From Afghanistan and Sudan to Ukraine and child rights, the 61st regular session maps the year’s global human-rights agenda

The United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) is convening its sixty-first regular session in Geneva from 23 February to 31 March 2026, bringing together ministers and senior officials during a high-level segment (23–25 February) and scheduling weeks of country debates, expert dialogues, and votes on mandates and resolutions. The programme points to an intense spring calendar, with major discussions expected on conflicts and crises—including Afghanistan, Sudan, the occupied Palestinian territory, Ukraine, Belarus, Iran and Syria—alongside thematic debates on issues such as disability rights, child rights, and the financing of sustainable development.

According to UN Human Rights (OHCHR), the session opens under the presidency of Ambassador Sidharto Reza Suryodipuro of Indonesia, with opening statements expected from UN Secretary-General António Guterres, UN General Assembly President Annalena Baerbock, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk, and Swiss Foreign Minister Ignazio Cassis. The Council meets at the Palais des Nations, a venue that often becomes a diplomatic pressure point when accountability mechanisms or country scrutiny are on the agenda.

A packed agenda: interactive dialogues, panels and country scrutiny

OHCHR says the Council plans 29 interactive dialogues with the High Commissioner, UN experts, Special Procedures mandate holders, investigative mechanisms and Special Representatives of the Secretary-General, alongside additional enhanced and high-level dialogues and multiple general debates. A global human-rights update by High Commissioner Türk is scheduled for 27 February, traditionally a moment when states and civil society test the Council’s willingness to confront urgent crises and emerging patterns of abuse.

Among the session’s thematic items are the Council’s annual high-level panel on human-rights mainstreaming, a high-level commemoration of the 25th anniversary of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, and set-piece discussions on human rights and a culture of peace, as well as financing sustainable development in line with economic, social and cultural rights obligations. The programme also includes the annual interactive debate on the rights of persons with disabilities and the annual discussion on the rights of the child.

Country situations and accountability mechanisms

The Council is expected to examine a wide range of country situations under different agenda items, including, among others, Afghanistan, Sudan, South Sudan, Myanmar, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras and Cyprus, as well as country files frequently tied to accountability or investigative mandates such as Ukraine, Belarus, Venezuela, Syria, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Nicaragua and Iran. The agenda also includes debates focused specifically on the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the Occupied Syrian Golan, as listed by OHCHR.

Early in the session, the schedule highlights enhanced dialogues on Afghanistan and Sudan, followed by discussions on the occupied Palestinian territory and on South Sudan, and an oral update on Rohingya Muslims and other minorities in Myanmar. These sessions often shape how quickly allegations and evidence presented by UN mechanisms translate into political consequences—ranging from renewed mandates to sharper language in resolutions.

Universal Periodic Review outcomes and new appointments

Beyond country debates, the Council will consider the final Universal Periodic Review (UPR) outcomes of 13 states, including Belarus, Liberia, Malawi, Mongolia, Panama, Maldives, Andorra, Bulgaria, Honduras, the Marshall Islands, Croatia, Jamaica and Libya, according to the OHCHR session outline. The UPR process is widely seen as the Council’s most universal review tool, even as critics argue its impact depends heavily on follow-up and political will at national level.

Towards the end of the session, the Council is expected to appoint 17 new mandate holders, including 11 Special Procedure positions and six expert mechanism members. These appointments can be pivotal: independent experts often become the public face of UN pressure on sensitive themes (from torture and housing to religion or belief) and on situations where domestic institutions are contested or constrained.

Why it matters for Europe

For European governments and EU institutions, the HRC calendar is not just a diplomatic fixture but a policy touchpoint. Many issues on the programme—conflict accountability, rule of law, migration pressures, digital harms, discrimination, and the protection of civic space—intersect with debates inside the EU about external action, sanctions, asylum, and the credibility of human-rights conditionality. As Geneva sessions unfold, European capitals typically face a dual test: how they vote and speak on crises abroad, and how they respond to scrutiny on rights issues at home.

Readers following the Council’s work can also track how UN debates translate into practical outcomes—renewed investigative mandates, sharper reporting, or new thematic standards—through The European Times’ ongoing coverage of the Human Rights Council.

Further details, including the annotated agenda and reports to be presented, are available via the OHCHR session briefing

Source link

Member states narrow scope, delay deadlines, and drop climate-plan duty as business groups cheer and rights advocates warn of reduced accountability

EU governments have signed off on a scaled-back version of the bloc’s flagship corporate sustainability rules, limiting obligations largely to the biggest companies and postponing key deadlines. Supporters say the changes cut red tape and protect competitiveness; critics argue they blunt a tool meant to curb human-rights abuses and environmental harm in global supply chains.

Meeting in Brussels on Tuesday, 24 February 2026, EU countries gave final approval to revised requirements under the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and related sustainability reporting rules—an “omnibus” effort that EU officials and several capitals frame as simplification.

What changed: fewer companies, later deadlines

Under the approved revisions, due-diligence obligations would apply mainly to the EU’s largest companies—those with more than 5,000 employees and at least €1.5 billion in annual turnover—and similarly large non-EU firms operating in the single market. The compliance start date is pushed back from mid-2027 to mid-2029.

The package also removes the requirement for companies to draw up climate transition plans as part of the framework, according to reporting on the final political agreement.

In parallel, changes to the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) raise the reporting threshold to companies with more than 1,000 employees and €450 million in turnover—meaning many firms that were preparing new disclosures may no longer be in scope.

The original logic of the EU’s due-diligence push was straightforward: if European companies profit from global supply chains, they should identify, prevent, and address severe risks—such as forced labour, unsafe working conditions, or environmental destruction—rather than treating them as someone else’s problem. But implementation was always politically contested, with businesses warning of compliance costs and legal uncertainty.

Pressure to dilute the rules has been building for months, with some governments and industry groups arguing that Europe’s regulatory load is rising just as competition intensifies with the United States and China.

Pushback: civil society says the EU is stepping back

Corporate accountability and human-rights groups described the final sign-off as a retreat that risks leaving victims of abuse in supply chains with fewer practical routes to remedy and fewer incentives for companies to map and fix harms early. Advocacy coalitions tracking the file argue that narrowing the scope so sharply reduces the directive’s real-world reach at the very moment it was meant to create a level playing field across the single market.

In Brussels, the decision also lands amid a broader political argument about what “competitiveness” should mean in EU law: faster permitting and lighter reporting, or stronger enforcement that rewards responsible firms and deters abuse.

With the Council’s approval in place, the revised framework is expected to be formalised in the coming weeks, after which member states will proceed with national implementation.

For readers following this policy arc, The European Times previously reported on the Council’s earlier push to streamline sustainability reporting and due-diligence requirements—an approach that set the direction for this week’s final move. Read that background here.

Meanwhile, the political fault line is unlikely to close. Investors, civil-society groups and some policymakers are expected to keep testing whether the new thresholds still deliver credible risk management—or mainly provide relief from scrutiny.

Separately, details of the decision were reported by Reuters, while EU institutions maintain background material on the corporate sustainability policy track via the Council’s corporate sustainability page.

Source link

BRUSSELS, late evening. You’ve landed hours late, your plans are wrecked, and then the airline email arrives: “compensation not due.” In that moment, most people ask, “Are they allowed to just say no?” Across Europe, air passenger rights can be enforceable—if you answer the refusal the right way. This guide explains, step by step, how to challenge a denial, what to ask for in writing, and how to escalate if the airline stalls.

First: check if you’re in EU261 territory

EU passenger compensation rules (often called “EU261”) generally apply when:

• Your flight departed from the EU/EEA/Switzerland (any airline), or
• Your flight arrived in the EU/EEA and the airline is EU/EEA-based.

Typical cases include long delays (often 3+ hours at arrival), cancellations, and denied boarding. Compensation can be refused when the airline claims “extraordinary circumstances” (for example, some severe weather or air traffic control restrictions), but that phrase is often used too broadly.

Official reference pages you can rely on: Your Europe – Air passenger rights and the European Commission’s air passenger rights overview.

Step 1: lock down your evidence before it disappears

Do this immediately (screenshots and PDFs matter):

• Booking confirmation, ticket/itinerary, boarding pass (or proof you checked in)
• Delay/cancellation notice, gate screenshots, and airport board photos if you have them
• Arrival time proof (e.g., timestamped message, baggage tag time, flight tracker screenshot)
• All emails/SMS from the airline, especially the refusal message
• Receipts for meals, transport, hotel (these can relate to “right to care” claims)

If your earlier issue was a cancellation or missed connection, you may also want to link readers to your related coverage. For internal background on similar travel-rights problems, you can point them to a site search like The European Times coverage on flight cancellations.

Step 2: demand a written reason—specific, not generic

Airlines often reject claims with a template line. Reply asking for specifics:

• The exact reason for the disruption (not just “operational reasons”)
• Whether they claim “extraordinary circumstances” and what those were
• The flight number, date, and recorded arrival delay they are using
• Any documents they rely on (even a short incident description)

Why this matters: escalation bodies and dispute resolution systems work best when the airline has “put its story on paper.”

Step 3: resubmit your claim like a mini legal file

Send a clean, structured follow-up claim. Keep it polite, short, and evidence-driven.

• Subject line: “EU261 compensation request – [Flight] – [Date] – refusal challenged”
• One paragraph summary: route, delay at arrival, and what you request (compensation + any care costs)
• One paragraph on refusal: quote the airline’s stated reason and why you dispute it (with one or two facts)
• Attachments: evidence bundle (PDF) + key screenshots
• Deadline: ask for a final reply within 14 days

If the airline claims “extraordinary circumstances,” ask them to explain what they did to avoid the delay (for example, rerouting options, replacement aircraft/crew, or rebooking choices). This is often where refusals become shaky.

Step 4: escalate outside the airline (free or low-cost paths)

If the airline refuses again—or ignores you—move the dispute to an independent channel:

• National Enforcement Body (NEB): Each country has a passenger-rights enforcement body. Start here when the dispute concerns a flight that departed from (or is strongly linked to) that country. The Commission points to how enforcement works and where to find bodies via its passenger-rights resources: EU passenger rights.
• ECC-Net (European Consumer Centres Network): Useful for cross-border consumer disputes, especially when you live in one EU country and the airline is based in another. See ECC-Net.
• ADR/mediation schemes: Some airlines participate in alternative dispute resolution bodies. If available, it can be faster than court.

Tip: In your escalation, include a one-page timeline: booking → disruption → arrival time → claim → refusal → your rebuttal.

Step 5: if money is the issue, consider a parallel recovery route

Depending on how you paid and what exactly you’re claiming:

• Card payment: If the dispute includes refunds not paid or services not delivered, ask your card provider about chargeback options. (Rules vary by provider and country.)
• Small-claims / simplified procedures: For straightforward, evidence-heavy cases, court routes can be realistic—especially if the airline has stopped engaging.

This does not replace EU261 escalation, but it can add pressure when the airline is simply ignoring you.

One-screen checklist: what to do tonight

• Save everything: boarding pass, delay proof, refusal email, receipts
• Ask for specifics: exact disruption cause + “extraordinary circumstances” details
• Resubmit your claim with a timeline and evidence bundle
• Escalate to the relevant NEB and/or ECC-Net
• Set a deadline (14 days) and keep everything in one email thread

Why this works in practice

EU passenger rights are designed to be usable by ordinary travellers—not only lawyers. The key is to turn a vague refusal into a specific dispute with documents, dates, and clear requests. Once the airline’s explanation is pinned down, enforcement bodies and dispute channels can assess whether the refusal is justified—or simply convenient.