A Greek lawyer, Marialena Tsirli began her career working for the European Convention on Human Rights in 1994. She was elected Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights in 2020, becoming the first woman to hold this position. Agence Europe spoke to her on the occasion of International Women’s Day on 8 March. (Interview by Véronique Leblanc)
AE: Why has it taken decades for a woman to become Registrar of the Court?
Marialena Tsirli: Being the first woman to hold a position of very high responsibility is not a phenomenon unique to the Court. This reflects the reality of the professional world, where women are still taking a long time to reach management positions, despite the fact that their presence has been growing steadily, particularly in legal careers.
The Court was created in 1959 and I was elected in 2020. It has therefore taken more than sixty years for attitudes to change and for gender stereotypes to be sufficiently reduced.
As far as I’m concerned, I wanted to take up this position because I believed in my ability to take on such a demanding role. I didn’t think of myself as “the first woman to”, but as a professional who was passionate about her work and ready to take on this responsibility.
What does it involve?
My role is multifaceted. I manage the Registry and, with my team, ensure the performance and well-being of the Court’s 750 staff. I am also responsible for the institution’s administration and budget. Finally, I remain a lawyer, assisting the judges, advising the President, the Vice-Presidents and the Section Presidents and supervising the Grand Chamber cases.
The Court has 46 judges, one from each member state of the Council of Europe. How many are women?
The Court currently has 16 women judges. There have been periods when we’ve had slightly more, but we still haven’t achieved parity. Of course, the Court is not involved in the process of electing judges, who are elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
What have been the Court’s most important rulings for women’s rights?
Opuz v Türkiye (2009) is a seminal ruling on domestic violence: it concerned fatal violence inflicted on the claimant’s mother by her husband, even though the authorities were aware of his past record and had taken no action despite numerous complaints.
The Court held that this inaction had exposed the applicant and her mother to a serious risk of harm to their life and physical integrity. For the first time and unanimously, the Court found that these failings also amounted to a violation of women’s right to equal protection of the law: Article 14 prohibits discrimination, in this case on the grounds of sex, because domestic violence almost exclusively affects women and the passivity of the authorities and the absence of dissuasive sanctions create a climate conducive to such violence.
Any other examples?
One ruling that really stood out for me was ‘Carvalho Pinto de Sousa Morais c. Portugal’ (2017), in which a woman who had undergone a medical operation that seriously affected her sex life had her compensation reduced by the Portuguese supreme court on the grounds that, at 50 and the mother of two children, sexuality was no longer as important to her.
The Court ruled that this assessment, based on gender and age stereotypes and contradicted by the way older men had been compensated in similar cases, constituted discrimination and an invasion of privacy.
In ‘L. and others v. France’ (2025), which concerned the rape of minors, the Court handed down a ruling that contributed to the explicit inclusion of the notion of consent in the legal definition of rape.
Are these women’s rights, as established by the Court’s case law, truly secure?
There is a growing risk that women’s rights will be eroded. The weakening of democratic institutions, the questioning of multilateralism and the rise of populist rhetoric illustrate the ease with which fundamental rights can be called into question as soon as they cease to be actively protected.
It is therefore essential to remember that defending rights remains a constant commitment. The Court ensures that the rights guaranteed by the Convention are effectively protected for all individuals. It’s a Court for everyone.