On 4 and 5 June 2026, the focal points of the Superior Courts Network, which comprises 112 member courts and eight observer courts, gathered in Strasbourg to share knowledge and advance judicial dialogue.
During the opening session, moderated by the Court’s Jurisconsult, Anna Austin, the President of the Court, Mattias Guyomar, highlighted that such meetings are a practical expression of courts’ shared responsibility for applying the Convention, within a system where the European Court of Human Rights plays a subsidiary supervisory role while domestic courts are at the forefront. He added that this meeting is also an opportunity to develop working relationships and strengthen personal ties.
The President then referred to the topic of “Business and Human Rights”, a transversal theme for which a new page has been launched on the Court’s Knowledge Sharing platform. The President elaborated on how the Court has dealt with cases concerning business: cases brought by businesses challenging regulations, and cases concerning the State’s positive obligations to regulate business activities where they may have affected the rights of individuals.
In her introductory remarks, the Registrar of the Court, Marialena Tsirli, underlined that the Court has developed the doctrine of “positive obligations”, recognising that States are required not only to refrain from interfering with Convention rights, but also to regulate business actors in order to ensure their effective protection.
Samuel Vuelta Simon, Secretary of State for Justice of Monaco, and Gianluca Esposito, Director General of the Directorate General Human Rights and Rule of Law of the Council of Europe, also addressed the participants during the opening session.
On 1-2 June 2026 the International Congress on the Rule of Law and Judicial Ethics took place at the National High Court of Brazil in Brasilia, assembling Presidents and Chief Justices’ of courts and jurisdictions from across the world, as well as distinguished academics. Hosted by the National High Court of Brazil and its Chief Justice Antonio Herman Benjamin and advised by a committee including Professor Margaret Satterthwaite (United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers) the Congress fostered dialogue among judges on the importance and relevance of ethical frameworks, including the 2002 Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, as well as the necessity of adhering to the judiciaries’ essential values of independence, impartiality and equity. The eight roundtable events addressed different aspects of judicial ethics including on new challenges relating to social media and artificial intelligence. President Guyomar addressed the Congress on Judges and the Rule of Law, and Judicial Independence. The Congress also heard from Chief Justices from superior courts across Europe, South America and Africa, as well as Judicial representatives from other regional courts including the European Court of Justice and the Caribbean Court of Justice.
The Congress was an exceptional meeting at which the European Court participated fully in an international network expressing solidarity between judges. A report summarizing the key points and conclusions will be produced after the event.
On 29 May 2026, the sixth colloquium on the theme Dialogue between the European Court of Human Rights and academia, organised jointly by the Court, the Faculty of Law of the University of Strasbourg and the Carré de Malberg Institute, was held in Strasbourg with the participation of the Court’s President, Mattias Guyomar. Marko Bošnjak, Judge at the Court of Justice of the European Union and former President of the European Court of Human Rights, was also invited.
The following judges of the Court took part: Frédéric Krenc, judge elected in respect of Belgium and organiser of the colloquium; Diana Sarcu, judge elected in respect of the Republic of Moldova; Alain Chablais, judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein; Canòlic Mingorance Cairat, judge elected in respect of Andorra; and Hugh Mercer, judge elected in respect of the United Kingdom, alongside Professors Emeritus of the University of Strasbourg Florence Benoit-Rohmer (organiser of the conference) and Patrick Wachsmann, as well as Professors Matthieu Maisonneuve of the University of Aix-Marseille, Isabelle Rorive of the Free University of Brussels, Ledi Bianku of the University of Strasbourg (organiser of the conference), Peggy Ducoulombier of the University of Strasbourg, Marion Larché of the University of Lille, Dominic McGoldrick of the University of Nottingham and Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou of the University of Liverpool, as well as students and legal staff of the Court.
Mattias Guyomar delivered the opening address, emphasising the importance of dialogue between the Court and academia on human rights issues and outlining recent developments relating to the Court’s judicial activity.
During the conference, four major and topical themes were addressed by the Court’s judges and professors.
Judge Sarcu spoke on freedom of expression for judicial actors; Judge Chablais presented recent case-law on migration; Judge Mingorance Cairat addressed the subject of freedom of assembly and the suppression of protest; and Judge Mercer outlined the challenges facing sports arbitration in the light of fundamental rights.
Frédéric Krenc, judge elected in respect of Belgium, summarised the conclusions of this fruitful exchange between the Court’s case-law and academia.
On 21 May 2026, the President of the Court, Mattias Guyomar, accompanied by the judge elected in respect of Portugal, Ana Maria Guerra Martins, and the Deputy Registrar, Abel Campos, visited Lisbon to participate in a conference marking the 50th anniversary of Portugal’s signature of the European Convention on Human Rights. During the visit, President Guyomar also met with the President of the Portuguese Republic, António José Seguro.
During his address at the conference Portugal and the European Convention on Human Rights (1976–2026) – From Accession to Influence, organised by Portugal’s Constitutional Court, Supreme Court of Justice, Attorney General’s Office and Bar Association, the President of the Court spoke about the interplay between the Portuguese constitutional order and the Convention system; the dialogue between judges and courts as a living expression of the principle of subsidiarity in the service of the protection of rights; judicial solidarity as a tool for mutual assistance and for safeguarding judicial independence; the weakening of the rule of law and the challenge to judicial authority; and the shared responsibility of defending the rule of law and ensuring the proper functioning of the judiciary in Europe.
The judge elected in respect of Portugal, Ana Maria Guerra Martins, also addressed the participants on the topic The national perspective at the European Court of Human Rights.
The President concluded his visit by giving interviews to Público and to SIC.
Superior Courts Network Forum takes place in Strasbourg
On 4 and 5 June 2026, the focal points of the Superior Courts Network, which comprises 112 member courts and eight observer courts, gathered in Strasbourg to share knowledge and advance judicial dialogue.
During the opening session, moderated by the Court’s Jurisconsult, Anna Austin, the President of the Court, Mattias Guyomar, highlighted that such meetings are a practical expression of courts’ shared responsibility for applying the Convention, within a system where the European Court of Human Rights plays a subsidiary supervisory role while domestic courts are at the forefront. He added that this meeting is also an opportunity to develop working relationships and strengthen personal ties.
The President then referred to the topic of “Business and Human Rights”, a transversal theme for which a new page has been launched on the Court’s Knowledge Sharing platform. The President elaborated on how the Court has dealt with cases concerning business: cases brought by businesses challenging regulations, and cases concerning the State’s positive obligations to regulate business activities where they may have affected the rights of individuals.
In her introductory remarks, the Registrar of the Court, Marialena Tsirli, underlined that the Court has developed the doctrine of “positive obligations”, recognising that States are required not only to refrain from interfering with Convention rights, but also to regulate business actors in order to ensure their effective protection.
Samuel Vuelta Simon, Secretary of State for Justice of Monaco, and Gianluca Esposito, Director General of the Directorate General Human Rights and Rule of Law of the Council of Europe, also addressed the participants during the opening session.
International Congress on the Rule of Law and Judicial Ethics, National High Court of Brazil
On 1-2 June 2026 the International Congress on the Rule of Law and Judicial Ethics took place at the National High Court of Brazil in Brasilia, assembling Presidents and Chief Justices’ of courts and jurisdictions from across the world, as well as distinguished academics. Hosted by the National High Court of Brazil and its Chief Justice Antonio Herman Benjamin and advised by a committee including Professor Margaret Satterthwaite (United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers) the Congress fostered dialogue among judges on the importance and relevance of ethical frameworks, including the 2002 Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, as well as the necessity of adhering to the judiciaries’ essential values of independence, impartiality and equity. The eight roundtable events addressed different aspects of judicial ethics including on new challenges relating to social media and artificial intelligence. President Guyomar addressed the Congress on Judges and the Rule of Law, and Judicial Independence. The Congress also heard from Chief Justices from superior courts across Europe, South America and Africa, as well as Judicial representatives from other regional courts including the European Court of Justice and the Caribbean Court of Justice.
The Congress was an exceptional meeting at which the European Court participated fully in an international network expressing solidarity between judges. A report summarizing the key points and conclusions will be produced after the event.
Judicial activities
The ECHR has given notice to the Government of Italy of the applications Y v. Italy and Z v. Italy.
The applications have been brought by alleged victims of the former Libyan chief of police, Osama Elmasry Njeem. They concern the Italian authorities’ alleged failure to enforce an International Criminal Court arrest warrant against Mr Njeem, who is accused of crimes against humanity. Mr Njeem was arrested in Italy in January 2025, but was repatriated to Libya shortly afterwards.
Notification of a case is a stage in the Court’s proceedings when a Government is informed that an application against it is pending and that the Court is requesting more information. Notification does not mean that a case is admissible or that there has been a violation of the European Convention. The Court will rule on the cases at a later stage.
In the case of Tožičková v. the Czech Republic the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to freedom of expression.
The case concerned the arrest of a journalist during an environmental protest at a coal mine, more specifically, while she was in an area designated as out of bounds.
The Court found that the domestic courts had not provided adequate reasoning to justify the applicant’s arrest, the main effect of which had been to prevent the applicant, first, from performing her journalistic duties and communicating to the public information on a matter of general interest, and, secondly, from fulfilling her role as a “public watchdog” reporting on the police’s conduct towards the demonstrators. The applicant’s arrest had not met a pressing social need and could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society, taking into account also the narrow discretion enjoyed by the State in the present case.
In the case of J.B. v. Greece the Court held that there had been no violation of the right to an effective remedy in conjunction with the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment.
The case concerned the potential return of a Syrian national from Greece to Türkiye under the EU-Türkiye Statement, which aimed at stopping the flow of irregular migration via Türkiye to Europe.
The Court found that the authorities had conducted a thorough examination of the applicant’s asylum claim. They had considered the conditions he would face in Türkiye and the specific risks he had alleged, had consulted a wide range of reports and statistics and had examined the coherent set of assurances and monitoring mechanisms forming part of the EU-Türkiye Statement. At the judicial stage, the applicant had benefited from legal assistance and had been able to challenge the finding that Türkiye was a safe third country for him. He had received a detailed reply to his arguments, including to the reports that he had produced before the national courts.
The Court also held that there had been a violation concerning the conditions of detention as concerned his detention in the police station.
- Press release
- Press release (in Greek)
The ECHR has declared the application in the case of Mouelhi v. Belgium inadmissible.
The case concerned an applicant for international protection who complained that he had not been provided with accommodation or material assistance in Belgium, as required by law, despite the final judgment of the Brussels French-Language Employment Tribunal.
The Court found that the applicant’s conduct amounted to abuse of the right of individual application. It noted that the applicant had deliberately attempted to mislead it by submitting false information in support of his request for an interim measure, in which he had stated that he was reduced to living on the streets in Belgium, when it could be seen from the documents submitted later by the respondent Government that he had been accommodated as an applicant for international protection in the Netherlands for nearly five months. Moreover, he had not corrected this information in the application form submitted after requesting the interim measure nor when he had updated his file at the Court’s request. On the contrary, he had expressly reiterated that he was still having to sleep on the streets.
Transparency and outreach
Students from the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, Ukraine, have been declared the winners of the 2026 Helga Pedersen Moot Court competition for law students after beating a rival team from Maastricht University Faculty of Law, Netherlands, in the final round.
This was the 14th edition of the Helga Pedersen Moot Court Competition, with the final round held in Strasbourg from 1-5 June 2026. The competition, consisting of mock legal proceedings conducted in English and based on a simulation of an individual application before the ECHR, was open to law students, and was organised jointly by the Council of Europe and the European Law Students’ Association (ELSA).
Eighteen university teams from 13 countries (Austria, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, the Slovak Republic, Switzerland, Ukraine and the United Kingdom), selected following a written stage and regional rounds, competed to win a fictitious case related to criminal behaviour in cyberspace, artificial intelligence tools in the administration of justice, and the right to a fair trial.
- Press release
- More info (web site ECHR)
- More info (web site ELSA)
On 4 June 2026, Luca Beccari, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Political Affairs, International Economic Cooperation and Digital Transition of San Marino, and Stefano Canti, Minister of Justice, Welfare and Family of San Marino, visited the Court, where they were received by the President of the Court, Mattias Guyomar, the judge elected in respect of San Marino, Gilberto Felici, and the Registrar of the Court, Marialena Tsirli. The President welcomed San Marino’s firm commitment to the execution of the Court’s judgments and emphasised the shared responsibility for applying the Convention and the importance of protecting judicial independence.
On the agenda
Videos
