Forthcoming hearings in February
The Court will be holding three Grand Chamber hearings on 12 February 2025.
The case R.A. and Others v. Poland concerns a group of 32 Afghan nationals who claim to have fled Afghanistan after the Taliban came to power. They were left stranded in a makeshift camp on the border between Belarus and Poland from 8 August until 23 October 2021.
The case H.M.M. and Others v. Latvia concerns alleged “pushbacks” in the vicinity of the Latvian Belarusian border starting from 10 August 2021.
The case C.O.C.G. and Others v. Lithuania concerns four Cuban nationals and their repeated attempts to enter Lithuania by crossing the border with Belarus.
Chamber News
In the case of M.B. v. Spain the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to liberty and security of the Convention.
The case concerned the applicant’s pre-trial detention and later confinement in a prison psychiatric hospital following her burning down the flat she had been living in.
The Court found that the Spanish courts had not reassessed the applicant’s state of mental health when the order had been given, and had not adequately scrutinised the reports on her health or assessed whether her condition had actually warranted compulsory confinement. Overall, the security order had not met the minimum conditions necessary to comply with the Convention.
In the case of Italgomme Pneumatici S.r.l. v. Italy the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to respect for home and correspondence.
The case concerned access to and the inspection of business premises, registered offices or premises used for professional activities. The inspections involved the examination, copying and seizure of accounting records, company books, invoices and other mandatory accounting-related documents, as well as several different types of documents relevant for tax assessment purposes. This was carried out in order to assess the applicants’ compliance with their tax obligations.
The Court found that, even though there was a general legal basis in Italian law for the measures in question, that law did not meet the “quality of law” requirement of the Convention. Even taking into account the wide discretion that States held in this respect, the Court considered that the national legal framework gave the domestic authorities unlimited leeway as regards the scope of the measures and the way in which they could be implemented. Moreover, it did not provide sufficient procedural safeguards, as the legality, necessity and proportionality of the measures were not subject to sufficient review. All in all, it had not provided the applicants with the minimum degree of protection to which they were entitled under the Convention.
In the case of Cannavacciuolo and Others v. Italy the Court found that there had been a violation of the right to life owing to the Italian State’s failure to deal with the problem of widespread dumping, burying or burning of waste on private land, often carried out by organised criminal groups, in the parts of the Campania region known as the Terra dei Fuochi.
The Court indicated that Italy should draw up a comprehensive strategy to address the Terra dei Fuochi situation, set up an independent monitoring mechanism, and establish a public information platform.
In the case of Suren Antonyan v. Armenia the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to a fair hearing as regards the alleged lack of impartiality of the Chair of the Supreme Judicial Council, and no violation of the right to a fair hearing as regards the alleged lack of independence of the Supreme Judicial Council and as regards the applicant’s alleged lack of access to a court.
The case concerned the dismissal of the applicant from his position as judge by the Supreme Judicial Council. He had been appointed as a judge of the Civil and Administrative Chamber of the Court of Cassation with tenure until the age of 65.
The Court found that the way in which non-judicial members were appointed to the Supreme Judicial Council could not be said to have compromised its independence. At the same time, the Court found that the Supreme Judicial Council had failed to dispel the applicant’s justifiable doubts concerning the impartiality of its chair and that he had not been provided with sufficient procedural safeguards in that respect.
In the case of H.W. v. France the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to respect for private and family life.
The case concerned a fault-based divorce in which blame was attributed solely to the applicant, on the grounds that she had ceased to have sexual relations with her husband. The applicant did not complain about the divorce itself, which she had also sought, but rather about the grounds on which it had been granted.
The Court noted that the concept of “marital duties”, as provided for in the domestic legal order and reaffirmed in the present case, took no account whatsoever of consent to sexual relations. Failure to fulfil marital duties could, in the conditions set out in Article 242 of the Civil Code, be considered a fault which justified the granting of a divorce. It could also entail pecuniary consequences and, in certain circumstances, serve as a basis for a claim for damages.
The Court concluded that the very existence of such a marital obligation ran counter to sexual freedom, the right to bodily autonomy and the Contracting States’ positive obligation of prevention in the context of combating domestic and sexual violence.
Grand Chamber News
On 16 December 2024 the Court decided to refuse the request for an advisory opinion submitted by the High Court of Cassation and Justice of Romania.
The High Court requested that the ECHR give an advisory opinion on two questions concerning (1) the applicability of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and (2) the level of precision required of the domestic law which had served as the legal basis for the dismissal. The Court decided not to accept the request, considering that it did not concern a question of principle, within the meaning of Article 1 § 1 of Protocol No. 16, which warranted examination by the Grand Chamber. Presenting an overview of its relevant caselaw, the Court showed that the requesting court already had guidance on Convention issues when determining the case before it. It thus saw no reason to elaborate further on the existing principles.
The Court has accepted the referral to the Grand Chamber of the case Yasak v. Türkiye.
The case concerned the applicant’s conviction for membership of an armed terrorist organisation described by the Turkish authorities as the Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure.
The Court has also decided to reject a request to refer six other cases.
Hearings
The Court held a Grand Chamber hearing in the case of Danileţ v. Romania.
The case concerns a disciplinary sanction imposed on a judge by the National Judicial and Legal Service Commission for posting two messages on his Facebook account.
Decisions
The Court has declared inadmissible the application in the case of Association confraternelle de la Presse Judiciaire and Others v. France.
The applicants in this case alleged that the French legislation on intelligence-gathering techniques infringed the right to respect for private life, the right to freedom of expression and the right to an effective remedy and to a fair hearing.
The Court found that, at the time the applicants lodged their applications, an effective remedy had been available to them before the Conseil d’État. They should have first used that avenue to submit the Convention complaints which they had raised before the Court. Furthermore, the applicants had not established the existence of any special circumstances exempting them from the obligation to make use of that remedy.
The Court has declared inadmissible the application in the case of Uçar v. Türkiye.
The case concerned the commander of one of the 15 tanks deployed in the context of the attempted military coup in Türkiye of 15 July 2016. He was subsequently convicted of attempting to overthrow the constitutional order and causing criminal damage.
The Court rejected his complaints alleging that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair. There had been nothing arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable in the Turkish courts’ assessment. They had based their findings on various pieces of evidence, and after a detailed analysis of both the accusations against him and of arguments or points in his favour.
The Court has declared inadmissible the application in the case of Borzykh v. Ukraine.
The case concerned the prohibition on wearing the St George ribbon (a war commemoration symbol) in public.
In 2016 Ukraine banned the production and use of the St George ribbon for its associations with the Soviet totalitarian rule and the modern Russian military. The applicant is a former military officer who wished to wear the ribbon on Victory Day. Since the occupation of the Crimean Peninsula by Russia and the start of hostilities in the eastern regions of Ukraine, the red poppy has been adopted in Ukraine as a symbol of commemoration.
The Court noted the changed significance of the St George ribbon in the ongoing armed conflict with Russia and found that although Ukraine’s ban had restricted freedom of expression, it had been within the State’s discretion (“margin of appreciation”).
Communication of cases
The Court has communicated to the Government of Türkiye five cases covering 1,000 other applications.
The applications concern convictions for membership of an armed terrorist organisation, based on the alleged use of the encrypted messaging application called ByLock.
The core issues raised by the applicants have already been judged in the Court’s Grand Chamber case Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye. In that judgment the Court highlighted that there were over 8,000 applications on the Court’s docket involving similar complaints. These 1,000 apparently comparable applications are the fourth batch to be notified to the Turkish Government. Against that background, the Court decided not to put any questions to the parties or to require any observations on the applications.
Other News
The Court has been on Bluesky since 31 January 2025.
Bluesky users can follow the Court at @echr.coe.int to receive all the latest Court news along with press releases on its judgments, decisions, hearings and public deliveries of rulings.
On 6 February 2025, the President of the Court, Marko Bošnjak, led a delegation of ECHR Judges to Paris for a meeting with the Constitutional Council, the Conseil d’État and the Court of Cassation, to mark the 75th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights. Marialena Tsirli, Registrar of the Court, also attended the meeting.
On 4 February 2025, the President of the ECHR, Marko Bošnjak, delivered the UCL (University College London) Institute for Human Rights Annual Lecture, addressing the role of the Court in protecting the Rule of Law in Europe, at the UCL Faculty of Law in London.
The official opening of the judicial year of the ECHR took place on 31 January 2025. The event included a seminar on the topic Protecting human rights in a world of Artificial Intelligence, algorithms and big data, at which many eminent figures from European judicial circles were present. President Marko Bošnjak delivered an introductory speech at the Judicial seminar.
This was followed by the solemn hearing ceremony to mark the official opening of the judicial year 2025. Marko Bošnjak, President of the Court, and this year’s guest, Christophe Soulard, First President of the Court of Cassation of France, addressed representatives from the highest courts of the 46 member States of the Council of Europe and from local, national and international authorities.
- Speech by President Marko Bošnjak
- Speech by Christophe Soulard (in French only)
- Video of the Seminar: Original language - English - French
- Video of the solemn hearing: Original language - English - French
On 31 January 2025, Inmaculada Montalbán Huertas, the Vice-President of the Constitutional Court of Spain, and Dimitry Berberoff, the Vice-President of the Supreme Court of Spain, visited the Court and were received by President Marko Bošnjak. María Elósegui, Judge elected in respect of Spain, and Abel Campos, Deputy Registrar of the Court, also attended the meeting.
On 31 January 2025, Miodrag Đorđević, the President of the Supreme Court of Slovenia, and Špelca Mežnar, Judge of the Constitutional Court of Slovenia, representing its President, visited the Court and were received by President Marko Bošnjak.