Court President in Vatican City for summit on “Judges, climate litigation and human rights”
On 6 and 7 October 2026, the President of the Court, Mattias Guyomar, accompanied by the judge elected in respect of Portugal, Ana Maria Guerra Martins, participated in a summit on Judges, climate litigation and human rights in Vatican City, which brought together judges from national superior courts around the world, as well as from international courts.
In his intervention, President Guyomar provided a comparative analysis of the climate-related case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, the International Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. He noted that the Court had developed its case-law on climate change within a framework of shared responsibility, drawing on scientific, political and judicial consensus, and highlighted the convergence of judicial approaches that has emerged following the 2024 rulings, namely the cases of Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland, Duarte Agostinho and Others v. Portugal and 32 Others, and Carême v. France.
He further stressed that climate change and environmental degradation directly affect the enjoyment of human rights, including those of vulnerable groups, and noted that the convergence of judicial approaches around the world demonstrates that this global challenge knows no borders, affects everyone, and requires joint action for the protection of future generations.
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”.
Judicial activities

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.

Fair trial rights in proceedings concerning fines for fishing in Slovenian waters
In the case of Makovac and Latin v. Slovenia the Court held that there had been no violation of the right to a fair trial in respect of the first applicant and that there had been a violation in respect of the second applicant.
The case concerned Croatian commercial fishing workers’ complaints about the proceedings concerning fines against them for illegally entering and fishing in Slovenian waters. They argued that there had been a breach of their defence rights in the minor offence proceedings against them, in particular that there had been no hearings in their cases.
The ECHR found that it had been legitimate for the Slovenian courts to do without an oral hearing to convict first applicant. Her conviction had been based on, among other things, photographs with two recognisable individuals which she could have challenged. Second applicant’s conviction had, however, been based on his being identified by a fisheries inspector and unspecified social media posts. An oral hearing would have been essential to put that evidence to the test.
- Press release
- Press release (in Slovenian)

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.

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.

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.










