On 9 April 2026, the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in M.V. and Others v. Belgium and held that Belgium had violated several provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights in relation to the reception conditions of four applicants for international protection.

The Council of Europe’s Division on Migration and Refugees published a Frequently Asked Questions document on 12 February 2026, explaining how the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) applies to migration issues. It clarifies which rights are relevant to non-nationals, how national authorities retain discretion over entry and stay, and the limited circumstances under which the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) may intervene. The document also provides data on immigration-related cases processed over the past decade.

Amnesty International and the Human Rights League are proposing a meeting with Françoise Tulkens, former judge and Vice-President of the European Court of Human Rights, and Manuela Cadelli, judge at the Court of First Instance of Namur, to examine the consequences of the letter from nine European authorities calling for a new interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). 

In response to a recent call by several European Heads of State to reinterpret the European Convention on Human Rights, six Belgian human rights institutions have voiced strong concerns. They warn that such initiatives risk undermining the authority and independence of the European Court of Human Rights. The institutions urge the Belgian federal government to remain consistent with its international commitments and to clearly reaffirm its support for the Court and the Convention.

Backed by Italy and Denmark, a group of nine EU Member States has issued a letter calling for a new interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to facilitate the expulsion of foreign nationals convicted of crimes. While the letter's authors frame it as a call for open discussion, the move has raised concerns over judicial independence and the protection of fundamental rights in Europe.

In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Camara v. Belgium, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights. It could not accept that the time taken by the Belgian authorities in the present case to enforce a court order aimed at protecting human dignity had been reasonable.

In today's Chamber Judgement in the case Singh and Others v. Belgium which is not final, the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Article 13 (right to effective remedy) taken together with Article 3 (inhuman or degarding treatment) of the ECHR.

CIRÉ, Vluchtelingenwerk Vlaanderen and ADDE organize a practical training to familiarize participants with the functioning of the ECHR, allowing them to identify cases to be appealed to the Court.