22
Sep
2026
Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union on behalf of ten Ukrainian children v. Russia
Chamber hearing on Ukrainian children from Crimean childcare institutions officially unaccounted for since 2014
The Court held a Chamber hearing in the case of Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union on behalf of ten Ukrainian children v. Russia.
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.
Kuijt v. the Netherlands
Forthcoming ruling in Grand Chamber case concerning deliberation practice at Supreme Court of the Netherlands
The Court will be delivering a Grand Chamber ruling in the case of Kuijt v. the Netherlands on 23 September 2026.
The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the practice at the Supreme Court of the Netherlands by which judges of the Criminal Law Division who do not form part of the formation to which a case has been assigned may participate in the deliberations. This is allowed in the interest of ensuring the uniform interpretation and application of the law. Such Supreme Court judges are called “reservisten”.
A joint event with the European Committee of Social Rights
On 8 September 2026, the Court and the European Committee of Social Rights organised a joint event in Strasbourg dedicated to advancing protection of human rights and fostering dialogue between the two institutions.
Entitled A Conversation between the European Committee of Social Rights and the European Court of Human Rights, the first-ever joint event brought together the President of the Committee, Aoife Nolan, the President of the Court, Mattias Guyomar, along with many judges of the Court and members of the Committee. The discussion focused on the themes of protecting the rights of persons with disabilities and promoting gender equality.
In his opening remarks, the President of the Court emphasised how the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Social Charter are the two pillars of the Council of Europe human rights protection system.
“These two human rights instruments have a shared origin and a shared purpose. They both have their roots in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ‘common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations’. Both aim to transpose its aims and aspirations into binding international law,” he said. In his speech, he also referred to several cases decided by the Court on the two main topics of the event.
The President of the European Committee of Social Rights highlighted the complementary mandates of the Committee and the Court and explored the two systems’ intertwined legal approaches.
The first panel discussion, moderated by Ivana Jelić, Vice-President of the European Court and judge elected in respect of Montenegro, centred on the rights of persons with disabilities and saw the participation of Aoife Nolan, President of the European Committee of Social Rights, Ioannis Ktistakis, Section President and judge elected in respect of Greece, Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir, judge elected in respect of Iceland, and Kristina Koldinská, member of the European Committee of Social Rights.
The second panel discussion focused on gender equality. Moderated by George Theodosis, Vice-President of the European Committee of Social Rights, the panel featured Frédéric Krenc, judge elected in respect of Belgium, Diana Sârcu, judge elected in respect of the Republic of Moldova, Kristīne Dupate, General Rapporteur of the European Committee of Social Rights, and Mario Vinković, member of the European Committee of Social Rights.
The event concluded with closing remarks by Kateřina Šimáčková, Section President and judge elected in respect of the Czech Republic, and Tatiana Puiu, Vice-President of the European Committee of Social Rights.
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.
Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union on behalf of ten Ukrainian children v. Russia
Chamber hearing on Ukrainian children from Crimean childcare institutions officially unaccounted for since 2014
The Court held a Chamber hearing in the case of Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union on behalf of ten Ukrainian children v. Russia.
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.
Kuijt v. the Netherlands
Forthcoming ruling in Grand Chamber case concerning deliberation practice at Supreme Court of the Netherlands
The Court will be delivering a Grand Chamber ruling in the case of Kuijt v. the Netherlands on 23 September 2026.
The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the practice at the Supreme Court of the Netherlands by which judges of the Criminal Law Division who do not form part of the formation to which a case has been assigned may participate in the deliberations. This is allowed in the interest of ensuring the uniform interpretation and application of the law. Such Supreme Court judges are called “reservisten”.
Judicial activities
21/09/26
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.
21/09/26
The Court has accepted the referral to the Grand Chamber of the case Miladze v. Georgia.
The case concerns the applicant’s administrative conviction for a video he had posted on TikTok criticising the new transport policies in Tbilisi and alleging misconduct by public officials. The video had gone viral.
The Court has also decided to reject a request to refer eleven other cases.
17/09/26
Seriously deficient investigation into conscript’s death while on duty
In the case of Margaryan v. Armenia the Court held that there had been violations of the right to life/investigation and of the right to an effective remedy.
The case concerned the death of a conscript while on duty. He had been found in a trench near to his sentry post, with a gunshot injury to his chest.
The ECHR found that the investigation had not provided a plausible explanation for the conscript’s death. The authorities’ conclusion that he had taken his own life had mainly been based on a posthumous psychiatric report referring to witness statements about his “strange behaviour”, despite that being in contradiction with his military superiors’ assessments of him while he had been alive. The authorities had therefore closed the investigation on the basis of what could be described as hastily reached conclusions, without having seriously examined any other possible scenario.
The Court also found that the conscript’s father, the applicant in this case, had had no legal avenue in Armenia to establish State liability for the death of his son, nor claim compensation.
The Court held that Armenia was to pay the applicant 50,000 euros in respect of nonpecuniary damage.
17/09/26
Failure to protect vulnerable man with schizophrenia from unnecessary use of force or to effectively investigate his complaints
In the case of Strashunskyy v. Ukraine the ECHR held that there had been two violations of the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment/investigation.
The case concerned a complaint by the applicant, a vulnerable individual diagnosed with schizophrenia, about injuries he had sustained when being transferred from a Staterun boarding house to a psychiatric hospital.
The Court found that the investigation into the applicant’s complaint had not been effective. In particular, an expert medical assessment to determine how his injuries had been sustained had not been obtained. Nor had the authorities clarified whether the staff members responsible for his transfer had been trained to deal with vulnerable individuals.
The Court also found that the authorities had failed to demonstrate that the force used against the applicant had been strictly necessary or that he had been sufficiently protected by those responsible for looking after him. He had sustained multiple injuries in circumstances which had not been shown to have either been unavoidable or managed in a manner consistent with the State’s obligation to protect his physical integrity and dignity.
The Court held that Ukraine was to pay the applicant 7,000 euros in respect of nonpecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 in respect of costs and expenses.
- Press release
- Press release (in Ukrainian)
14/09/26
On 21 September 2026 a panel of five judges will examine twelve Grand Chamber referral requests.
08/09/26
No violation of the Convention in refusing residence permits for children born from polygamy
In the case of A.A. v. the Netherlands the Court held that there had been no violation of the right to respect for private and family life.
The case concerned the Dutch authorities’ refusal of the applicant’s request for residence permits for five of his minor children, born of his polygamous marriages in Yemen.
The Court found that the assessment of the Dutch authorities had struck a fair balance between the interests of the applicant and those of the State. It underlined the close connection between immigration policy and considerations of public order and reiterated that, in establishing an immigration policy taking into consideration family ties, a State cannot be required to give recognition to polygamous marriages which are in conflict with their own legal order.
Transparency and outreach
On the agenda
Videos
