16
Jul
2026
Jesus Pinhal v. Portugal
Need for fair balance between combating crime and right not to be tried twice for the same offence: Court finds no violation in case where applicant prosecuted in several sets of proceedings.
In the case of Jesus Pinhal v. Portugal the Court held that there had been no violation of the right not to be tried or punished twice.
The case concerned the right not to be tried or punished twice and known as the “ne bis in idem” principle.
The applicant had been a member and Vice-Chairman of the Banco Comercial Português bank (“the BCP”). Following a complaint, the Lisbon public prosecutor’s office, the Securities Market Commission (CMVM) and the Portuguese central bank (BdP) initiated proceedings against him for various criminal and administrative offences. Before the Court, the applicant argued that he had been tried three times for the same acts. The Court used this occasion to clarify the criteria to be applied in striking a fair balance between ensuring that all forms of crime were punished effectively and respect for the fundamental right not to be tried twice for the same acts.
Grande Oriente d’Italia v. Italy
Lack of sufficient safeguards in respect of a search and seizure measure ordered by Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry on combating the Mafia.
In the case of Grande Oriente d’Italia v. Italy the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to respect for the home.
The case concerned a search – ordered by a parliamentary commission of inquiry investigating the infiltration of mafia-type criminal organisations into Masonic lodges – of an Italian Masonic association’s premises, and the subsequent seizure of numerous paper and digital documents, in particular lists containing the names and personal data of more than six thousand individuals.
Having pointed out the discretion enjoyed by the States in the area of parliamentary autonomy, the Court found, however, that the interference with the applicant association’s right to respect for its home had not been accompanied by sufficient safeguards against abuse and arbitrariness, and had therefore not been “necessary in a democratic society”, since it had not had available to it any ex ante guarantee or ex post remedy.
'A Court for All': the Court launches its new project in the presence of Strasbourg’s Mayor
On 3 July 2026 the Court launched its A Court for All project, which will enable anyone interested to visit the Human Rights Building on the first Friday afternoon of every month, starting in September 2026.
Several guests were invited to the project’s launch, including the Mayor of Strasbourg, Catherine Trautmann – who had also attended, in the same capacity, the inauguration of the Human Rights Building on 29 June 1995.
In describing this new project, the President of the Court, Mattias Guyomar, stated “The task of ‘A Court for All’ is to be accessible not only to applicants and to examine the cases brought before it, but also to open up more generally and attempt to reach an audience beyond the sphere of its habitual interlocutors. It must provide information about what it does, in order to earn and maintain public trust”.
The Registrar of the Court, Marialena Tsirli, explained that she and the President had been inspired by the success of the Open Day event in September 2025, and had decided to make the Court accessible on a regular basis. A guided tour would be offered, so that anyone interested could feel welcome within its walls and understand how the Court’s work concerned them.
The Mayor of Strasbourg, Catherine Trautmann, said that returning to the Human Rights Building was a moving experience. She emphasised the building’s symbolism in the heart of the European district, and welcomed the initiative to open the Court’s doors on a monthly basis, noting that an active democracy presupposed open institutions.
Registration for the September visit will open on 8 August; the link will be available on the Court’s website. Given the limited number of places, registration will be on a “first come, first served” basis.
- Speeech by President Mattias Guyomar (in French only)
- Speech by the Registrar, Marialena Tsirli (in French only)
Vainik and Others v. Estonia
European Court strikes out case concerning total ban on tobacco in Estonian prisons.
In the case of Vainik and Others v. Estonia the Court decided to strike the applications out of its list of cases.
The case concerned the total ban on tobacco in Estonian prisons from October 2017. The three applicants in the case, prisoners at the time, complained that they could not smoke, which had led to them suffering from withdrawal symptoms.
The Court considered that it was no longer necessary to examine the application as the applicant had died and no heirs had come forward. The other two applicants were no longer affected by the ban because they had since been released and had, in any event, failed to respond to the Court’s attempts to contact them.
Jesus Pinhal v. Portugal
Need for fair balance between combating crime and right not to be tried twice for the same offence: Court finds no violation in case where applicant prosecuted in several sets of proceedings.
In the case of Jesus Pinhal v. Portugal the Court held that there had been no violation of the right not to be tried or punished twice.
The case concerned the right not to be tried or punished twice and known as the “ne bis in idem” principle.
The applicant had been a member and Vice-Chairman of the Banco Comercial Português bank (“the BCP”). Following a complaint, the Lisbon public prosecutor’s office, the Securities Market Commission (CMVM) and the Portuguese central bank (BdP) initiated proceedings against him for various criminal and administrative offences. Before the Court, the applicant argued that he had been tried three times for the same acts. The Court used this occasion to clarify the criteria to be applied in striking a fair balance between ensuring that all forms of crime were punished effectively and respect for the fundamental right not to be tried twice for the same acts.
Grande Oriente d’Italia v. Italy
Lack of sufficient safeguards in respect of a search and seizure measure ordered by Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry on combating the Mafia.
In the case of Grande Oriente d’Italia v. Italy the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to respect for the home.
The case concerned a search – ordered by a parliamentary commission of inquiry investigating the infiltration of mafia-type criminal organisations into Masonic lodges – of an Italian Masonic association’s premises, and the subsequent seizure of numerous paper and digital documents, in particular lists containing the names and personal data of more than six thousand individuals.
Having pointed out the discretion enjoyed by the States in the area of parliamentary autonomy, the Court found, however, that the interference with the applicant association’s right to respect for its home had not been accompanied by sufficient safeguards against abuse and arbitrariness, and had therefore not been “necessary in a democratic society”, since it had not had available to it any ex ante guarantee or ex post remedy.
Judicial activities
09/07/26
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.
09/07/26
Need for fair balance between combating crime and right not to be tried twice for the same offence: Court finds no violation in case where applicant prosecuted in several sets of proceedings.
In the case of Jesus Pinhal v. Portugal the Court held that there had been no violation of the right not to be tried or punished twice.
The case concerned the right not to be tried or punished twice and known as the “ne bis in idem” principle.
The applicant had been a member and Vice-Chairman of the Banco Comercial Português bank (“the BCP”). Following a complaint, the Lisbon public prosecutor’s office, the Securities Market Commission (CMVM) and the Portuguese central bank (BdP) initiated proceedings against him for various criminal and administrative offences. Before the Court, the applicant argued that he had been tried three times for the same acts. The Court used this occasion to clarify the criteria to be applied in striking a fair balance between ensuring that all forms of crime were punished effectively and respect for the fundamental right not to be tried twice for the same acts.
07/07/26
Human rights violations against Lithuania for its involvement in CIA secret detention programme.
In the case of Al Nashiri v. Lithuania the Court held that there had been several violations of the Convention.
The case concerned a Saudi Arabian national of Yemeni descent who is currently detained in Guantánamo Bay. He is facing capital charges before a United States (US) military commission on suspicion of, among other things, the bombing of the US Navy ship USS Cole in 2000. He was captured during the so-called “War on Terror” launched by President Bush in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.
The Court found that the applicant had been held for more than five months in 2005-2006 at a secret facility in Lithuania run by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). It also found that the Lithuanian authorities had assisted in the applicant’s transfer from its territory in spite of a real risk that he could face a flagrant denial of justice and the death penalty in the United States of America (USA).
07/07/26
Porto Football Club’s acceptable criticism of referees subject to unjust disciplinary proceedings and disproportionate fine.
In the case of de Carvalho Marques and Others v. Portugal the Court held that there had been a violation of the freedom of expression in respect of Porto Football Club in application no. 47902/20, and no violation in respect of the other applications.
The case concerned disciplinary proceedings brought by the Disciplinary Board of the Portuguese Football Federation against Porto Football Club (Futebol Clube do Porto SAD – Futebol SAD), its Director of Communication, and its President. They were fined between 459 and 15,300 euros (EUR) following statements they had made in the media criticising referees’ performances and the refereeing system as a whole. The Director of Communication and the President were also temporarily suspended from their duties.
The Court considered that the applicants had not provided any evidence to substantiate their accusations of corruption and match manipulation in the cases in applications 29978/19, 37235/19, 34185/19, 29703/19 and 3708/22. The statements had amounted to value judgments devoid of a sufficient factual basis. By contrast, as regards application no. 47902/20, the Court considered that the statements had remained within the limits of acceptable criticism.
06/07/26
Yahidne village case: notification to Russian Government of complaints brought by Ukrainian civilians held for one month in 2022 by Russian troops in school basement.
The Court has communicated to the Government of the Russian federation of the applications Menyaylo and Others v. Russia and Lepekha and Others v. Russia.
The case concerns 111 Ukrainian civilians who were captured and held in a school basement by Russian soldiers during the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in March 2022. The applicants in the case allege that the school was in effect a military base, that they were used as human shields, and that they were kept in cramped and inhuman and degrading conditions for almost a month, resulting in the deaths of eleven people. Among those trapped were women and children, as well as sick, elderly and disabled people.
Russia is no longer a party to the European Convention, but it remains responsible for alleged violations of the European Convention during the period when it was still a signatory, that is up until 16 September 2022.
02/07/26
Refusal of authorities to recognise a legal parent-child relationship established abroad failed to take account of Polish child’s best interests.
In the case of A.P. and R.P. v. Poland, the Court held that there had been no violation in respect of most of the complaints but a violation of the right to respect for private life and the prohibition on discrimination in respect of the child.
The cases concerned the refusal by the Polish authorities to recognise a legal parentchild relationship established abroad.
In both cases, a same sex couple living in the United Kingdom in a civil partnership asked to have their child’s birth certificate registered in Poland. The Polish authorities refused in both cases, referring to public policy grounds. In A.P. and R.P. the birth (and biological) mother and her partner were both Polish nationals; they spoke Polish at home and spent a significant amount of time in Poland. The Government confirmed that R.P. had acquired Polish citizenship at birth. In A.D.-K. and Others the birth (and biological) mother was a British national and her partner was Polish.
Press releases on other judgments and decisions
09/07/26
Transparency and outreach
On the agenda
Videos
