Chamber News


Human Rights building in sunset
10/07/25

In the case of Rodina and Borisova v. Latvia the Court held that there had been no violation of the freedom of assembly and association read in the light of freedom of expression.

The case concerned the authorities’ refusal to allow the applicants to organise public assemblies in Riga. The Rodina association wanted to organise a gathering (on the former Victory Day in the USSR) near the Soviet Victory Monument, and the applicant intended to organise one in front of the Ukrainian embassy.

The Court found that the protests had had the real aim of either denigrating the Latvian nation and language, or supporting illegal separatist groups in Ukraine, set against a background of tension in Latvia and threat from Russia. Overall, the bans had “met a pressing social need” and been proportionate.

Main hearing room of the Human Rights building (detail)
10/07/25

In the case of Tomenko v. Ukraine the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to free elections.

The case concerned the early ending of the applicant’s term as a member of parliament (MP) for having left the political faction in which he had been elected.

The Court considered that the applicant could hardly have foreseen that his withdrawal from the parliamentary faction would lead to early termination of his term of office as an MP. The constitutional provisions providing for early termination of an MP’s mandate for that reason had never before been applied in practice. Moreover, only two out of the ten MPs who had been elected from the party’s list and who had since withdrawn from its parliamentary faction had their terms of office truncated.

Rear side of the Human Rights building
10/07/25

In the case of Korniyets and Others v. Ukraine the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to respect for private and family in respect of all the applicants, and a violation of the right to an effective remedy and violations of the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment in respect of one of the applicants.

The case concerned police searches of the applicants’ homes without a prior court order.

The Court found that the safeguards available in Ukraine for review of after-the-fact search warrants were inadequate, and therefore not “in accordance with the law”. It also noted the impossibility of appealing against a search warrant in Ukraine, which had meant there had been no remedy available to the applicants. Furthermore, no explanation had been provided for one of the applicant’s injuries while under effective police control during the police search of her home, leading the Court to conclude she had suffered ill-treatment. That allegation had not been investigated properly.

Rear side of the Human Rights building
10/07/25

In the case of Gullotti v. Italy the Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of the right to respect for correspondence.

The case concerned a prisoner serving a sentence for mafia-type offences and his complaint about the renewal of restrictions on the people with whom he had been allowed to correspond. He is imprisoned under a special regime introduced to sever contact between detainees and their criminal networks.

The relevant law provided that limitations on prisoners’ correspondence had to be reasoned and time-limited. However, there had been no explicit and autonomous assessment of the need to limit the applicant’s correspondence to only relatives admitted for family visits and there had therefore been insufficient evidence for the renewal of the restriction on his rights.

Responsive Image
08/07/25

In the case of Google LLC and Others v. Russia the Court held that there had been a violation of the freedom of expression concerning the administrative proceedings concerning content removal requests.

The case concerned court proceedings in Russia on the refusal to remove certain content from the YouTube platform, including political videos, which the Russian authorities had deemed unlawful; and the failure to restore monetisation features to the YouTube channel of Tsargrad TV, a Russian television outlet owned by a Russian oligarch who had been sanctioned by the United States and the European Union for his support for Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. Google had incurred very heavy fines as a result of these proceedings.

Responsive Image
08/07/25

In the case of Selahattin Demirtaş v. Türkiye (No. 4), the Court held that there had been several violations of the Convention.

The case concerned the pre-trial detention, from 20 September 2019 onwards, of Selahattin Demirtaş, one of the co-chairs of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), a pro-Kurdish political party.

Responsive Image

Forthcoming Judgments & Decisions


Grand Chamber News


Judges' hammer
01/07/25

On 30 June 2025, the Grand Chamber panel of five judges decided to reject all 12 requests for referral to the Grand Chamber.

Delivery of the ruling in the Grand Chamber case of Kovačević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
25/06/25

The Court delivered the operative provisions (conclusions) of its judgment in the case of Kovačević v. Bosnia and Herzegovina

The case concerned the applicant's allegation that the requirements applicable to elections for the House of Peoples of the Parliamentary Assembly and for the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina are discriminatory against him and prevented him from voting for candidates of his choice in those elections in 2022.

The complete text of the Grand Chamber’s judgment will be published at a later stage.

Hearings


Grand Chamber hearing in the case of Yasak v. Türkiye
07/05/25

The Court held a Grand Chamber hearing in the case of Yasak v. Türkiye.

The case concerns the applicant’s conviction for membership of an armed terrorist organisation described by the Turkish authorities as the Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure.

Decisions


Carpet of the Main hearing room of the Human Rights building (detail)
12/06/25

The Court has declared inadmissible the application in the case of S.S. and Others v. Italy.

The case concerned a maritime operation to rescue a rubber dinghy transporting some 150 people which had left Libya with a view to reaching European shores. The applicants complained that the Rome Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre (MRCC) had placed them at risk of ill-treatment and death by allowing a Libyan ship to take control of the rescue operations.

The Court found that the criteria for concluding that a State Party had exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention had not been met in the circumstances of the case.

The Court emphasised that, although the conditions for concluding that a State party had exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction under Article 1 of the Convention were not met, the situation here was nonetheless governed by other rules of international law, in particular those regarding the rescue of persons at sea, the protection of refugees and State responsibility. The Court reiterated, however, that the scope of its authority was limited to ensuring compliance with the Convention alone. It therefore did not have the authority to ensure compliance with other international treaties or with obligations deriving from sources other than the Convention.

Communication of cases


Responsive Image
14/04/25

The Court has communicated to the Government of the Russian Federation the application Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union on behalf of ten Ukrainian children v. Russia and requested that they submit their observations.

The case concerns ten Ukrainian children who were in childcare in Crimea in 2014 when Russia asserted jurisdiction over the peninsula. According to the association (UHHRU) acting on their behalf, Russian nationality was forced 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.

Responsive Image
14/04/25

The Court has communicated to the Government of the Russian Federation the application Ukraine v. Russia (IX) and requested that they submit their observations.

The case concerns the Ukrainian Government’s allegations of political-assassination operations ordered by the Russian Federation and attempts to cover them up. Among the assassinations or attempted assassinations cited by the Ukrainian authorities: Umar Israilov (in Austria); Vladimir Kara-Murza, Alexei Navalny and Anna Politkovskaya (in Russia); and, Alexander Litvinenko and Sergei Skripal (in the United Kingdom).

Other News


Human Rights building
11/07/25

On 11 July, the Court published three factsheets on its Knowledge Sharing platform, offering insight into the topics of immigration, climate change, and the rule of law. These factsheets provide a focused overview of each thematic topic.

Opening of the exhibition "30 years of the Human Rights building" - 1 July 2025
11/07/25

On 1 July 2025, to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Human Rights Building, the ECHR hosted an exhibition opening, which was attended by many important figures, including Ivan Harbour, Senior Design Director at RSHP and member of the building’s original team of architects. He noted that “thirty years on, the European Court of Human Rights remains not only an architectural masterpiece, but also a powerful symbol of justice, transparency and unity. Designing this building was a privilege, an opportunity to give a material form to democratic values and to create a space that enhances the dignity of those it serves. Its sustainability is a testament to the resilience of the ideals it embodies”.

Main hearing room of the Human Rights building
09/07/25

The Court has refused to grant interim measures in the case of Marine Le Pen c. France.

The application concerned the suspension of the provisional enforcement of the sentence of ineligibility handed down against the applicant by the Paris Criminal Court on 31 March 2025.

The Court rejected the request on the grounds that, in any event, the existence of an imminent risk of irreparable harm to a right protected by the Convention or its protocols had not been established.

Swearing-in of Sébastien Biancheri, Judge elected in respect of Monaco
07/07/25

The Judge elected in respect of Monaco, Sébastien Biancheri, was formally sworn in in the Court's Main Hearing Room.