On November 8, 2019, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered a highly anticipated judgment on the preliminary objections raised by the Russian Federation with respect to the lack of the Court's jurisdiction over the claims brought by Ukraine under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (ICSFT). The Court overwhelmingly rejected all of Russia's preliminary objections under both Conventions and confirmed the admissibility of Ukraine's claims under the CERD. Therefore, Ukraine's case will be heard on the merits in its entirety.

On November 15, 2019, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 2498, which extended the mandate of the previously established Panel of Experts of Somalia by an additional year; the Resolution also expanded the scope of the Panel's inquiry by specifically tasking the Panel to investigate Al-Shabaab's revenue sources and illegal taxation schemes.

During the fall of 2019, the European Court of Justice (hereinafter the ECJ or the Court) delivered judgments in two cases addressing the responsibility of internet platform companies for the personal information they control. In Google LLC v. Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL), the ECJ considered the geographic scope of its notable recent jurisprudence on the obligations of search engines to implement the “right to be forgotten” set forth in European Union (EU) data protection law. In Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek v. Facebook Ireland Limited, the Court examined whether Facebook was obliged under EU law to remove information available on the social network that previously had been found under Austrian law to defame an Austrian politician.

Joined Cases C-585/18, C-624/18, and C-625/18 concerning the independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Sąd Najwyższy (Polish Supreme Court) is the latest in a series of European Union (EU) Member States requesting the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) to rule on the independence of their judicial systems. While the organization of justice systems within Member States is a competence of Member States (and thus not for the EU to determine or decide), the CJEU has held that Member States are nevertheless required to comply with obligations under EU law to ensure effective judicial protection and, as a necessary corollary, judicial independence. The significance of the current case lies in the formulation by the CJEU of a “European” standard of judicial independence, and its finding that national judges may set aside the jurisdiction of courts found not to be independent against that standard and to disapply any national measure (in accordance with the principle of the primacy of EU law over national law) that gives jurisdiction to a non-independent court.

This Resolution was adopted in October 2019 following a report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. It has to be seen in the context of previous Council of Europe activity on this topic as well as the European Union (EU) Directive on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law. The content of the EU Directive was agreed earlier in 2019 and EU Member States are obliged to transpose it into national legislation by December 2021.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) Grand Chamber decided in Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary that the holding of the applicants, who were asylum-seekers, in the “transit zone” between Hungary and Serbia did not amount to deprivation of liberty under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). On this point, the Grand Chamber overruled the unanimously adopted Chamber judgment. At the same time, the Grand Chamber ruled that Hungary had violated Article 3 ECHR since Hungary did not assess the risk of ill-treatment for the applicants in Serbia.

On February 5, 2020, the District Court of the Hague in the Netherlands issued a judgment (currently only available in Dutch) that the U.N. Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, has hailed as a "clear victory for all those who are justifiably concerned about the serious threats digital welfare systems pose for human rights." N.J.C.M. et al. v. The Netherlands involved a challenge to the use of a benefits fraud detection tool called "System Risk Indication" or SyRI, which Mr. Alston had criticized in an amicus curie brief for the Court as "pos[ing] significant potential threats to human rights, in particular for the poorest in society" (para. 38). The District Court of the Hague agreed, ordering that the use of SyRI be ceased because it violated international human rights norms. In particular, the Court's human rights evaluation focused on the right to respect for privacy in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (paras. 6.20-6.26) and the right to protection of personal data under EU law (paras. 6.27-6.36). The judgment can still be appealed.