On 30 January 2026, the opening of the judicial year of the European Court of Human Rights takes place in Strasbourg, France. Prior to the solemn hearing, the Judicial Seminar will take place on the topic Defending media pluralism and the democratic process in challenging times. The President of the Constitutional Court of Latvia, Irēna Kucina, delivers a keynote speech on the free expression of the will of the people as a prerequisite for the protection of a democratic state order.
During the event, the President of the Constitutional Court of Latvia and Judge Juris Juriss also met with judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine.
This year the Judicial Seminar offers the occasion for its participants from all Council of Europe member states to examine the challenges of protecting media pluralism and democratic participation processes, including the role of the right to information and the prospects for technological developments, through the prism of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.
In her keynote speech, Irēna Kucina, President of the Constitutional Court, highlighted that the rights that normally make democracy strong can be turned into tools for weakening democracy from within. Whereas in the past, the abuse of democratic mechanisms was merely a matter of facts, such as election fraud, today, the methods of abusing democracy have become more indirect and sophisticated. Nowadays, we are increasingly facing situations where the will and behaviour of citizens are being unfairly influenced. This calls into question the authenticity of the democratic process. These threats are closely linked to the opportunities created by global development and technological progress. For this very reason, such abuses may be even more dangerous, as people have become closely connected to technologies which, often without their awareness, can easily be misused.
The case-law recognises that States are not required to wait until a threat becomes serious and difficult to undo. Within their margin of appreciation, they may adopt preventive safeguards where there is a demonstrated risk to the integrity of the electoral process. Self-defence mechanisms have to be preventive as well – because we know that authoritarian regimes adapt swiftly through money, technology, and disinformation, democracies therefore cannot afford for the law to evolve more slowly than the threats.
“Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of democracy, the State has a positive obligation to secure the conditions in which democratic debate and electoral choice can take place freely, fairly, and without covert manipulation. When expression is systematically used as part of coordinated disinformation, foreign interference, or hostile influence operations, it no longer functions as participation in pluralistic debate. It becomes a mechanism for undermining the integrity of the democratic process itself. Democracy survives when vigilance is guided by law – as long as the proportionality of restrictions of human rights is verified by national and supranational courts, our democracies will remain capable of defending themselves”.