Chamber News


Human Rights building
12/03/24

In the case of Kanatlı v. Türkiye the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

The applicant in this case complained that he had been convicted for refusing to perform his one day of military service as a reservist on grounds of conscientious objection.

The Court found that the relevant national legislation made no provision for conscientious objectors to perform an alternative form of service and pointed out that it had previously held that a system which provided for no alternative service or any effective and accessible procedure for the examination of a claim of conscientious objection could not be seen as having struck a fair balance between the general interest of society and that of conscientious objectors.

Ceiling of the main hall of the Human Rights building
05/03/24

In the case of Boškoćević v. Serbia the Court held that there had been a violation of the right of individual application.

The case concerned the non-enforcement of a judgment in the applicant’s favour with regard to outstanding wages and, more essentially, his complaint that his managing director had sent him a letter warning him that he had breached his duties and risked dismissal shortly after he had lodged his application with the Court.

The ECHR found that the Serbian Government was responsible for the acts of the applicant’s employer and its managing director. It concluded that the warning letter had constituted “pressure” and “intimidation” and that it had interfered with the right of individual petition underpinning the Convention system.

Responsive Image
20/02/24

In the case of I.L. v. Switzerland (no. 2) the Court held, that there had been three violations: prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment, right to liberty and security, and right to a speedy decision on the lawfulness of detention.

The case concerned the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention as part of an institutional therapeutic measure imposed on him, together with his detention conditions and the time taken to examine his application for release.

Responsive Image
20/02/24

In the case of Dede v. Türkiye the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to freedom of expression.

The case concerned the dismissal of a bank employee for having sent an email to the staff of his company’s human resources department criticising a senior executive’s management methods. 

The Court found that the national courts had not conducted a sufficiently detailed examination of the content of the email in question, in which the applicant had criticised alleged shortcomings in the company’s management.

Responsive Image

Delivered Judgments and Decisions


Responsive Image

Forthcoming Judgments & Decisions


Grand Chamber News


Responsive Image
22/02/24

The Chamber to which the case Mansouri v. Italy had been allocated has relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber.

The case concerns the lawfulness and conditions of a Tunisian national’s confinement on board the ship being used to return him to his country of origin on the basis of a refusal-of-entry order issued by the border police.

Responsive Image
20/02/24

On 19 February 2024, the Grand Chamber panel of five judges decided to reject all 18 requests for referral to the Grand Chamber.

Responsive Image
19/02/24

The Court has decided to reject the request for an advisory opinion submitted by a panel of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Estonia.

The requesting court wanted to know whether a prosecutor’s decision to discontinue criminal proceedings could constitute an acquittal within the meaning of Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice) to the European Convention on Human Rights and, if so, whether such a decision could be considered final, given that, as happened in this case, it could be revoked by a higher-ranking prosecutor.

The ECHR ruled that the request did not raise a “question of principle” as required by Protocol No. 16, i.e., a novel and/or complex question, since the particular issue was the subject of well-established case-law. The discontinuance of criminal proceedings by a public prosecutor amounted to neither a conviction nor an acquittal, and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 was therefore not applicable in such a situation.

Communication of cases


Responsive Image
04/03/24

The Court has communicated to the Government of Lithuania the application Al-Nashiri v. Lithuania and has asked them to submit their observations on its admissibility and merits.

The case concerns a national of Saudi Arabia currently detained in Guantánamo Bay and 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. The US authorities consider him to have been one of the most senior figures in al-Qaeda.

In his case before the ECHR, the applicant raises multiple complaints of torture, ill-treatment and unacknowledged detention when he was held for five months in 2005-2006 at a secret facility in Lithuania run by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Hearings


Grand Chamber hearing in the case of Ships Waste Oil Collector B.V. and Others v. the Netherlands
06/03/24

The Court held a Grand Chamber hearing in the case of Ships Waste Oil Collector B.V. and Others v. the Netherlands.

The case concerns the transmission of data, lawfully obtained in a criminal investigation, to another law enforcement authority, the Competition Authority, which used those data in an investigation into the applicant company’s involvement in price-fixing.

Decisions


Main hall of the Human Rights building
01/02/24

The ECHR has declared inadmissible the application in the case of Ramadan v. France.

The case concerned the applicant’s conviction for having disseminated information about the identity of the presumed victim of a rape for which he was facing trial.

The Court noted that the domestic courts had clarified the concept of a “victim” for the purposes of the Freedom of the Press Act and had reaffirmed that only written authorisation from the person who had lodged the criminal complaint and joined the proceedings as a civil party could have released the applicant from his criminal liability under the law by waiving the duty of secrecy and allowing the dissemination of her identity.

The Court saw no reason to question the assessment by the domestic courts, which had weighed the applicant’s rights and those of the victim in the balance and had arrived at a solution based on relevant and sufficient grounds and found that the impugned interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression had been proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.

Other News


07/03/24

On 7 March 2024 President Síofra O’Leary took part in the high-level conference on Activating the Protection of Fundamental and Human Rights at European Level, organised by the Law Department of the College of Europe and the Institute for European Law of KU Leuven /RESHUFFLE project, in Bruges (Belgium). She delivered the opening speech of the conference. Frédéric Krenc, judge elected in respect of Belgium, also took part in the conference.

06/03/24

The Court has refused to grant interim measures in the case of Viard-Seifert and Others v. France.

The applicants in this case, who are occupying trees located on the construction site of the proposed A69 motorway (in France), requested the adoption of measures aimed, in particular, at securing their supply of food and water and ensuring their safety.

05/03/24

On 5 March 2024, Ian Borg, Minister for Foreign and European Affairs and Trade of Malta, visited the Court and was received by President Síofra O’Leary. Lorraine Schembri Orland, Judge elected in respect of Malta, and Marialena Tsirli, Registrar of the Court, also attended the meeting.