06
Oct
2026
President and Vice-President participate in international conference in Montenegro
On 2 October 2026, the President of the Court, Mattias Guyomar, and the Vice-President of the Court and judge elected in respect of Montenegro, Ivana Jelić, participated in the international conference On the Constitution, State, and Democracy, held in Tivat, Montenegro.
In his keynote address to participants, including presidents and judges from constitutional courts across Europe and representatives of the two European courts, President Guyomar focused on the common, universal values at the heart of the two European projects: the Council of Europe and the European Union.
“Both put the human being at the heart of the system of protection – by enshrining individual rights, by obliging States to uphold them, and by subjecting them to collective enforcement. And both look towards a shared and ‘peaceful future’ based on fundamental rights and freedoms which are ‘the foundation of justice and peace in the world’. This is more important than ever with an active war within Europe’s borders. A war that is getting ever closer,” said the Court President.
President Guyomar also highlighted that these two European projects are developed hand in hand with national apex courts.
“Together with domestic judiciaries and in full respect of the principles of subsidiarity and shared responsibility, the Strasbourg Court continues to ensure, as ‘a Court for all’, the effective protection of the human rights of hundreds of millions of individuals across Europe.”
Following the opening remarks, three panel discussions took place. Vice-President Jelić moderated a panel on “Amendments to the Constitution in the Function of European Integration: Legal Implications and Challenges of the Transfer of Sovereignty to the European Union”, while President Guyomar moderated a panel on “The Use of AI Tools in Constitutional Adjudication: Support or Threat to Constitutional Court Independence – Perspectives, Risks, and Ethical Dilemmas”.
Official visit by H.S.H. Prince Albert II of Monaco
On 1 October 2026, H.S.H. Prince Albert II of Monaco, whose country holds the rotating presidency of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, visited the Court. He was accompanied by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of Monaco and President of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, Isabelle Berro Amadeï, and the Secretary of State for Justice, Samuel Vuelta Simon. President Mattias Guyomar, Sébastien Biancheri, judge elected in respect of Monaco, and the Registrar of the Court, Marialena Tsirli, received the H.S.H. Prince Albert II for a walking tour of the Court.
During the visit, H.S.H. Prince Albert II visited the Court’s hearing rooms, the mail office, and the library, as well as the René Cassin Room and the Helga Pedersen Room, which host permanent exhibitions dedicated to these two important figures.
He concluded his visit with an exchange with the Court’s Bureau in the Luzius Wildhaber Room.
Official visit by the President of the Portuguese Republic
On 30 September 2026, the President of the Portuguese Republic, António José Martins Seguro, accompanied by the Minister of Justice, Rita Alarcão Júdice, paid an official visit to the Court and met with its President, Mattias Guyomar. The judge elected in respect of Portugal, Ana Maria Guerra Martins, and the Registrar, Marialena Tsirli, also participated in the meeting. President Martins Seguro underlined the Court’s key role in the European architecture. Minister Alarcão Júdice expressed Portugal’s firm commitment to the execution of the Court’s judgments and Judge Guerra Martins set out the type of cases brought against Portugal at the Court. During the visit, President Martins Seguro also had the opportunity to meet with the Court’s Portuguese staff members.
Advisory opinion on the proportionality of a fixed-rate tax penalty and whether a national court is empowered to apply a lower penalty
On 29 September 2026 the ECHR delivered its advisory opinion in reply to a request submitted by Ukraine’s Supreme Court concerning a dispute between a private company and the tax authorities about the proportionality of a penalty calculated at a flat rate set by law.
The request raised issues regarding, first, whether the domestic courts may impose on taxpayers more lenient sanctions even if they are not provided for by law and, second, what criteria should be taken into account in examining the proportionality of a penalty.
President and Vice-President participate in international conference in Montenegro
On 2 October 2026, the President of the Court, Mattias Guyomar, and the Vice-President of the Court and judge elected in respect of Montenegro, Ivana Jelić, participated in the international conference On the Constitution, State, and Democracy, held in Tivat, Montenegro.
In his keynote address to participants, including presidents and judges from constitutional courts across Europe and representatives of the two European courts, President Guyomar focused on the common, universal values at the heart of the two European projects: the Council of Europe and the European Union.
“Both put the human being at the heart of the system of protection – by enshrining individual rights, by obliging States to uphold them, and by subjecting them to collective enforcement. And both look towards a shared and ‘peaceful future’ based on fundamental rights and freedoms which are ‘the foundation of justice and peace in the world’. This is more important than ever with an active war within Europe’s borders. A war that is getting ever closer,” said the Court President.
President Guyomar also highlighted that these two European projects are developed hand in hand with national apex courts.
“Together with domestic judiciaries and in full respect of the principles of subsidiarity and shared responsibility, the Strasbourg Court continues to ensure, as ‘a Court for all’, the effective protection of the human rights of hundreds of millions of individuals across Europe.”
Following the opening remarks, three panel discussions took place. Vice-President Jelić moderated a panel on “Amendments to the Constitution in the Function of European Integration: Legal Implications and Challenges of the Transfer of Sovereignty to the European Union”, while President Guyomar moderated a panel on “The Use of AI Tools in Constitutional Adjudication: Support or Threat to Constitutional Court Independence – Perspectives, Risks, and Ethical Dilemmas”.
Official visit by H.S.H. Prince Albert II of Monaco
On 1 October 2026, H.S.H. Prince Albert II of Monaco, whose country holds the rotating presidency of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, visited the Court. He was accompanied by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of Monaco and President of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, Isabelle Berro Amadeï, and the Secretary of State for Justice, Samuel Vuelta Simon. President Mattias Guyomar, Sébastien Biancheri, judge elected in respect of Monaco, and the Registrar of the Court, Marialena Tsirli, received the H.S.H. Prince Albert II for a walking tour of the Court.
During the visit, H.S.H. Prince Albert II visited the Court’s hearing rooms, the mail office, and the library, as well as the René Cassin Room and the Helga Pedersen Room, which host permanent exhibitions dedicated to these two important figures.
He concluded his visit with an exchange with the Court’s Bureau in the Luzius Wildhaber Room.
Judicial activities
30/09/26
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.
30/09/26
From 1 October 2026, the use of the Court’s Electronic Communications Service (eComms) will be extended to third-party interveners following the notification of an application to the respondent Government. This decision aims to enhance the efficiency, sustainability, and security of the Court’s communication practices. It should be noted that the initial request to intervene in the proceedings following the notification of the application must still be submitted in paper form.
30/09/26
Deadline of 1 December 2026 for requests to intervene as a third party
The President of the Court fixed 1 December 2026 as the deadline for requests to intervene as third parties in the case of Miladze v. Georgia.
The case concerns the applicant’s administrative conviction for a video he had posted on TikTok in 2022, criticising the new transport policies in Tbilisi and alleging misconduct by public officials. The video went viral.
25/09/26
On 7 September 2026 the ECHR adopted amendments to the Rules of Court in respect of Rules 36 and 44. These amendments will come into force on 25 March 2027.
The amendments concern the possibility to appoint, in certain special circumstances, an independent representative for a child applicant and, exceptionally, for a third party who is a child. The amendments do not affect the case-law on the representation of children, but make it possible to request the appointment of an independent representative.
24/09/26
Complaints about fairness of criminal trial brought by brothers charged with murder of Maltese journalist inadmissible
The Court has declared inadmissible the application in the case of Degiorgio v. Malta.
The case concerned the applicants’ complaints about the fairness of the criminal proceedings against them. The applicant brothers had been charged with, among other things, the wilful homicide of the journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia. After committal proceedings, but before the trial by jury took place, their lawyer renounced his mandate. As the brothers were unable to find another lawyer to represent them, the Criminal Court appointed legal aid lawyers for that purpose. The brothers agreed to a plea bargain and pleaded guilty to the charges against them. They complained before the ECHR that their trial had been unfair because they did not have legal assistance of their choosing, nor adequate time to prepare their defence.
The Court found that the appointment of legal aid lawyers had been reasonable in the circumstances. The interests of the expediency of the case and that of third parties, constituted relevant and sufficient grounds in the interests of justice for overriding the brothers’ wishes to continue looking for a lawyer of choice. The Court also found that the brothers’ guilty pleas had been entered into voluntarily and could not be said to have resulted from any duress.
On the agenda
Videos
