particular detention ground; 

  8. Ensure that detention measures are only ordered after the authorities have properly examined whether non-custodial alternatives to detention can be used in each individual case; 

  9. Improve judicial review of detention and ensure that courts examine the legality of detention according to the necessary standards; 

  10. Ensure that judges receive regular training using appropriate, up-to-date training materials in order to improve judicial review of detention. 

 
 
download the presentation

Elmazova and Others v. North Macedonia case 

This case concerns the segregation of Roma pupils in two state-run primary schools in Bitola and Shtip between 2017 and 2019. Both schools were attended almost exclusively by Roma children and included Roma-only classes, which the ECtHR found to be discriminatory under Article 14 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. The Court noted that the State took no meaningful steps to introduce desegregation measures, and called on North Macedonia to end segregation in these schools, in line with guidance from the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, the national anti-discrimination commission, and the Ombudsman. 

Recommendations for the implementation of the Elmazova and Others v. North Macedonia case 

Concerning general measures, European Roma Rights Centre and Commission for prevention and protection against discrimination jointly ask the Committee of Ministers to call on the North Macedonian authorities to: 

  1. Reintroduce strong legal terms byamending the Law on Primary Education to explicitly prohibit "segregation” (not just "physical separation") and close the loopholes in Article 63 that permit it; 

  2. Mandate the Inter-Ministerial Working Group to become active, transparent, and inclusive of Romani civil society; 

  3. Immediately complete the nation-wide segregation analysis and the feasibility study, with clear and public deadlines; 

  4. Provide detailed information on the concrete steps being taken to prevent the "exodus" of non-Romani pupils, particularly how the "temporary residence" loophole is being monitored and addressed; 

  5. Provide regular updates on the execution of measures, and notably on the ethnic composition of every single class in all affected municipalities, to ensure proper monitoring. 

 
DONWLOAD THE PRESENTATION

The M.K. and Others v. Poland concerns violations of the Convention on account of repeated refusals of border guards to receive asylum application from the applicants between 2016 and 2017 and their summary removal to Belarus with a risk of refoulement to and ill-treatment (violations of Art. 3); collective expulsion (violations of Art. 4 of Protocol No. 4), lack of effective remedies (violations of Art. 13) and violations of Art. 34 for ignoring interim measures. The Court held that these incidents reflected a wider state policy of refusing entry to foreigners from Belarus, carried out through superficial interviews and official notes that misrepresented asylum seekers’ statements and formed the sole basis for return. 

The Poklikayew v. Poland concerns the expulsion of the applicant in 2012 on national security grounds related to his alleged cooperation with the Belarusian secret services, on the basis of classified information not disclosed to him and without sufficient counterbalancing factors. The applicant received only very general information about accusations against him, and he was not provided with any information about the possibility of accessing the documents in the file through a lawyer with the required security clearance (violation of Art. 1 of the Protocol no. 7). 

Recommendations for the implementation of the M.K. and Others v. Poland group of cases and Poklikayew v. Poland case

Concerning the M.K. and Others v. Poland group of cases, the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights recommends the Committee of Ministers to:  

  1. Demand effective implementation of the general measures deriving from the judgement; 

  2. Demand explanations in regard to national mechanism ensuring compliance with interim measures issued by the ECtHR, and in case of its lack, demand to establish an effective procedure in this regard; 

  3. Urge the Polish authorities to comply with the principles of prohibition of refoulement and collective expulsions, and to enable all persons who, in accordance with the Geneva Convention, are eligible to apply for international protection, to exercise their right; 

  4. Urge the Polish authorities to repeal legal provisions and amend State’s policy that restrict access to international protection procedure in violation of the Convention. 

Regarding the Poklikayew v. Poland case, civil society recommends to the Committee of Ministers to: 

  1. Demand effective implementation of the general measures deriving from the judgment; 

  2. Provide further explanation concerning where the legislative changes described in the Action Plan stand; 

  3. Demand from the Government of Poland to indicate a specific timeline, within which the Government is planning to introduce legislative changes; 

  4. Indicate to the Government of Poland that the general measure available within the current national framework would be for the Minister of Interior and Administration to issue an internal instruction, obliging the Internal Security Agency (ABW) and other bodies introducing classified opinions to the proceedings, to attach a separate document accessible by the affected individual, setting out the sufficiently detailed factual elements justifying the use of the national security clause. 

The full extent of civil society arguments and recommendations can be found in their Rule 9.2 communication submitted ahead of the December 2025 CM/DH: 

1545th meeting (December 2025) (DH) - Rule 9.2 - Communication from an NGO (Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights) (09/10/2025) in the M.K. and Others group of cases v. Poland (Application No. 40503/17) 

DOWNLOAD THE PRESENTATION