01
Oct
2026
Official visit by the President of the Portuguese Republic
On 30 September 2026, the President of the Portuguese Republic, António José Martins Seguro, accompanied by the Minister of Justice, Rita Alarcão Júdice, paid an official visit to the Court and met with its President, Mattias Guyomar. The judge elected in respect of Portugal, Ana Maria Guerra Martins, and the Registrar, Marialena Tsirli, also participated in the meeting. President Martins Seguro underlined the Court’s key role in the European architecture. Minister Alarcão Júdice expressed Portugal’s firm commitment to the execution of the Court’s judgments and Judge Guerra Martins set out the type of cases brought against Portugal at the Court. During the visit, President Martins Seguro also had the opportunity to meet with the Court’s Portuguese staff members.
Advisory opinion on the proportionality of a fixed-rate tax penalty and whether a national court is empowered to apply a lower penalty
On 29 September 2026 the ECHR delivered its advisory opinion in reply to a request submitted by Ukraine’s Supreme Court concerning a dispute between a private company and the tax authorities about the proportionality of a penalty calculated at a flat rate set by law.
The request raised issues regarding, first, whether the domestic courts may impose on taxpayers more lenient sanctions even if they are not provided for by law and, second, what criteria should be taken into account in examining the proportionality of a penalty.
PACE’s Autumn Session: Address by the Court President
The President of the Court, Mattias Guyomar, addressed the Autumn Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) on 28 September, taking place in Strasbourg from 28 September to 2 October 2026.
In his speech, President Guyomar highlighted that the judges elected in respect of each of the 46 member States of the Council of Europe are an essential link in the DNA chain of the Convention system, adding that their strong democratic legitimacy derives from their election by PACE.
He explained the Court’s efforts to increase the efficiency and visibility of its work and to make its judicial activities more accessible. He underlined that the Court carries out its judicial work in full independence and continues to apply judicial pragmatism by interpreting the text of the Convention in light of the specific context of each case.
President Guyomar also highlighted the Court’s role in ensuring Russia’s accountability, referring to the historic inter-State judgment in the case of Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia, and stressed that the Court’s work on ensuring Russia’s accountability in this regard will continue.
Citing recent rulings, the President of the Court stressed that they reflect the mutual confidence between the Court and the domestic superior courts, while also noting that the principle of shared responsibility requires the Court to exercise its supervisory role.
Kuijt v. the Netherlands
Grand Chamber rejects as inadmissible case concerning deliberation practice at Netherlands Supreme Court.
The Court has declared the application in the case of Kuijt v. the Netherlands inadmissible.
The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the practice at the Supreme Court of the Netherlands by which judges of the Criminal Law Division who are not part of the judicial panel to which the case has been assigned may participate in the deliberations, without taking part in the vote. This is allowed in the interest of ensuring the uniform interpretation and application of the law and such Supreme Court judges are called “reservisten”.
The ECHR concluded that a legal avenue had been available to the applicant at national level to raise her complaint but that she had not used it. It would have been important to give the Supreme Court the opportunity to assess and respond to her criticisms of a well-known and long-standing internal practice that was intended to serve the purpose of ensuring the uniform application of the law. The decision underlines the importance of shared responsibility between national courts and the European Court, in line with the principle of subsidiarity.
Official visit by the President of the Portuguese Republic
On 30 September 2026, the President of the Portuguese Republic, António José Martins Seguro, accompanied by the Minister of Justice, Rita Alarcão Júdice, paid an official visit to the Court and met with its President, Mattias Guyomar. The judge elected in respect of Portugal, Ana Maria Guerra Martins, and the Registrar, Marialena Tsirli, also participated in the meeting. President Martins Seguro underlined the Court’s key role in the European architecture. Minister Alarcão Júdice expressed Portugal’s firm commitment to the execution of the Court’s judgments and Judge Guerra Martins set out the type of cases brought against Portugal at the Court. During the visit, President Martins Seguro also had the opportunity to meet with the Court’s Portuguese staff members.
Advisory opinion on the proportionality of a fixed-rate tax penalty and whether a national court is empowered to apply a lower penalty
On 29 September 2026 the ECHR delivered its advisory opinion in reply to a request submitted by Ukraine’s Supreme Court concerning a dispute between a private company and the tax authorities about the proportionality of a penalty calculated at a flat rate set by law.
The request raised issues regarding, first, whether the domestic courts may impose on taxpayers more lenient sanctions even if they are not provided for by law and, second, what criteria should be taken into account in examining the proportionality of a penalty.
Judicial activities
30/09/26
Measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court are decided in connection with proceedings before the Court, without prejudging any subsequent decisions on the admissibility or merits of the case.
30/09/26
From 1 October 2026, the use of the Court’s Electronic Communications Service (eComms) will be extended to third-party interveners following the notification of an application to the respondent Government. This decision aims to enhance the efficiency, sustainability, and security of the Court’s communication practices. It should be noted that the initial request to intervene in the proceedings following the notification of the application must still be submitted in paper form.
30/09/26
Deadline of 1 December 2026 for requests to intervene as a third party
The President of the Court fixed 1 December 2026 as the deadline for requests to intervene as third parties in the case of Miladze v. Georgia.
The case concerns the applicant’s administrative conviction for a video he had posted on TikTok in 2022, criticising the new transport policies in Tbilisi and alleging misconduct by public officials. The video went viral.
25/09/26
On 7 September 2026 the ECHR adopted amendments to the Rules of Court in respect of Rules 36 and 44. These amendments will come into force on 25 March 2027.
The amendments concern the possibility to appoint, in certain special circumstances, an independent representative for a child applicant and, exceptionally, for a third party who is a child. The amendments do not affect the case-law on the representation of children, but make it possible to request the appointment of an independent representative.
24/09/26
Complaints about fairness of criminal trial brought by brothers charged with murder of Maltese journalist inadmissible
The Court has declared inadmissible the application in the case of Degiorgio v. Malta.
The case concerned the applicants’ complaints about the fairness of the criminal proceedings against them. The applicant brothers had been charged with, among other things, the wilful homicide of the journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia. After committal proceedings, but before the trial by jury took place, their lawyer renounced his mandate. As the brothers were unable to find another lawyer to represent them, the Criminal Court appointed legal aid lawyers for that purpose. The brothers agreed to a plea bargain and pleaded guilty to the charges against them. They complained before the ECHR that their trial had been unfair because they did not have legal assistance of their choosing, nor adequate time to prepare their defence.
The Court found that the appointment of legal aid lawyers had been reasonable in the circumstances. The interests of the expediency of the case and that of third parties, constituted relevant and sufficient grounds in the interests of justice for overriding the brothers’ wishes to continue looking for a lawyer of choice. The Court also found that the brothers’ guilty pleas had been entered into voluntarily and could not be said to have resulted from any duress.
Transparency and outreach
On the agenda
Videos
