08
Sep
2026
Forthcoming hearing in September 2026
The Court will be holding a Chamber hearing in the case of Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union on behalf of ten Ukrainian children v. Russia on 22 September 2026.
The case concerns ten Ukrainian children who were living in childcare institutions in Crimea in 2014 when Russia asserted jurisdiction over the peninsula. According to the association (UHHRU) acting on their behalf, Russian nationality was imposed on the children and they were put up for adoption and may have been adopted. There has been no information on their whereabouts since 2014, despite the Ukrainian authorities’ repeated requests. UHHRU allege that this effectively amounts to the children’s enforced disappearance.
Kavala v. Türkiye (no. 2)
The Court holds that Türkiye must release Mr Kavala immediately and eliminate the consequences of his conviction.
In the case of Kavala v. Türkiye (no. 2) the Court held that there had been several violations of the Convention.
The Court held that the respondent State was required to secure the applicant’s release at the earliest possible date, and that it was incumbent on it to eliminate the consequences of the measures taken against him. His criminal conviction was to be regarded, under Convention law, as null and void.
The case concerns the applicant’s detention after the judgment delivered by the ECHR in 2019 and the ensuing criminal proceedings in which he was sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment.
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.
Forthcoming hearing in September 2026
The Court will be holding a Chamber hearing in the case of Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union on behalf of ten Ukrainian children v. Russia on 22 September 2026.
The case concerns ten Ukrainian children who were living in childcare institutions in Crimea in 2014 when Russia asserted jurisdiction over the peninsula. According to the association (UHHRU) acting on their behalf, Russian nationality was imposed on the children and they were put up for adoption and may have been adopted. There has been no information on their whereabouts since 2014, despite the Ukrainian authorities’ repeated requests. UHHRU allege that this effectively amounts to the children’s enforced disappearance.
Kavala v. Türkiye (no. 2)
The Court holds that Türkiye must release Mr Kavala immediately and eliminate the consequences of his conviction.
In the case of Kavala v. Türkiye (no. 2) the Court held that there had been several violations of the Convention.
The Court held that the respondent State was required to secure the applicant’s release at the earliest possible date, and that it was incumbent on it to eliminate the consequences of the measures taken against him. His criminal conviction was to be regarded, under Convention law, as null and void.
The case concerns the applicant’s detention after the judgment delivered by the ECHR in 2019 and the ensuing criminal proceedings in which he was sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment.
Judicial activities
03/09/26
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.
03/09/26
No shortcomings in Latvian authorities’ response to allegations of forced labour and servitude
In the case of A.S. v. Latvia the Court held that there had been no violation of the prohibition of slavery and forced labour.
The case concerned the applicant’s allegations that she had been subjected to servitude or, alternatively, to forced or compulsory labour while working on a dairy farm. The operator of the farm was acquitted of charges of human trafficking.
The Court found that the applicant’s complaint had been taken seriously by the national authorities. It had been thoroughly investigated and examined at three levels of jurisdiction. The authorities had taken a significant number of investigative steps to secure the relevant evidence, and they had not failed to pursue any obvious line of inquiry. The investigation had been prompt and thorough and the applicant had been legally represented throughout. The Court did not find any significant flaws capable of undermining the proceedings’ ability to establish the circumstances of the case or the identity of those responsible.
03/09/26
Since 16 September 2022, the ECHR has dealt with a substantial number of pending cases against the Russian Federation in an exceptional situation, namely that State having ceased to be a party to the Convention. Those cases fall into two main categories.
03/09/26
Confiscation of jointly owned property following conviction of applicant’s husband did not violate right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions
In the case of Sylvie Vallée v. France the Court held that there had been no violation of the protection of property. The case concerned the confiscation of two properties, owned jointly by the applicant and her husband, in criminal proceedings brought against her husband alone, which had resulted in his conviction for embezzlement.
01/09/26
Overturning an acquittal without hearing the decisive witness, despite doubts about his credibility, violated fair trial rights
In the case of Brunell and McArdle v. the Netherlands, the Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of the right to a fair trial.
The case concerned the criminal proceedings against Mr Brunell and Mr McArdle for charges of manslaughter and unlawfully disposing of a body. After first being acquitted of manslaughter, they were convicted on appeal without the Court of Appeal directly hearing the witness who had incriminated them.
31/08/26
The Court will be holding a Chamber hearing in the case of Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union on behalf of ten Ukrainian children v. Russia on 22 September 2026.
The case concerns ten Ukrainian children who were living in childcare institutions in Crimea in 2014 when Russia asserted jurisdiction over the peninsula. According to the association (UHHRU) acting on their behalf, Russian nationality was imposed on the children and they were put up for adoption and may have been adopted. There has been no information on their whereabouts since 2014, despite the Ukrainian authorities’ repeated requests. UHHRU allege that this effectively amounts to the children’s enforced disappearance.
Press releases on other judgments and decisions
03/09/26
On the agenda
Videos
