EIN Civil Society Briefing September 2025 – Azerbaijan, Belgium and Switzerland
/
On September 5th, 2025, EIN held its latest civil society briefing for Permanent Representations of the Council of Europe, ahead of the 1537th Committee of Ministers Human Rights Meeting which will be held from 15th to 17th September 2025. The briefing focused on the following cases:
Mammadli v. Azerbaijan & Ramazanova and Others v. Azerbaijan groups of cases, by Emin Abbasov, Co-founding chair of Independent Lawyers Network & Dr Ramute Remezaite, Senior Legal Consultant/Implementation Lead, European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC);
Camara v. Belgium, by Dr Nico Moons, Lawyer, Order of Flemish Bars;
Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, by Dr Stefan Schlegel, Director, Swiss Human Rights Institution and Georg Klingler, Solutions Campaigner and Lead Link Climate+Energy, Greenpeace Switzerland;
Semenya v. Switzerland, by Carlos Sayao, Partner at Tyr LLP and adviser to a coalition of NGOs having filed a Rule 9.2 submission in this case led by Humans of Sport.
Mammadli v. Azerbaijan & Ramazanova and Others v. Azerbaijan groups of cases
The Mammadli v. Azerbaijan group of cases concerns the arrests and detentions of human rights defenders, civil society activists and a journalist in Azerbaijan between 2013 and 2016, which the Court found to be a misuse of criminal law aimed at punishing and silencing them. The detentions took place without reasonable suspicion and were not subject to genuine judicial review (violations of Art. 5§1(c) and 4). The Court further held that the proceedings pursued purposes other than those prescribed by the Convention, reflecting a broader pattern of arbitrary arrests and retaliatory prosecutions against government critics (violations of Art. 18 in conjunction with Arts. 5 and 8).
The Ramazanova and Others v. Azerbaijan group of cases concerns the authorities’ unlawful refusals to register NGOs or decisions to dissolve them without justification, in violation of the right to freedom of association (Art. 11). It also involves additional violations in the case of Democracy and Human Rights Resource Centre and Mustafayev, including the freezing of bank accounts, a travel ban, restrictions pursued for ulterior purposes, and the absence of remedies to challenge the interference with property rights (violations of Art. 1 Prot. 1, Art. 2 Prot. 4, Art. 18 and Art. 13).
In their presentation, colleagues stressed that no substantive progress has been achieved in implementing the Mammadli and Ramazanova and Others groups of cases. Despite repeated calls by the Committee of Ministers, the convictions of the seven remaining applicants in Mammadli have not been quashed, and the practice of arbitrary arrest and detention of government critics has only intensified. Since 2023, Azerbaijan has launched a new wave of criminal cases against civil society activists, journalists, and opposition figures, often by reviving charges from the 2014 crackdown, effectively erasing the remaining civic space.
Mr. Emin Abbasov and Dr. Ramute Remezaite further underlined that the restrictive NGO legislation at the heart of the Ramazanova and Others group continues to be used as a tool to criminalise legitimate human rights work. Unregistered NGOs remain unable to operate freely despite government assurances, while prosecutions of their representatives on charges such as money laundering and forgery persist. The result is a near-total dismantling of independent civil society and media, with activists facing detention, exile, or the silencing of their organisations.
The speakers concluded that Azerbaijan’s ongoing disengagement from the Council of Europe and its blatant refusal to implement these judgments raise serious questions about compliance with Article 46 obligations.
Recommendations for the implementation of Mammadli v. Azerbaijan & Ramazanova and Others v. Azerbaijan groups of cases
The Independent Lawyers Network (ILN) and the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC) request the Committee of Ministers to:
Clearly communicate to the Government of Azerbaijan that its long continuing failure to comply with very clear individual measures — quashing of convictions of the remaining seven applicants — amounts to a refusal to comply with the Mammadli group;
In addition, concerning general measures, civil society requested the Committee to:
Recognise that the practice of arbitrary arrest and detention is actively continued in Azerbaijan and that it raises serious questions of a failure to comply with Azerbaijan’s Article 46 obligations that will have real, meaningful consequences;
Commit to taking its strongest, coordinated response in light of the persistent refusal by Azerbaijan to make any progress in implementing the respective judgments, and, furthermore, the persistent continuation of patterns of arbitrary arrests and detention. Possible options of strong responses — with clearly identified milestones — are:
Infringement proceedings;
Joint complementary procedure.
Finally, the representatives of Independent Lawyers Network (ILN) and European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC) highlighted the link, in the current alarming circumstances of crackdown on civil society and human rights defenders, of the Ramazanova and Others v. Azerbaijan group of cases with the Mammadli v. Azerbaijan group of cases, concerning restrictive NGO legislation in Azerbaijan as a trap to criminalise legitimate civil society work. Although acknowledging the initially different scope of the two groups, the speaker argued, in line with the presented Rule 9.2 submission, that disconnecting the two problematics, which have now become two sides of the same coin as per the current circumstances, would prevent the Committee of Ministers from pursuing effective solutions for the systemic problem of crackdown on civil society and its consequences on the Azerbaijani society. The Committee of Minsters were thus kindly also recommended to:
Place this group of cases under enhanced supervision at its September meeting and schedule the examination of this group at the next CM DH meeting in December 2025;
Call upon the authorities to immediately put an end to the criminal proceedings and release NGO representatives arrested and prosecuted solely in relation to their activities relating to unregistered NGOs and their activities;
Demand the authorities to clarify, in writing, how the operation of unregistered NGOs and receipt of foreign grants not registered with the authorities amount to criminal liability and how such prosecution complies with the domestic NGO law and Azerbaijan’s international commitments to respect and protect freedom of association;
Consider further means available to the CM, in response to failure to take the necessary general measures and its abuse of the NGO legislation and the criminal law against the civil society, as fundamental issues in breach of its Convention obligations.
The full extent of civil society arguments and recommendations can be found in their Rule 9.2 communication submitted ahead of the September 2025 CM/DH:
Camara v. Belgium case
This case concerns the authorities’ refusal to comply with a court order requiring them to provide accommodation and material support to an asylum-seeker, subject to a daily fine for non-compliance. The Court found that the order, aimed at protecting human dignity, had not been enforced within a reasonable time and that this reflected a broader, systemic failure to implement final judicial decisions on asylum-seekers’ reception (violation of Art. 6§1).
In his presentation, our Belgian colleague underlined that despite the Camara judgment confirming the systemic failure to provide accommodation to asylum seekers, the authorities have not taken meaningful steps to remedy the situation. While temporary increases in reception places had reduced the waiting list in 2024, the new government has since reversed course, cutting both reception capacity and Fedasil’s budget, with further drastic reductions planned. At present, the network of accommodation remains saturated and more than 1,800 people continue to be denied accommodation.
Mr. Nico Moons stressed that thousands of domestic court orders remain unenforced, with millions in coercive fines unpaid, and interim measures by the ECtHR routinely ignored. The abolition of financial aid further aggravates the situation. The Committee of Ministers’ calls in September 2024 for sustainable solutions have been disregarded: no timetable has been provided, no structural increase in capacity ensured, and recommendations from expert bodies dismissed as incompatible with the government’s political vision.
The presentation concluded that Belgium is failing to address systemic violations, openly refusing to implement judicial decisions, and undermining the rule of law. The deficiencies can no longer be seen as temporary but are structural and ongoing, leaving asylum seekers at real risk of destitution and denial of basic rights.
Recommendations for the implementation of the Camara v. Belgium case
The Flemish Bar Association requests the Committee of Ministers to call on the Belgian authorities to:
Implement all judicial decisions and pay all fines owed in order to restore the rule of law;
Increase reception places adequately and proportionally to address violations and accommodate all the current demands, not based on future uncertain predictions;
Set a sustainable buffer of reception places to manage future fluctuations in asylum applications;
Ensure Sufficient budget for Fedasil based on current needs instead of unreliable projected gains;
Await uncertain structural effects of legislative and policy measures and plans to reduce the inflow of asylum-seekers and the backlog of applications before cutting back on resources and reception;
Maintain the possibility for financial aid in case of inadequate and insufficient material assistance;
Preserve the independence of the asylum institutions assessing asylum applications and the competence of the judicial branch for appeals;
Provide precise information concerning the situation of the non-enforcement of judgments and put in place effective remedies in the event of multiple instances of non-enforcement;
Provide all applicants, in or outside of the reception network, equal and effective access to legal aid.
The full extent of civil society arguments and recommendations can be found in their Rule 9.2 communication submitted ahead of the September 2025 CM/DH:
This case concerns the authorities’ failure to comply with the obligation to adopt and implement, regulations and measures to mitigate the existing and potentially irreversible, future adverse effects of climate change on the right to private and family life and home (violation of Art. 8) and the lack of access to a court by the applicant NGO with a complaint concerning the implementation of measures capable of mitigating the effects of climate change (violation of Art. 6§1).
In their presentation, our Swiss colleagues stressed that despite the Klimaseniorinnen judgment, the government has not addressed the Court’s key finding that Switzerland lacks a quantified carbon budget. The authorities continue to rely on long-term targets, such as net zero by 2050, but these remain inadequate and allow for emissions far exceeding even the most lenient “equal per capita” approach. Civil society underlined that a fair share calculation rooted in equity and common but differentiated responsibilities is indispensable, yet Switzerland has so far avoided adopting such a methodology.
Mr. Stefan Schlegel and Mr. Georg Klingler further highlighted that, while the Committee of Ministers has explicitly invited the authorities to demonstrate that their framework is grounded in quantified limitations, no clear roadmap or monitoring mechanism has been established. NGOs estimate that Switzerland’s remaining carbon budget would be exhausted by 2032 under current policies. At the same time, there are ongoing concerns regarding access to court for associations like Klimaseniorinnen, with statements from both the Government and the Parliament potentially bearing a chilling effect on climate claims and therefore litigation.
The presentation concluded that Switzerland if failing to meaningfully implement the judgment: it continues to avoid setting an explicit carbon budget, resists transparency on its methodology, and neglects interim measures to accelerate emissions reductions. These shortcomings persist despite the urgent need to align policies with human rights obligations and the 1.5°C goal.
Recommendations for the implementation of the Verein Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland case
The Swiss Human Rights Institution and Greenpeace Switzerland jointly ask the Committee of Ministers to:
Urge Switzerland to replace its “implicit” budget with an explicit one that specifies the fairness considerations on which it is based and that explains in what respect it is in line with a global 1.5° goal;
Request Switzerland to provide detailed technical information on the methodology chosen for calculating its fair share — with a special emphasis on emissions caused abroad;
Urge the Swiss Government to use its margin of manoeuvre (within the existing laws) to reduce emissions faster and to communicate on the human rights requirements;
Urge the Government take active steps to ensure that associations like Klimaseniorinnen have access to court;
Revoke all official statements which may discourage courts from granting access to court based directly on Klimaseniorinnen.
The full extent of civil society arguments and recommendations can be found in their Rule 9.2 communication submitted ahead of the September 2025 CM/DH:
This case concerns the Swiss Federal Tribunal’s failure to rigorously examine a complaint brought by a professional athlete with differences of sex development. The complaint challenged an arbitral decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport from 2020 which required her to lower her natural testosterone level in order to compete in the women’s category in international competitions (violation of Art. 6§1).
In his presentation, Mr. Carlos Sayao underlined that the Court, in its judgment, stressed the structural imbalance between athletes and powerful sports governing bodies, noting that the FSC largely set aside serious concerns raised about proportionality, evidentiary standards, and protection of confidential medical data.
He highlighted that this problem is systemic, given that dozens of international sports federations enforce similar regulations and that the FSC remains reluctant to set aside CAS awards on substantive grounds. The presentation emphasised that Switzerland has yet to introduce the general measures required to ensure Convention-compliant reviews, such as internal FSC guidance and judicial training.
Recommendations for the implementation of the Semenya v. Switzerland case
The coalition of NGOs, led by Humans of Sport and represented by Mr. Carlos Sayao, asks the Committee of Ministers to:
Monitor the implementation of Grand Chamber judgment under the enhanced supervision procedure;
Urge Switzerland to devise and effectively implement general measures including comprehensive judicial capacity building and internal FSC guidance;
Request Switzerland to provide regular information updates to Committee of Ministers;
Maintain the execution of judgment under enhanced procedure until Switzerland demonstrates FSC’s ability to review CAS awards in Convention-compliant manner in subsequent proceedings.
The full extent of civil society arguments and recommendations can be found in their Rule 9.2 communication submitted ahead of the September 2025 CM/DH: