OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights

HFHR

HFHR was founded in 1989, and its creation was preceded by the activity of the underground Helsinki Committee in Poland set up in 1982.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Daniel Freund (Member of the European Parliament) and Heinrich Böll Stiftung e.V. and

29 Jan 2026 · Recharching Advocacy for Rights (RARE)

Response to European Democracy Shield

26 May 2025

The Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (HFHR) welcomes the European Commission's initiative to establish the European Democracy Shield. HFHR considers this an especially important response to the growing democratic backsliding and challenges across EU Member States. In HFHRs view, further development of the initiative should prioritize two key aspects: (i) strengthening the Commissions existing rule of law toolbox, and (ii) empowering independent civil societyincluding through new legislation protecting human rights defenders in the EU. The European Democracy Shield should aim at maximizing the use of existing mechanisms designed to uphold the rule of law. Coordination with current instruments, such as the Rule of Law Dialogue, will be essential. A review of the application of existing tools may also be necessary. For instance, the process for handling complaints submitted by citizens, businesses, and civil society to the Commission regarding breaches of EU law needs improvement. While the Commission should respond to complaints within one year, a recent European Court of Auditors report highlights that assessments often exceed this timeframe, and complainants are not always kept informed. In many casesespecially those concerning democratic institutions or human rightscomplaints may be the only path for EU citizens to highlight serious shortcomings in EU law implementation. HFHR also stresses the importance of monitoring the implementation of Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) rulings. A recent report by Democracy Reporting International and the European Implementation Network found that several Member States only partially comply with CJEU judgments. Failure to implement these rulings fully may significantly undermine the EU legal order and democratic standards. Equally important is the state of civil society in the EU. HFHR acknowledges existing mechanisms that monitor civil society, such as the Rule of Law Reports and work by the Fundamental Rights Agency. We also welcome the announced EU Civil Society Strategy. The combination of the European Democracy Shield and the civil society strategy offers a timely opportunity to reinforce cooperation between EU institutions and civil society actors and improve conditions for CSOs across Europe. To this end, we recommend the following: Stronger collaboration mechanisms: The EU should establish focal points for civil society within its institutions to facilitate dialogue, access to information, and policy input. More accessible and sustainable funding: EU funding should steadily increase and be distributed more equally among Member States. Grant mechanisms should include support not only for projects but also for the institutional sustainability of CSOs. Finally, HFHR urges the European Commission to consider legislative measures to protect human rights defenders working in the EU, including those operating in exile. Such legislation should focus on their safety, integration, and ability to continue advocacy activities.
Read full response

Meeting with Alice Kuhnke (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

3 Feb 2025 · Human rights and democracy to discuss freedom and rights

Meeting with Marie Frenay (Cabinet of Vice-President Věra Jourová)

10 Sept 2024 · EU partnerships for cooperating in consortia with small Belarus media outlets

Meeting with Tineke Strik (Member of the European Parliament) and Amnesty International Limited and Transparency International Liaison Office to the European Union

3 Jul 2024 · RoL Hungary Event

Meeting with Daniel Freund (Member of the European Parliament) and Fundacja Wolne Sądy

4 Mar 2024 · Rule of law and developments in Poland

Meeting with Daniel Freund (Member of the European Parliament) and International Federation for Human Rights

7 Feb 2024 · Rule of Law in Poland

Meeting with Daniel Freund (Member of the European Parliament) and OXFAM INTERNATIONAL EU ADVOCACY OFFICE and

30 Jan 2024 · Rule of Law

Meeting with Daniel Freund (Member of the European Parliament) and International Federation for Human Rights and Fundacja Wolne Sądy

24 Jan 2024 · Rule of Law in Poland

Meeting with Tineke Strik (Member of the European Parliament)

7 Nov 2023 · human rights hungary

Meeting with Daniel Freund (Member of the European Parliament) and Heinrich Böll Stiftung e.V. and International Federation for Human Rights

4 May 2023 · Rule of law situation in Poland

Meeting with Tineke Strik (Member of the European Parliament)

3 Mar 2023 · Independent journalism

Meeting with Nicolas Schmit (Commissioner) and

8 Feb 2023 · Support to displaced persons from Ukraine, including support through European Cohesion funding

Meeting with Ylva Johansson (Commissioner) and

28 Apr 2022 · human rights and migration issues

Meeting with Nicolas Schmit (Commissioner) and

28 Mar 2022 · EU response to the conflict in Ukraine, CARE.

Meeting with Dubravka Šuica (Vice-President)

9 Mar 2022 · Children's Rights. Ukrainian refugee situation.

Meeting with Ylva Johansson (Commissioner) and

22 Feb 2022 · Migration issues

Meeting with Cornelia Ernst (Member of the European Parliament)

10 Dec 2021 · Migration Poland/Belarus border

Response to EU action against abusive litigation targeting journalists and rights defenders - Recommendation

29 Oct 2021

Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (hereinafter: HFHR) welcomes the initiative for an EU anti-SLAPP regulation. As documented in numerous reports, including the latest EC report on the rule of law, the use of SLAPPs in Poland is a common practice of retaliation against journalists, activists or scientists and such a regulation is greatly desired. Nevertheless, we would like to draw the Commission’s attention to a set of additional issues that, in our opinion, should be included in the published Roadmap. 1. The proposed regulation should not be limited to civil cases As the basis for the binding regulation the Commission indicates Article 81 (2) TFEU which deals exclusively with judicial cooperation in civil cases which have cross-border implications. However, the problem of SLAPPs concerns both civil and criminal proceedings and sometimes also labour law and disciplinary cases. The use of the SLAPP strategy in criminal proceedings results in potentially the most severe negative consequences for the targeted individual as it involves the status of the accused, which may lead to discrediting the journalist or activist in public opinion, regardless of the subsequent ruling. Moreover, criminal proceedings often entail significant inconveniences for the accused, such as questioning and sometimes, which is particularly relevant for the protection of journalistic sources, seizure of the equipment (see recent case: https://fom.coe.int/alerte/detail/107636371;globalSearch=false). Criminal law in Poland creates many instruments to silence criticism which are frequently used by politicians, entrepreneurs or other entities associated with the ruling elite. Examples include the crime of defamation (https://bit.ly/3mpKBL1), offending religious feelings (https://fom.coe.int/alerte/detail/102175245;globalSearch=false) or insulting the President of Poland (https://bit.ly/3GrWSXf). Moreover very often those initiating SLAPP tactics employ civil and criminal litigation simultaneously which only contributes to its negative effect (https://bit.ly/3Erov0O). In 2018 alone, 339 people were convicted of defamation in Poland, including as many as 6 sentenced to imprisonment. What is more, retaliation against critics often occurs in the field of employment (see for instance: https://fom.coe.int/alerte/detail/105848625;globalSearch=true; https://bit.ly/3bnJS6I) which justifies protection against SLAPPs in labour law and disciplinary proceedings as well. 2. The regulation should also apply to cases without a clear cross-border element Since judicial cooperation within the EU is based on mutual recognition of judgments, every court of a Member State should also be deemed an EU court. The current divergences between Member States in the protection against SLAPPs may lead to distortion of mutual trust between courts of various Member States which may lead to refusals of recognition of judgments where the cross-border element only becomes apparent after certain time. Such a situation may arise when a court in the state X applies a national anti-SLAPP regulation and dismisses a case because of the SLAPP element, while a court in the state Y where there is no legal protection against SLAPPs, refuses to recognize such a judgment due to a presumed violation of the right to a fair trial. Such a risk was pointed out by the authors of the report “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) in the European Union” (Bayer et al. 2021, p. 82) who indicate that the legal basis for an appropriate regulation at the EU level could be Article 81(1) and Article 82(1) TFEU. Moreover, in the HFHR's experience, most SLAPPs initiated against journalists and activists in Poland take place before Polish courts and therefore limiting the regulation to cases with a clear cross-border element would have an unsatisfactory effect in Poland.
Read full response

Meeting with Ylva Johansson (Commissioner) and

3 Feb 2020 · Consultations on the New Pact on Migrations

Meeting with Thomas Zerdick (Cabinet of First Vice-President Frans Timmermans) and Civil Liberties Union for Europe

22 Feb 2018 · Rule of Law in Poland

Meeting with Bernd Martenczuk (Cabinet of First Vice-President Frans Timmermans)

27 Jan 2016 · Rule of Law

Meeting with Günther Oettinger (Commissioner)

12 Jan 2016 · Rule of Law