With a key decision fast approaching, the future direction of mental health policy in Europe is at a critical turning point, campaigners say. On 27 May, the draft Additional Protocol to the Oviedo Convention will be discussed at the Rapporteur Group on Human Rights of the Committee of Ministers. For Mental Health Europe and its partners, this moment represents a final opportunity to ensure that coercive practices are not further embedded in European law.
For more than a decade, the proposal has faced sustained opposition from persons with disabilities, civil society organisations, UN bodies, and human rights experts. At the heart of this concern is the risk that the protocol could legitimise coercive practices in mental health care, undermining dignity, autonomy, and the shift toward more inclusive, rights-based systems.
Recent developments suggest growing international alignment around non-coercive approaches. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe’s Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development has issued a negative opinion on the draft protocol, while the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has publicly opposed it (https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/crpd). A joint civil society statement published earlier this year also called for its withdrawal. In parallel, a recent UN Human Rights Council resolution has reinforced a global move toward mental health systems grounded in human rights and voluntary care.
In January, the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD Committee) adopted a new public statement opposing the draft protocol.
In February, the Withdraw campaign published a Joint statement calling on the withdrawal of the draft protocol.
In parallel, the recent UN Human Rights Council Resolution on Mental Health and Human Rights further confirmed the international shift toward rights-based, non-coercive approaches to mental health. Countries supporting both this resolution and the Oviedo Protocol are taking contradictory positions.
Mental Health Europe continues to highlight serious concerns. Coercion—such as involuntary treatment or placement that violates fundamental rights and contradicts modern standards of care. MHE states that evidence shows that regulating coercion does not reduce its use; in some contexts, such practices remain widespread or have increased. Furthermore, the draft protocol appears to conflict with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, ratified by all Council of Europe member states .
There is still time to act, campaigners state. Engagement with national authorities, particularly representatives to the Committee of Ministers and relevant ministries remains crucial. Public advocacy, including open letters, media outreach, and social media engagement, can also help build momentum at this decisive stage.
Key messages of the campaign:
- Coercion is a violation of people’s fundamental rights. It is an outdated practice that contradicts efforts toward autonomy, dignity, and community-based support
- Regulating coercion does not protect rights or reduce the practice. Countries with legal frameworks similar to the draft protocol have seen continued or increased use of involuntary treatment and placement. See some examples in PACE report on ‘Ending coercion in mental health: the need for a human rights-based approach’ (2019)
- The draft Additional Protocol violates international human rights law, including the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), ratified by all Council of Europe member states
- Many UN experts, human rights bodies, and civil society organisations have publicly opposed the protocol. More than ever, we need consistency and unity in the international human rights framework
- There are alternatives. Instead of adopting this harmful protocol, the Council of Europe could focus solely on the proposed Recommendations on autonomy in mental health care
- Some countries, including Spain and Bulgaria, have already publicly opposed the protocol in the past. Other states can now follow their lead and become champions of rights-based mental health policy in Europe.
Rather than adopting the protocol, a more constructive path would be to focus on recommendations that promote autonomy and rights-based approaches in mental health care. Some countries, including Spain and Bulgaria, have already expressed opposition, demonstrating that alternative leadership is possible.
As the decision date approaches, this moment carries broader significance. It reflects not only a legal debate but a fundamental choice about the values that will shape mental health systems in Europe. Mental Health Europe says that the message is clear: now is the time to ensure policies align with human rights, dignity, and inclusive, community-based care.