EIN Civil Society Briefing February 2025 - Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Romania & France

/

On February 21st, 2025, EIN held its latest civil society briefing for permanent Representations of the Council of Europe, the second of a series of two briefings ahead of the 1521st Committee of Ministers Human Rights Meeting which will be held between 4th – 6th March 2025. The briefing focused on the following cases:

  • Bălșan v. Romania case, presented by Andreea Bragă, Legal Coordinator, Centrul FILIA, member organisation of the Rețeaua pentru prevenirea și combaterea violenței împotriva femeilor (Network for Preventing and Combating Violence against Women)

  • Khan v. France case, presented by Aurélia Lamiroy, Legal Coordinator, Plateforme des Soutiens aux Migrant.e.s (PSM)

 

This group of cases concerns discrimination in electoral eligibility for the Presidency and House of Peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which prevents individuals from running unless they belong to one of the three ‘constituent peoples’ (Bosnians, Croats, or Serbs), or meet specific ethnic and residency requirements (violations of Art. 1 of Prot. No. 12 and, in most cases, of Art. 14 in conjunction with Art. 3 of Prot. No. 1). The Court acknowledged that these provisions were originally intended to stabilise the post-war context, but ruled that, more than eighteen years later, such restrictions were no longer justified, calling for democratic reforms to ensure equal political rights for all citizens.

As highlighted by Stefania Carrer, the implementation of the Sejdić and Finci judgment remains stagnant, with discriminatory provisions in Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Constitution and electoral law still barring non-constituent minorities from key political roles. Four general elections under this framework later and despite five interim resolutions by the Committee of Ministers, no substantive reforms have been made over the past 15 years. The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights has warned that by favoring only the three constituent peoples, the system undermines equality and fuels ethnic tensions undermining stability. Although high-level discussions and meetings have taken place, confirming deliberations on amending the Constitution and Election Law, concrete actions to implement these changes remain elusive. Furthermore, the lack of meaningful consultations with non-constituent minorities and plaintiffs continues to hinder progress toward a more inclusive political system, and this is reflected in the increasing number of cases highlighting unaddressed structural discrimination.

Recommendations for the implementation Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina group of cases:

Minority Rights Group and Human Rights Watch ask the Committee of Ministers to:

  1. Appeal to Member State to request action to ensure implementation with judgments with strict approach on deadlines;

  2. Request the Member State to provide detailed reports of institutional meetings discussing implementation (as per its last Communication);

  3. Provide safe space for meaningful consultations of plaintiffs and national minorities in the implementation process;

  4. Issue an Interim Resolution stipulating that process of amending the Electoral Law and Constitution must be participatory and involve robust consultation of non-constituent minorities.

 

This group of cases concerns the unjustified refusals of the courts to register associations the aim of which is to achieve the recognition of and protect the interests of "the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria” (violation of Art. 11). The refusals were based on considerations of national security, protection of public order and the rights of others (goals aiming at “the recognition of the Macedonian minority” and alleged separatist ideas) and on the constitutional prohibition on associations pursuing political goals, as well as failure to meet formal legal requirements.

As highlighted by Krassimir Kanev, the progress in Umo Ilinden and Others remains stalled. Since 2006, Bulgarian authorities have persistently refused to register associations representing ethnic Macedonians, with 20 new applications submitted as recently as February 2024. Kanev explains that the state’s refusals rest on two grounds: concerns over national security, public order, and constitutional limits on political aims; and technical deficiencies in founding documents, such as missing details on the assembly’s timing and ambiguous membership rules. Under the Non-Profit Legal Entities Act and the Trade and Non-Profit Associations Register Act, applications undergo a multi-tiered review, yet conflicting legal interpretations and administrative overreach have led to inconsistent decisions.

Recommendation for the implementation Umo Ilinden and Others v. Bulgaria group of cases

The Bulgarian Helsinki Committee (BHC) observes that the Government considers that it has fulfilled its obligations for execution of the judgments in this group and does not plan any further measures. The positions of the Committee of Ministers and the Bulgarian authorities seem therefore to be irreconcilable. Considering this situation, BHC considers that the only option appears to be an infringement procedure.

 

This case concerns the failure of Romanian authorities to protect the applicant from repeated domestic violence by her then-spouse. The ECtHR found a violation of Art. 3, as the authorities dismissed her complaints, attributing the violence to provocation, lack of seriousness, or insufficient evidence, and denying her a court-appointed lawyer and protective measures. The Court found that she had been the victim of gender-based discrimination, highlighting systemic passivity in addressing domestic violence in Romania, where impunity for aggressors and judicial inaction persisted despite legal reforms (violation of Art. 14 in conjunction with Art. 3).

As highlighted by Andreea Braga, the implementation of the Bălșan judgment remains partial. Although the Revised Action Plan 2025 introduced an electronic monitoring system, only one in ten aggressors has been fitted with an electronic bracelet due to limited resources, insufficient victim awareness, and a shortage of devices. Furthermore, the network of social services falls short of Istanbul Convention standards—with shelter capacities 34% below requirements and chronic underfunding—and the criminal justice system struggles with restrictive legal definitions that rely on victim-initiated complaints. Enhanced resources, training, and legal reforms are urgently needed to fully protect domestic violence victims.

Recommendations for the implementation Bălșan v. Romania case

The Network for Preventing and Combating Violence against Women asks the Committee of Ministers to call on the Romanian authorities to implement the following general measures:

  1. Modify the definition of ”family member” in the Criminal Code in order to be in accordance with the Istanbul Convention;

  2. Introduce mandatory risk assessments for judges called to decide on domestic violence cases, either in civil or criminal procedures;

  3. Allow victims to introduce criminal complaints for all offences of domestic violence without any time limitation;

  4. Modify the criminal law in order to set an obligation for prosecutors and judges to take into consideration the domestic context of the violence either as a distinct offence or as an aggravating circumstance;

  5. Set up legal rules and time limits to allow prompt and coordinated investigation and prosecution of all criminal offenses involving forms of domestic violence;

  6. Introduce initial training modules of professionals on gender based violence and intersectionality;

  7. Ensure public and continuous funding services for victims of domestic violence (emergency centers, shelters, information centers, rape crises centers) in accordance with provisions of the Istanbul Convention;

  8. Collect and publish regularly disaggregated data on domestic violence, number of requests for legal assistance, number of orders breached and the consequences of such breaches, both in terms of violence suffered by the women and sanctions imposed on the perpetrators.

 

This case concerns the degrading treatment of a 12-year-old unaccompanied minor in transit to the UK due to the French authorities’ failure to provide him with care and protection. From September 2015 to March 2016, he lived in unsafe, unsanitary conditions in the Calais "Jungle" camp, with authorities failing to identify or protect him. The ECtHR found a violation of Art. 3, ruling that the State had failed in its duty to safeguard one of society’s most vulnerable individuals.

As highlighted by Aurélia Lamiroy, the implementation of the Khan judgment remains critically insufficient. Despite recommendations from the Committee of Ministers and the adoption of new laws and guidelines, practical measures to protect unaccompanied minors at the border have not met expectations. In Calais and Dunkerque, under-resourced identification systems and delays in emergency housing procedures have led to high refusal rates and prolonged waiting times, leaving vulnerable minors without timely support. Furthermore, the state’s reliance on non-mandated associations—without adequate financial backing for organisations like the Red Cross and Utopia 56—exacerbates these shortcomings. Persistent issues, such as inconsistent age assessments and inadequate outreach efforts, continue to deny minors essential care and information. Without decisive reforms and improved resource allocation, the structural failures in the system will continue to jeopardise the safety and rights of unaccompanied minors.

Recommendations for the implementation Khan v. France case

The NGOs, represented by the Platforme des Soutiens aux Migrant.e.s (PSM), ask the Committee of Ministers to call on the French authorities to implement the following general measures:

  1. Improve the identification system of minors by strengthening the outreach systems & creating a daytime center;

  2. Improve access to emergency housing & to stop refusing minors’ request for emergency housing;

  3. Improve the shelter system;

  4. Increase resources, tools and skills for the identification and protection of minors who are victims of trafficking.