There is a new case before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) concerning lawyers and migration: Regvar v Slovenia (Application no. 36538/25).
The applicant is described as a lawyer and a refugee counsellor, acting as such since 2017, although she is not a member of the Slovenian bar.
In Slovenia, all refugee counsellors hold legal qualifications consisting, at a minimum, of a recognised law degree or a pass in the state legal examination, plus a pass in an examination on administrative law and procedure, human rights, and international protection law.
Not all refugee counsellors are members of the bar, although some are.
All refugee counsellors are appointed for a period of five years, which can be renewed, and are remunerated from state funds, although the Ministry of Justice can request reimbursement of expenses from asylum seekers who have sufficient means of subsistence. Ms Regvar has represented more than 81 asylum seekers in proceedings before the appropriate courts, and is currently representing four more.
Under the sixth indent of section 9(10) of Slovenia’s International Protection Act of 2021, the minister of justice can dismiss a refugee counsellor if the latter is aware of the asylum seeker’s true identity, is in possession of the asylum seeker’s identification documents, is aware of the actual age of the asylum seeker claiming to be a minor, or is aware of facts on the basis of which the asylum seeker is not entitled to refugee status or subsidiary protection, but fails to inform the competent authority about these matters.
It is this sixth indent which forms the basis of Ms Regvar’s case. She complains of a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), arguing that she is a direct victim of interference in her privacy arising from the reporting obligation. Slovenia’s constitutional court found that the reporting obligation was appropriate, necessary and proportionate to ensure the effective implementation of international protection procedures. But she claims that it is disproportionate. The ECtHR will decide.
The case raises a problem for bars in general because Ms Regvar is not a member of one. Refugee counsellors who are not members of the bar are nevertheless under a statutory duty of confidentiality in relation to all their dealings with clients. But bars are traditionally reluctant to recognise that those who are not qualified lawyers (in the sense of being members of the bar) are entitled to the full rights and duties under lawyers’ duty of confidentiality and legal professional privilege. Assuming that European bars intervene in the case, they may request clarification of whether there is a difference in position between refugee counsellors who are, and who are not, members of the bar.
All of this is taking place against a background of political agitation. Late last year, 27 of the 46 Council of Europe member states, including the UK, delivered a joint statement to the Council of Europe, requesting a rebalance between the rights of migrants and asylum seekers or refugees relying on the convention on the one hand, and wider public interests of national security and democracy on the other.
On 10 December 2025, the Council of Europe held an Informal Ministerial Conference to discuss the interpretation and application of the ECHR in the migration context in the light of this joint statement, which ended with an agreement to prepare a draft political declaration on migration and the ECHR.
The Law Society issued a statement at the time: ‘We can address concerns about border controls without stripping people of their rights under ECHR. The Law Society strongly rejects calls to leave the ECHR. This process provides an opportunity for the UK government to show strong leadership. As the UK negotiates with its partners, we encourage it to do so based on clear evidence and with the purpose and values of the ECHR and the Council of Europe in mind.’
There is a Steering Committee for Human Rights, comprised of government legal advisers from each Council of Europe member state, which has been charged with conducting preparatory work to support the adoption of the political declaration. The negotiations are now beginning.
The statistics from the ECtHR do not support the high emotion around the issue. Over the last 10 years, most applications involving immigration have been filtered out as inadmissible, and violations have been found in around 6% (300) of the total number of immigration cases. Around 2% of applications submitted to the ECtHR involve immigration.
The danger, of course, is that the court will feel chilled by the pressure put on it by the background manoeuvres by the member states.
Regvar v Slovenia may not be a classic case of deportation, but the court may nevertheless struggle to resist the campaign to give member states more say over migration matters.
Jonathan Goldsmith is Law Society Council member for EU & International, chair of the Law Society’s Policy & Regulatory Affairs Committee and a member of its board. All views expressed are personal and are not made in his capacity as a Law Society Council member, nor on behalf of the Law Society
No comments yet