Editing European Court of Human Rights (section)

==Effectiveness==
International law scholars consider the ECtHR to be the most effective international human rights court in the world.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Helfer |first1=L. R. |title=Redesigning the European Court of Human Rights: Embeddedness as a Deep Structural Principle of the European Human Rights Regime |journal=European Journal of International Law |date=2008 |volume=19 |issue=1 |pages=125–159 |doi=10.1093/ejil/chn004|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="ir.lawnet.fordham.edu"/><ref name="Goldhaber"/> According to Michael Goldhaber in ''A People's History of the European Court of Human Rights'', "Scholars invariably describe it with superlatives".<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Nelaeva |first1=Galina A. |last2=Khabarova |first2=Elena A. |last3=Sidorova |first3=Natalia V. |title=Russia's Relations with the European Court of Human Rights in the Aftermath of the Markin Decision: Debating the "Backlash" |journal=Human Rights Review |date=2020 |volume=21 |issue=1 |pages=93–112 |doi=10.1007/s12142-019-00577-7|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Fokas |first1=Effie |last2=Richardson |first2=James T. |title=The European Court of Human Rights and minority religions: messages generated and messages received |journal=Religion, State and Society |date=2017 |volume=45 |issue=3–4 |pages=166–173 |doi=10.1080/09637494.2017.1399577|s2cid=148706667 |url=https://zenodo.org/record/1100969 }}</ref>

===Implementation===
[[File:Compliance with all compliance-relevant judgments of the European Court of Human Rights as of 10 March 2017.png|thumb|Compliance with all compliance-relevant judgments of the European Court of Human Rights as of 10 March 2017. At that date, the oldest non-complied judgement was from 1996.{{sfn|von Staden|2018|p=23}}|262x262px]]
[[File:Implementation of European Court of Human Rights verdicts as of August 2021.svg|thumb|Implementation of leading cases from the last 10 years as of August 2021. No implementation is coloured black while 100% implementation is white. Average implementation is 53%, with the lowest being [[Azerbaijan in the Council of Europe|Azerbaijan]] (4%) and [[Russia in the Council of Europe|Russia]] (10%) and the highest Luxembourg, Monaco, and Estonia (100%) and Czechia (96%). (Belarus appears white here because it is excluded from the map: it is not a member state and does not implement rulings.)<ref>{{cite web |title=Country Map |url=https://www.einnetwork.org/countries-overview |website=European Implementation Network |access-date=25 September 2021}}</ref>|262x262px]]

The court lacks enforcement powers. Some states have ignored ECtHR verdicts and continued practices judged to be human rights violations.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Abdelgawad |first1=Élisabeth Lambert |editor1-first=András |editor1-last=Jakab |editor2-first=Dimitry |editor2-last=Kochenov |chapter=The Enforcement of ECtHR Judgments|title=The Enforcement of EU Law and Values: Ensuring Member States' Compliance |year=2017 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-180848-7 |doi=10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198746560.001.0001}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Glas |first1=Lize R. |title=The European Court of Human Rights supervising the execution of its judgments |journal=Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights |date=2019 |volume=37 |issue=3 |pages=228–244 |doi=10.1177/0924051919861844|s2cid=198671225 |doi-access=free |hdl=2066/206988 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> Although all damages must be paid to the applicant within the time frame specified by the court (usually three months) or else will accumulate interest, there is no formal deadline for any more complex compliance required by the judgement. However, by leaving a judgement unimplemented for a long period of time, brings into question the state's commitment to addressing human rights violations in a timely fashion.{{sfn|von Staden|2018|pp=22, 24}}

The number of non-implemented judgements rose from 2,624 in 2001 to 9,944 at the end of 2016, 48% of which had gone without implementation five years or more. In 2016, all but one of the 47 member countries of the Council of Europe had not implemented at least one ECtHR verdict in a timely fashion, although most non-implemented verdicts concern a few countries: Italy (2,219), Russia (1,540), Turkey (1,342), and Ukraine (1,172). More than 3,200 non-implemented judgements "concerned violations by security forces and poor detention conditions".<ref name=Hervey/>

Council of Europe [[Commissioner for Human Rights]], [[Nils Muižnieks]], stated: "Our work is based on cooperation and good faith. When you don't have that, it's very difficult to have an impact. We kind of lack the tools to help countries that don't want to be helped."<ref name=Hervey>{{cite news |last1=Hervey |first1=Ginger |title=Europe's human rights court struggles to lay down the law |url=https://www.politico.eu/article/human-rights-court-ilgar-mammadov-azerbaijan-struggles-to-lay-down-the-law/ |access-date=4 September 2020 |work=POLITICO |date=20 September 2017}}</ref> Russia systematically ignores ECtHR verdicts, paying compensation in most cases but refusing to fix the problem, leading to a high number of repeat cases.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Mälksoo |first1=Lauri |title=Russia and the European Court of Human Rights |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1-108-23507-5 |pages=3–25|date=2017 |chapter-url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/russia-and-the-european-court-of-human-rights/introduction/96C2DC95C4B59C40D8E73AF5F5BE7CEB/core-reader |language=en |chapter=Introduction}}</ref> Russian legislation has set up a specific fund for paying the claimants in successful ECtHR verdicts.<ref name="Fikfak" />

Notable non-implemented judgements include:
*In ''[[Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2)|Hirst v. United Kingdom]]'' (2005), and several subsequent cases, the court found that a blanket deprivation of suffrage to British prisoners violated Article 3 of Protocol 1, which guarantees the [[right to vote]]. A minimal compromise was implemented in 2017.<ref>{{cite news |title=Prisoner voting rights compromise struck |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42271100 |access-date=14 September 2020 |work=BBC News |date=7 December 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Celiksoy |first1=Ergul |title=Execution of the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in Prisoners' Right to Vote Cases |journal=Human Rights Law Review |date=2020 |volume=20 |issue=3 |pages=555–581 |doi=10.1093/hrlr/ngaa027}}</ref>
*The [[Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina]] was first ruled to be discriminatory in 2009 (''[[Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina]]''), for preventing Bosnian citizens who were not of Bosniak, Croat, or Serb ethnicity from being elected to certain state offices. As of December 2019, the discriminatory provisions have yet to be repealed or amended, despite three subsequent cases confirming their incompatibility with the Convention.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Milanovic |first1=Marko |title=Sejdić & Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina |journal=American Journal of International Law |date=2010 |volume=104 |issue=4 |pages=636–641 |doi=10.5305/amerjintelaw.104.4.0636|s2cid=155306157 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Zivanovic |first1=Maja |title=Bosnia Constitution Still 'Outrageously' Violates Minority Rights – HRW |url=https://balkaninsight.com/2019/12/13/bosnia-constitution-still-outrageously-violates-minority-rights-hrw/ |access-date=4 September 2020 |work=Balkan Insight |date=13 December 2019}}</ref>
*In ''[[Alekseyev v. Russia]]'' (2010), the ban on [[Moscow Pride]] was judged to violate [[freedom of assembly]]. In 2012, Russian courts banned the event for the next 100 years.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Johnson |first1=P. |title=Homosexuality, Freedom of Assembly and the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine of the European Court of Human Rights: Alekseyev v Russia |journal=Human Rights Law Review |date=2011 |volume=11 |issue=3 |pages=578–593 |doi=10.1093/hrlr/ngr020}}</ref><ref name=Russia2020/><ref name=Bartenev/> The ECtHR confirmed its ruling that bans on pride parades violate freedom of assembly rights in ''Alekseyev and Others v. Russia'' (2018).<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Cannoot |first1=Pieter |title=Alekseyev and Others v. Russia (Eur. Ct. H.R.) |journal=International Legal Materials |date=2019 |volume=58 |issue=6 |pages=1251–1280 |doi=10.1017/ilm.2019.53|s2cid=212883311 |url=https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8639782 }}</ref>
* ''[[Bayev and Others v. Russia]]'' (2017), relating to the [[Russian gay propaganda law]] and related laws, which the court judged to abridge [[freedom of speech]].<ref name=Russia2020>{{cite journal |last1=Endsjø |first1=Dag Øistein |title=The other way around? How freedom of religion may protect LGBT rights |journal=The International Journal of Human Rights |date=2020 |volume=24 |issue=10 |pages=1681–1700 |doi=10.1080/13642987.2020.1763961|doi-access=free|hdl=10852/83580 |hdl-access=free }}</ref><ref name=Bartenev>{{cite book |last1=Bartenev |first1=Dmitri |title=Russia and the European Court of Human Rights: The Strasbourg Effect |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1-108-25687-2 |pages=326–352 |chapter=LGBT rights in Russia and European human rights standards|date=2017|doi=10.1017/9781108235075.013}}</ref>
*Azerbaijani opposition politician [[Ilgar Mammadov]], whose imprisonment the ECtHR ruled illegal in 2014; he was not released until 2018.<ref name=Hervey/> He was subsequently acquitted and paid compensation.<!--ref: see his article-->
*Following ''Burmych and Others v. Ukraine'' (2017), the ECtHR dismissed all 12,143 cases following the pattern of ''Ivanov v. Ukraine'' (2009) as well as any future cases following that pattern, handing them to the Department of Execution at the Council of Europe for enforcement. These cases all involved complainants not being paid money they were due under Ukrainian law.<ref name="Fikfak" /><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ulfstein |first1=Geir |last2=Zimmermann |first2=Andreas |title=Certiorari through the Back Door? The Judgment by the European Court of Human Rights in Burmych and Others v. Ukraine in Perspective |journal=The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals |date=2018 |volume=17 |issue=2 |pages=289–308 |doi=10.1163/15718034-12341381|hdl=10852/67292 |s2cid=149916470 |url=http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-70469 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> In the eight years between ''Ivanov'' and ''Burmych'', Ukraine made no effort to resolve these cases, leading the ECtHR to "effectively [give] up on trying to incentivize Ukraine to comply with its judgments".<ref name="Fikfak" /> As of 2020, the money owed to the complainants in these cases remains unpaid.<ref name="Fikfak" />

Another issue is delayed implementation of judgements.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Szklanna |first1=Agnieszka |title=European Yearbook on Human Rights 2018 |publisher=Intersentia |isbn=978-1-78068-800-8 |pages=445–464 |edition=1 |doi=10.1017/9781780688008.019 |chapter=Delays in the Implementation of ECtHR Judgments: The Example of Cases Concerning Electoral Issues|year=2018 |s2cid=189722427 }}</ref>

===Caseload===
[[File:ECHR backlog.png|thumb|The backlog of pending cases has gone down from a peak of 151,600 in 2011, in part due to streamlined rejection of applications at the admissibility stage.|262x262px]]
The caseload of the court expanded rapidly after the fall of the Soviet Union, growing from fewer than 8,400 cases filed in 1999 to 57,000 in 2009. Most of these cases concern nationals of the former [[Eastern Bloc]] where there is less trust in the court system. In 2009, the court had a backlog of 120,000 cases which would have required 46 years to process at the previous rate, leading to reforms. According to the BBC, the court began "to be seen as a victim of its own success".<ref>{{cite news |title=Profile: European Court of Human Rights |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-16924514 |access-date=29 August 2020 |work=BBC News |date=5 February 2015}}</ref>

Between 2007 and 2017, the number of cases dealt with each year was relatively constant (between 1,280 and 1,550); two-thirds of cases were repetitive and most concerned a few countries: Turkey (2,401), Russia (2,110), Romania (1,341), and Poland (1,272). Repetitive cases indicate a pattern of human rights violations in a given country.
The 2010 Interlaken Declaration stated that the court would reduce its caseload by cutting back on the number of repetitive cases it dealt with.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Reichel |first1=David |last2=Grimheden |first2=Jonas |title=A Decade of Violations of the European Convention on Human Rights: Exploring Patterns of Repetitive Violations |journal=European Yearbook on Human Rights 2018 |date=2018 |pages=267–286 |doi=10.1017/9781780688008.012 |isbn=9781780688008 |s2cid=159227980 |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330770184}}</ref> 

As a result of Protocol 14 reforms to reduce caseload, single judges were empowered to reject applications as inadmissible and a system of "pilot judgements" was created to handle repetitive cases without a formal finding for each one.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Vogiatzis |first1=Nikos |title=The Admissibility Criterion Under Article 35(3)(b) ECHR: a 'Significant Disadvantage' to Human Rights Protection? |journal=International and Comparative Law Quarterly |date=2016 |volume=65 |issue=1 |pages=185–211 |doi=10.1017/S0020589315000573|s2cid=146428992 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bowring |first1=Bill |title=The Russian Federation, Protocol No. 14 (and 14bis), and the Battle for the Soul of the ECHR |journal=Goettingen Journal of International Law |date=2010 |doi=10.3249/1868-1581-2-2-Bowring}}</ref> Pending applications peaked at 151,600 in 2011 and were reduced to 59,800 by 2019.<ref>[https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_analysis_2019_ENG.pdf Analysis of statistics 2019]</ref>

These reforms led to an increasing number of applications being declared inadmissible or bypassed a ruling under the new pilot procedure.<ref>For the most recent statistical data see ECHR, The ECHR in facts & figures - 2019, p. 4ss. For a detailed analysis of this problem from various perspectives see Flogaitis, Zwart, and Fraser (eds.), The European Court of Human Rights and its Discontents: Turning Criticism into Strength, Edward Elgar: Cheltenham 2013.</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Greer|first=Steven|title=Europe|journal=Daniel Moeckli et al. (Eds.), International Human Rights Law|pages=441–464 (452)}}</ref> According to Steven Greer, "large numbers of applications will not, in practice, be examined", and this situation is qualified as a "structural denial of justice for certain categories of meritorious applicants whose cases cannot be handled".<ref>See Steven Greer, p. 452, citing Mahoney, The European Court of Human Rights and its Ever-Growing Caseloaed: Preserving the Mission of the Court While Ensuring the Viability of the Individual Petition, in: Flogaitis, Zwart, and Fraser (eds.), The European Court of Human Rights and its Discontents: Turning Criticism into Strength, Edward Elgar: Cheltenham 2013, 26 and Cameron, The Court and the Member States: Procedural Aspects, in: Follesdal, Petes, and Ulfstein (eds.), Constituting Europe, CUP: Cambridge 2013, 43.</ref> [[Access to justice]] may also be de facto impeded the lack of legal aid and other factors.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Gerards |first1=Janneke H. |last2=Glas |first2=Lize R. |title=Access to justice in the European Convention on Human Rights system |journal=Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights |date=2017 |volume=35 |issue=1 |pages=11–30 |doi=10.1177/0924051917693988|doi-access=free|hdl=2066/175364 |hdl-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Gruodytė |first1=Edita |last2=Kirchner |first2=Stefan |title=Legal aid for intervenors in proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights |journal=International Comparative Jurisprudence |date=2016 |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=36–44 |doi=10.1016/j.icj.2016.04.001|doi-access=free}}</ref>

===Impact===
ECtHR rulings have expanded the protection of human rights in every signatory country. Notable rights secured include:<ref>{{cite web |title=Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights |url=https://www.coe.int/en/web/impact-convention-human-rights#/ |publisher=[[Council of Europe]] |access-date=4 September 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |editor1-last=Brems |editor1-first=Eva |editor2-last=Gerards |editor2-first=Janneke |title=Shaping Rights in the ECHR: The Role of the European Court of Human Rights in Determining the Scope of Human Rights |date=2014 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1-107-72969-8 |language=en}}</ref>
*[[Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights|Article 2]]: [[right to life]] including the abolition of [[capital punishment]], and effective investigation of deaths in custody and due to [[domestic violence]]<ref>{{cite web |title=Right to Life |url=https://www.coe.int/web/impact-convention-human-rights/right-to-life |website=Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights |access-date=4 September 2020 |publisher=[[Council of Europe]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Skinner |first1=Stephen |title=Lethal Force, the Right to Life and the ECHR: Narratives of Death and Democracy |date=2019 |publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing |isbn=978-1-5099-2954-2 |language=en}}</ref>
*[[Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights|Article 3]]: freedom from [[torture]]<ref>{{Cite book |last=Yildiz |first=Ezgi |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/between-forbearance-and-audacity/57974CDB48407A366C4F698C9E636C6E |title=Between Forbearance and Audacity: The European Court of Human Rights and the Norm against Torture |date=2023 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1-009-10004-5 |doi=10.1017/9781009103862}}</ref> and ill-treatment, ending [[police brutality]] and excessively poor conditions in prisons,<ref>{{cite web |title=Torture and Ill-treatment |url=https://www.coe.int/en/web/impact-convention-human-rights/torture-and-ill-treatment |website=Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights |access-date=4 September 2020|publisher=[[Council of Europe]]}}</ref><ref>[https://strasbourgobservers.com/category/by-topic/prohibition-of-torture/ Strasbourg Observers]</ref> banning [[forced sterilization]]<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Patel |first1=Priti |title=Forced sterilization of women as discrimination |journal=Public Health Reviews |date=2017 |volume=38 |page=15 |doi=10.1186/s40985-017-0060-9 |pmid=29450087 |issn=0301-0422 |pmc=5809857 |doi-access=free }}</ref>
*[[Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights|Article 4]]: Article 4 cases have resulted in the criminalization of [[forced labor]] and [[human trafficking]] in several countries<ref>{{cite web |title=Slavery and Human Trafficking |url=https://www.coe.int/web/impact-convention-human-rights/slavery-and-human-trafficking |website=Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights |access-date=4 September 2020 |publisher=[[Council of Europe]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Dembour |first1=Marie-Bénédicte |title=When Humans Become Migrants: Study of the European Court of Human Rights with an Inter-American Counterpoint |date=2015 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-966784-0 |language=en}}</ref>
*[[Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights|Article 5]]: [[liberty]] and security, such as ending excessive [[pretrial detention]] that resulted in innocent people jailed for years<ref>{{cite web |title=Liberty |url=https://www.coe.int/en/web/impact-convention-human-rights/liberty |website=Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights |access-date=4 September 2020 |publisher=[[Council of Europe]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |editor1-last=Ruggeri |editor1-first=Stefano |title=Liberty and Security in Europe: A Comparative Analysis of Pre-trial Precautionary Measures in Criminal Proceedings |date=2012 |publisher=V&R unipress GmbH |isbn=978-3-89971-967-3 |language=en}}</ref>
*[[Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights|Article 6]]: [[right to a fair trial]], including quashing [[wrongful convictions]], limiting the length of judicial proceedings to avoid unfair delays, and securing judicial impartiality<ref>{{cite web |title=Right to a Fair Trial |url=https://www.coe.int/en/web/impact-convention-human-rights/right-to-a-fair-trial |website=Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights |access-date=4 September 2020|publisher=[[Council of Europe]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Goss |first1=Ryan |title=Criminal Fair Trial Rights: Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights |date=2014 |publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing |isbn=978-1-78225-496-6 |language=en}}</ref>
*[[Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights|Article 8]]: 
**[[Right to privacy]], which has included limits on wiretapping and [[decriminalization of homosexuality]]<ref>{{cite web |title=Privacy |url=https://www.coe.int/en/web/impact-convention-human-rights/privacy |website=Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights |access-date=4 September 2020 |publisher=[[Council of Europe]]}}</ref><ref>''[[Dudgeon v United Kingdom]]'', ''[[Modinos v. Cyprus]]'', ''[[Norris v. Ireland]]''</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bratic |first1=Catherine |title=A Comparative Approach to Understanding Developments in Privacy Rights in the European Court of Human Rights |journal=Columbia Journal of European Law |date=2012–2013 |volume=19 |pages=341}}</ref>
**[[Right to family life]], including ending child custody regimes which discriminated against men, LGBT people, and religious minorities<ref>{{cite web |title=Family |url=https://www.coe.int/web/impact-convention-human-rights/family |website=Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights |access-date=4 September 2020 |publisher=[[Council of Europe]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Iliadou |first1=Marianna |title=Surrogacy and the ECtHR: Reflections on Paradiso and Campanelli v Italy |journal=Medical Law Review |date=2019 |volume=27 |issue=1 |pages=144–154 |doi=10.1093/medlaw/fwy002|pmid=29481609 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Choudhry |first1=Shazia |last2=Herring |first2=Jonathan |title=European Human Rights and Family Law |date=2010 |publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing |isbn=978-1-84731-744-5 |language=en}}</ref>
*[[Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights|Article 9]]: [[freedom of conscience]] and [[Freedom of religion|religion]] including [[conscientious objection]], right to [[proselytize]], undue burdens on exercise of religion, state interference in religious organizations<ref>{{cite web |title=Freedom of Religion |url=https://www.coe.int/en/web/impact-convention-human-rights/freedom-of-religion |website=Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights |access-date=4 September 2020 |publisher=[[Council of Europe]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |editor1-last=Fokas |editor1-first=Effie |editor2-last=Richardson |editor2-first=James T. |title=The European Court of Human Rights and Minority Religions: Messages Generated and Messages Received |date=2020 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-0-429-95440-5 |language=en}}</ref>
*[[Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights|Article 10]]: [[freedom of expression]] protections, including quashing of [[defamation laws]] that prohibited expressing unflattering opinions or imposed excessive penalties, protection for [[whistleblowers]] and journalists who exposed political corruption or criticized the government<ref>{{cite web |title=Freedom of speech |url=https://www.coe.int/web/impact-convention-human-rights/freedom-of-speech |website=Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights |access-date=4 September 2020 |publisher=[[Council of Europe]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ajevski |first1=Marjan |title=Freedom of Speech as Related to Journalists in the ECtHR, IACtHR and the Human Rights Committee – a Study of Fragmentation |journal=Nordic Journal of Human Rights |date=2014 |volume=32 |issue=2 |pages=118–139 |doi=10.1080/18918131.2014.897797|s2cid=146169905 |url=http://oro.open.ac.uk/51679/3/51679.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://oro.open.ac.uk/51679/3/51679.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live }}</ref>
*[[Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights|Article 11]]: [[freedom of association]] and [[peaceful assembly]], such as the right to organize [[pride parades]] and political demonstrations<ref>{{cite web |title=Freedom of Assembly |url=https://www.coe.int/web/impact-convention-human-rights/freedom-of-assembly |website=Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights |access-date=4 September 2020 |publisher=[[Council of Europe]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Salát |first1=Orsolya |title=The Right to Freedom of Assembly: A Comparative Study |date=2015 |publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing |isbn=978-1-78225-986-2 |language=en}}</ref>
*Article 14 and [[Protocol 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights|Protocol 12]]: right to equal treatment, such as ruling against forms of [[institutional racism]] against [[Romani people]]<ref>{{cite web |title=Equality |url=https://www.coe.int/web/impact-convention-human-rights/equality |website=Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights |access-date=4 September 2020|publisher=[[Council of Europe]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Cashman |first1=Laura |title=New label no progress: institutional racism and the persistent segregation of Romani students in the Czech Republic |journal=Race Ethnicity and Education |date=2017 |volume=20 |issue=5 |pages=595–608 |doi=10.1080/13613324.2016.1191698|s2cid=148370419 |url=http://create.canterbury.ac.uk/14699/3/14699.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://create.canterbury.ac.uk/14699/3/14699.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live }}</ref>
*Protocol 1, Article 1: [[property rights]], including restoration of property illegally confiscated by the state and fair compensation for [[expropriation]]<ref>{{cite web |title=Property |url=https://www.coe.int/web/impact-convention-human-rights/property |website=Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights |access-date=4 September 2020|publisher=[[Council of Europe]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Sadurski |first1=Wojciech|author-link=Wojciech Sadurski |title=Constitutionalism and the Enlargement of Europe |date=2012 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-163108-5 |language=en}}</ref>