Defending human rights defenders in the European Union: protection mechanisms, structural gaps and hybrid repression

Abstract

Human rights defenders play a vital role in turning human rights, democracy and the rule of law into lived practice. However, within the EU, those who document violations, support affected communities, litigate public-interest cases or challenge abuses of power increasingly face criminalisation, abusive litigation, security-based narratives, surveillance, funding insecurity and bureaucratic obstruction. This thesis uses the concept of hybrid repression to capture how such distinct pressures may converge across legal, administrative, political, financial, technological and discursive domains, narrowing the space in which human rights work remains possible. This thesis examines the safeguards available to defenders within the EU and the wider European legal and institutional setting, and asks why they often remain insufficient when pressure takes cumulative and dispersed forms in Member States. Its focus is the Union’s internal sphere, rather than EU external human rights policy or defenders outside the EU as a distinct field. Methodologically, it combines doctrinal analysis of EU, Council of Europe and OSCE instruments with socio-legal and political-science insights into cumulative pressure on rights-defending activity. Selected national examples are used to illustrate recurring patterns, without developing country case studies. The thesis shows that EU law and policy provide important resources for defenders, including fundamental-rights guarantees, sector-specific instruments, monitoring channels, funding tools and broader European standards. However, these resources remain dispersed and unevenly accessible. Their effectiveness is constrained by limited recognition of defenders in that capacity, inconsistent implementation, delayed remedies and limited capacity to respond to cumulative patterns of pressure. The thesis concludes that effective protection depends on practical recognition, institutional coordination, early response, accessibility and sustained follow-up, so that rights-defending activity remains viable in practice.