Across Europe, populist parties increasingly frame human rights and national security as competing priorities, arguing that robust rights protections are a luxury open, threatened societies can no longer afford.
Gabriel N. Toggenburg, a lawyer who has headed the Charter, Rule of Law and Democracy sector at the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) since 2009, rejects that framing entirely. Security and human rights are not in conflict, he argues. They are inseparable. Governments that pursue security by violating rights will not generate security.
Toggenburg was in Cyprus this week for events marking the island’s presidency of the Council of the EU, which coincides with the 25th anniversary of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Honorary Professor of EU and Human Rights Law at the University of Graz spoke to Phileleftheros about democracy, corruption, digital rights and what it will take to make the Charter meaningful in people’s daily lives.
How would you explain the Charter of Fundamental Rights’ importance to an ordinary citizen?
The Charter adds an additional layer of protection. It comes on top of the rights set out in the second part of the Cypriot Constitution and provides additional safeguards whenever the government of Cyprus acts within the scope of EU law.
It is a fascinating document and one that is worth reading. You can also explore it through our online Charterpedia tool. An EU-wide survey showed at the end of 2025 that close to 80% of respondents in Cyprus want to know more about the Charter. In that sense, Cyprus is fertile ground for a meaningful discussion about the Charter.
How has the Charter strengthened protection for minorities, asylum seekers and migrants in practical terms?
Take asylum procedures as an example. When a government decides whether someone’s situation justifies asylum, that process must be fair and conducted within a reasonable time. There must be a proper hearing, people must be listened to, and effective remedies must be available.
All this is guaranteed in Article 47 of the EU Charter, which applies not only to criminal and civil procedures but also to other contexts, such as asylum or tax procedures. This differs from the corresponding provision in the European Convention on Human Rights, the Council of Europe instrument. This is an area where the Charter offers added legal value.
In fact, through Article 47, national lawyers have begun to understand that the Charter can make a concrete difference at national level.
There is a sense that fundamental rights protection is rolling back, in Cyprus and across Europe. How important is the Charter in these times?
The Charter applies only where an issue relevant to EU law is at stake. Where the Charter is not applicable, other key instruments come into play, such as the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution or the European Convention on Human Rights of the Council of Europe.
The rule is clear: where democracy and the rule of law are under threat, fundamental rights become even more important. Not less.
Are populist or far-right governments inherently incompatible with Charter compliance?
That depends on how you define populism. What one can say is that a government that divides the population into first- and second-class human beings, and opposes international law, is very likely to infringe human rights.
But we should not be complacent. I doubt there is any political system that is entirely immune to democratic backsliding. The examples of Poland and Hungary showed us that such erosion is an incremental process. It is not that we go to bed in a democracy and wake up the next day in an autocracy.
Therefore, we need to be vigilant. And we need to remind ourselves that our democracies are the responsibility of us all. Democracy is not a spectator sport.
How does corruption hinder the application of the Charter?
Article 41 of the Charter obliges the EU itself to respect the right to good administration. From a human rights perspective, it is important to stress that any form of corruption is ultimately a violation of the principle of equality, as laid down in Article 21 of the Charter.
In a corrupt system, citizens can no longer be assured that the administration treats everyone equally. Corruption, by definition, creates an asymmetry. It favours certain people on the basis of a special relationship rather than objective qualification.
The issue is also relevant for Cyprus. In the most recent rule of law report, the European Commission again stressed the need to strengthen the independence and capacity of the anti-corruption authority. It also called on the government to address how public money is spent on media advertising.
Many populist parties frame national identity and security as being in tension with human rights, arguing that we cannot afford so many rights because migration threatens our security. What is the right response to that argument?
If you pursue security through policies that violate human rights, you will not generate security. It is a false dichotomy. The tension between security and fundamental rights is constructed, not real.
Fundamental rights themselves guarantee security. The rights to life and to integrity are key aspects of security. Social rights, such as housing, social benefits and healthcare, are precisely what human beings mean when they say they feel secure.
You mentioned misinformation earlier. Is the Charter fit to meet the challenges of the digital age, or does it need updating?
I am not persuaded by the argument that we need a new, separate charter of digital rights specifically designed for the online world. Whatever legal entitlements exist offline can, in principle, be translated into the online context.
What more could be done to ensure that every judge, journalist and policymaker in EU member states knows the Charter well enough to apply it?
FRA is currently running a project in 17 EU member states, in partnership with national governments, human rights actors and civil society, focused on training legal practitioners. We believe this is the group with the greatest systemic impact. If lawyers do not know the Charter, who will?
In Cyprus, we already conducted a similar project some years ago. It produced video content and radio interviews. I think such efforts have an impact. The most recent Eurobarometer data confirms this: between 2019 and 2025, awareness of the Charter in Cyprus increased by 17%. Cyprus is, in that sense, among the EU leaders in terms of increased Charter awareness.
Do you see a gap between the rights-based language of the EU and the actual political choices of member states?
Yes, there are certainly gaps, for instance in the areas of asylum and discrimination. The EU trusts member states to implement EU law. Every national civil servant is, in a certain sense, also an EU civil servant. And every national judge is, in a way, also an EU judge.
If the EU itself were responsible for implementing all EU legislation, it would need to employ 50 million EU civil servants. In reality, its administration is comparable in size to the entire public sector of Cyprus, one of its smallest member states. The myth of overblown EU bureaucracy is just that: a myth.
EU law depends on the commitment of all member states. EU law is not owned by Brussels. It is our shared legal system, whether we are Cypriots, Italians or Romanians.
Which rights are most at risk right now?
Privacy and data protection will be central going forward in an increasingly digitalised world. How to handle deepfakes, where to draw the line between awful and unlawful content: these are anything but easy questions.
Asylum will remain critical, not only because of factual migration pressures but because it has been so heavily politicised. Discrimination is, unfortunately, a recurring problem and is likely to remain so for some time.
The recent judgment by the EU Court in Luxembourg against Hungary, involving the LGBTIQ community, is a reminder that this is an area where politics is tempted to exploit rights for its own ends. But in this so-called “value judgment”, the Court drew red lines, showing the contours of what is and is not acceptable in our EU-wide community of values.
Where a state engages in a manifest and particularly serious breach of Article 2, the values provision in the EU treaty, it risks facing infringement proceedings based on that key provision. You cannot adopt legislation that marginalises and stigmatises a minority, compares them to criminals, and at the same time pretend to be part of the EU’s community of values.
What role can the Cyprus presidency play in advancing fundamental rights during this period?
Every presidency has its priorities, usually a set of rather superficial slogans. One of the five priorities of the Cyprus presidency is very interesting: “An autonomous Union of values that leaves no one behind.” So, the presidency will certainly deal with fundamental rights.
It may push for Council conclusions on the EU Charter. The EU’s upcoming accession to the European Convention on Human Rights will also be a topic. Most importantly, Cyprus has committed to advancing various important social policy areas, ranging from the EU housing strategy and the child guarantee to health issues. The EU needs to provide important guidance here.
The new EU Anti-Poverty Strategy, the first of its kind, has just been presented by the European Commission. It links poverty to Article 1 of the Charter. Living in dignity is a fundamental right, and the EU has committed to respecting and protecting it.
That said, a presidency is always an honest broker first. Cyprus sits in the driving seat, but its primary task is to build consensus among 27 member states. That limits how far any presidency can push its own priorities.
Twenty-five years after the Charter was created, is it a success story? And what should the priorities be going forward?
At EU institutional level, I would say it has been a genuine game-changer. The Court of Justice made clear that it would strike down any EU legislation incompatible with the Charter, and that has further strengthened the EU’s fundamental rights culture.
At national level, the picture is more mixed. Some constitutional courts, such as those in Germany, Austria and Italy, have started using the Charter as their own constitutional benchmark in areas where EU law applies. But in many member states, governments and parliaments still do not take the Charter sufficiently into consideration. A great deal of work remains.
Given all of that, where does the energy for human rights advocacy come from at national level?
National human rights bodies are the key. Cyprus has several. These institutions know the national situation intimately. They have, or should have, the courage to speak truth to power, and they have the ability to reach civil society directly. That is essential.
You cannot promote human rights without bringing people with you. People need to understand that the Charter is about their own lives and living conditions, not about high-level government language.
EU Commissioner McGrath made a point at the rule of law conference in Nicosia that struck me. He said this is the first generation in a long time that risks being materially worse off than its parents. That creates anxiety, and anxiety creates openness to populism. If politics stops feeling relevant to people’s daily lives, they disengage. And that is where the danger lies.
Read more:
