{"id":24847,"date":"2025-05-13T08:00:50","date_gmt":"2025-05-13T06:00:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/?p=24847"},"modified":"2025-05-14T09:35:09","modified_gmt":"2025-05-14T07:35:09","slug":"the-new-european-convention-for-the-protection-of-the-profession-of-lawyer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/the-new-european-convention-for-the-protection-of-the-profession-of-lawyer\/","title":{"rendered":"The New European Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer"},"content":{"rendered":"

On March 12, 2025, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe unanimously adopted the European Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer<\/a> (\u2018the Convention\u2019). This instrument builds on the UN Basic Principles on the Role of\u00a0 Lawyers<\/a>, Recommendation (2001) 21<\/a> of the Committee of Ministers to member states of the Council of Europe, as well as the UN Human Rights Council Resolution 44\/9<\/a> on the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, jurors and assessors, and the independence of lawyers. The Convention\u2019s main objective is to safeguard the legal profession\u2019s core values and ensure access to justice under international law. It opens for signature on May 13, 2025, during the meeting of the Council of Europe\u2019s Foreign Ministers in Luxembourg.<\/p>\n

The legal profession is fundamental to the rule of law, as lawyers play a critical role in ensuring access to justice, protecting human rights, and holding public authorities accountable. However, in recent years, legal professionals in several European countries<\/a>, particularly in illiberal and authoritarian regimes, have faced escalating threats. These range from political intimidation and arbitrary imprisonment to physical attacks and assassination. The erosion of judicial independence and state encroachments on bar associations have further exacerbated the situation, highlighting the urgent need for stronger international safeguards.<\/p>\n

Against this backdrop,<\/a> the Council of Europe adopted the Convention. However, serious doubts remain about its capacity to lead to a tangible improvement in the protection of lawyers, especially given the persistent implementation and enforcement failures of previous Council of Europe instruments. Building on an earlier version published<\/a> with Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom, this updated analysis maps the Convention\u2019s key provisions and evaluates their likely impact, particularly in light of enduring enforcement and compliance challenges.<\/p>\n

Key Provisions and Their Potential Impact<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Convention establishes a broad framework for the protection of legal professionals, incorporating essential guarantees of independence, safeguards against \u2018discrimination\u2019 and \u2018improper hindrance or interference\u2019 and safeguards against politically motivated disciplinary proceedings (Articles 1, 5, 8, 9). However, it remains a matter of interpretation whether practices in states would qualify as \u2018discrimination\u2019 or \u2018improper hindrance or interference\u2019, posing a challenge to the practical protection of lawyers.<\/p>\n

A central provision (Article 10) explicitly obliges signatory states to ensure that lawyers can carry out their professional duties freely and without intimidation. This provision carries significant implications for jurisdictions where the judiciary is compromised or politically controlled, as it seeks to prevent state-led reprisals against lawyers who defend opposition figures, human rights activists, or other politically sensitive clients. Article 7 further reinforces protections by affirming the inviolability of lawyer-client confidentiality. By prohibiting state surveillance and interference in legal communications, the Convention directly challenges authoritarian practices of using national security laws to target politically inconvenient lawyers.<\/p>\n

Additionally, the Convention strengthens the independence of bar associations, recognizing them as self-regulating entities free from government control, especially regarding their formation and power. Article 4 requires consultations with bar associations before legislative changes to the administrative and procedural rules of the associations. In countries like Turkey, Hungary, Poland, and Russia (as a former member of the Council until 2022), where bar associations have been instrumentalized to discipline dissenting lawyers, these provisions could serve as a preventive measure.<\/p>\n

What sets the Convention apart from earlier Council of Europe measures is its binding nature. Yet, beyond the textual guarantees within the Convention, a key question remains: How will these provisions translate into real-world protections? Given the political climate in several Council of Europe member states, there is reason to be skeptical about whether some governments will implement these obligations in good faith<\/a> or exploit legal loopholes to maintain pressure on legal professionals.<\/p>\n

Enforcement Challenges<\/strong><\/p>\n

While the Convention represents an important normative advancement, its practical impact is undermined by structural weaknesses, most notably, the absence of a binding judicial enforcement mechanism. Unlike the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which issues legally binding decisions, this Convention relies on a GRECO-style (Group of States against Corruption)<\/a> peer-review system based on political pressure. This raises serious concerns about its ability to protect lawyers in countries where the rule of law is already compromised. Although Article 5(1)(b) references ECtHR case law, the Convention does not create new justiciable rights. Its protections may only be pursued indirectly through existing ECHR provisions, such as Article 6 (right to a fair trial) or Article 8 (right to privacy), if cases are brought before the ECtHR through individual complaints, provided admissibility requirements<\/a> are met. These include the exhaustion of domestic remedies, unless unavailable, ineffective, or compromised due to a lack of judicial independence, as established in the ECtHR Practical Guide<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Despite these limitations, the Convention retains interpretive value in the sense of Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties \u2014 the ECtHR may consider the Convention as \u2018relevant rules of international law\u2019 when interpreting ECHR provisions. Thus, while not establishing new rights, the Convention can help shape evolving jurisprudence on the independence and protection of legal professionals under Articles 6 and 8 ECHR. Its true contribution, therefore, lies in consolidating and articulating existing principles into a coherent legal framework tailored to the specific threats faced by lawyers \u2014 offering both normative clarity and potential interpretive weight within the broader European human rights system.<\/p>\n

Yet, the Convention overlooks important aspects of domestic remedies, particularly by failing to clearly define how an independent body for reviewing disciplinary appeals against lawyers should be formed. While Article 8(2) requires such a body to be independent and impartial, it does not specify who its members should be. In countries where judicial independence is compromised by executive influence, governments often interfere in the composition of these bodies and undermine their actual independence. To ensure genuine impartiality and prevent such interference, the body should include, among others, retired judges, members of parliament, representatives of lawyers\u2019 associations, civil society actors, and legal scholars. Without such safeguards, the fairness and credibility of disciplinary proceedings remain at risk.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the Convention does not establish an emergency response mechanism for lawyers facing imminent threats, which is needed more than anything, considering the current challenges lawyers grapple with. While Articles 3 and 7 acknowledge the risks faced by legal professionals in authoritarian and conflict-ridden states, they do not provide concrete mechanisms for rapid intervention. In practice, this leaves lawyers vulnerable to arbitrary detention or violence, especially by non-state actors, without meaningful international recourse.<\/p>\n

While Article 6 provides important protections against state interference, they are in practice weakened by the lack of sufficiently strong obligations on governments to safeguard lawyers from non-state actors<\/a>. In several Council of Europe member states, lawyers are targeted by organized crime groups<\/a>, extremist movements<\/a>, or other private entities acting with tacit state approval. The ECtHR, in cases like Kornev v. Russia<\/em><\/a> and Dudayev v. Russia<\/em><\/a>, emphasized that states are responsible for ensuring the safety of lawyers, even when threats come from third parties. The legal implications of this are profound, particularly when considering whether states are obliged to intervene when such actors operate within or across borders. Indeed, this is also a question of interpretation and amendment of the Convention\u2019s provisions in the future on holding states accountable for ensuring non-state actors do not undermine the safety and independence of lawyers.<\/p>\n

Lastly, and most importantly, the Convention lacks explicit safeguards for exiled lawyers, many of whom continue to face transnational repression, an issue already recognized by the Council of Europe itself<\/a>. Authoritarian states increasingly use international arrest warrants, manipulating the Interpol Database, and travel bans to harass exiled legal professionals. However, the Convention does not directly address these emerging challenges. The absence of clear extraterritorial obligations further complicates the protection of lawyers outside the state\u2019s jurisdiction. Without stronger protections, exiled lawyers remain at risk of persecution. A potential solution could involve expanding the Convention\u2019s scope to explicitly address the extraterritorial reach of oppressive state actions, possibly through a binding framework for cross-border cooperation in protecting legal professionals.<\/p>\n

The Question of Compliance<\/strong><\/p>\n

Beyond its legal limitations, the Convention\u2019s effectiveness hinges on political will. While some European governments have demonstrated a commitment to strengthening legal protections, others have systematically undermined judicial independence and lawyer autonomy. It remains uncertain whether states with poor human rights records will ratify and meaningfully implement the Convention, considering its weak enforcement mechanism. As seen with Turkey, Hungary, and Azerbaijan, treaty ratifications do not prevent human rights violations and authoritarian backsliding. Without strong enforcement, the Convention risks being seen as symbolic rather than transformative.<\/p>\n

On a positive note, the Convention is open to non-member states of the Council of Europe, creating the potential as a global benchmark for protecting legal professionals, thus gaining further legitimacy at the international level. If widely ratified, it could set an international precedent for strengthening the independence of the legal profession. However, without concrete accountability measures, its influence may remain aspirational.<\/p>\n

Its global impact will also depend on whether major international actors, such as the United Nations and the European Union, integrate the Convention\u2019s principles into their broader human rights frameworks. The European Union, in particular, could play a complementary role by linking financial aid, trade agreements, and diplomatic engagement to adherence to the Convention\u2019s principles. The European Parliament<\/a> has already expressed interest in integrating the Convention\u2019s principles into its rule of law mechanisms, offering a path to greater practical impact.<\/p>\n

Outlook and R\u00e9sum\u00e9: From Legal Text to Real Protection<\/strong><\/p>\n

The success of the Convention will ultimately depend on sustained advocacy from civil society, legal organizations, and international institutions, with human rights groups pushing for swift ratification and strong monitoring to prevent it from becoming merely symbolic. At the same time, the international legal community must remain vigilant against any attempts to dilute its provisions. Properly implemented, the Convention could offer vital protection for legal professionals across Europe and beyond, but if treated as a diplomatic formality, it risks becoming just another aspirational treaty without real impact. The coming years will be crucial in determining whether this historic agreement becomes a true shield for lawyers or an ambitious yet ineffectual legal instrument.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On March 12, 2025, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe unanimously adopted the European Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer (\u2018the Convention\u2019). This instrument builds on the UN Basic Principles on the Role of\u00a0 Lawyers, Recommendation (2001) 21 of the Committee of Ministers to member states of the Council […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":36,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6639],"tags":[7084,3581,4465,3796],"authors":[7598],"article-categories":[6000],"doi":[],"class_list":["post-24847","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-council-of-europe","tag-human-rights","tag-international-legal-scholarship","tag-rule-of-law","authors-salim-amin","article-categories-article"],"acf":{"subline":"A Milestone or a Missed Opportunity? "},"meta_box":{"doi":"10.17176\/20250514-004818-0"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24847","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/36"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24847"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24847\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24890,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24847\/revisions\/24890"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24847"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24847"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24847"},{"taxonomy":"authors","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/authors?post=24847"},{"taxonomy":"article-categories","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article-categories?post=24847"},{"taxonomy":"doi","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/voelkerrechtsblog.org\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/doi?post=24847"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}