Forthcoming delivery in an inter-State case
The Court will be delivering a Grand Chamber ruling in the inter-State case of Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia on 9 July 2025.
This inter-State case covers complaints concerning the Russian military operations in Ukraine since 24 February 2022 and the conflict in eastern Ukraine involving pro-Russian separatists which began in 2014, including the downing of Flight MH17.
Chamber News
In the case of K.V. Mediterranean Tours Limited v. Türkiye, the Court held that there had been a violation of protection of property.
The case concerned the effectiveness of the Immovable Property Commission (IPC) as a legal avenue for compensation claims brought by Greek Cypriots in the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”.
The Court found that the IPC had not acted coherently, diligently and quickly enough in examining the claim. In general, the Court acknowledged the progress made by the IPC in processing property claims. However, under Article 46 (binding force and enforcement of judgments), it found that consistent and long term efforts had to be continued, in particular as far as expediting IPC proceedings was concerned and creating a remedy which secured genuinely effective redress in respect of delays.
In the case of Spivak v. Ukraine the Court held that there had been several violations of the Convention.
The case concerned the applicant’s compulsory psychiatric treatment at the National High Security Psychiatric Hospital as ordered by a criminal court. It had found that he had committed attempted murder, but was exempt from criminal responsibility on the basis of his mental state at the time of the offence. He had been unable to initiate court proceedings to review the lawfulness of his continued confinement or to challenge the medical treatment administered against his will.
The Court found that the applicant’s continued psychiatric detention in the hospital after the termination of coercive medical measures by a court had been unlawful and that the hearings on the continuation of his compulsory in-patient medical treatment had not met the basic requirements of justice.
In the case of Cioffi v. Italy the Court held that there had been a violation of the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment.
The case concerned the taking of the applicant, then a trainee lawyer to a Naples police station, where he had suffered alleged ill-treatment at the hands of police officers, including being punched while on his knees, and verbal and physical abuse when he had attempted to request information. This took place against the background of the Global Forum on Reinventing Government in Naples.
The Court found that the facts of his ill-treatment by the police had been clearly established by the Italian courts, which had described it, among other terms, as “particularly odious”. It also held the subsequent investigation – in which 31 officials had been charged with multiple offences in connection with these events but most of the prosecutions had been discontinued owing to the expiry of the limitation period – to have been inadequate.
In the case of Manolache v. Romania the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to a fair trial.
The case concerned the fairness of criminal proceedings against the applicant, a police officer. On trial for influence peddling, he was initially acquitted but was then convicted in a final judgment by the Piteşti Court of Appeal. One of the two judges on the bench at last instance had not, however, taken evidence directly from all the witnesses.
The Court found that the Court of Appeal had indeed made a fresh interpretation of witness statements that were decisive in the case, but that both of the judges on the bench had not heard the evidence from the witnesses directly. The requirements of a fair trial had thus been breached.
- Press release
- Press release (in Romanian)
In the case of Pedev v. Bulgaria the Court held that there had been two violations concerning the prohibition of degrading treatment/obligation to conduct an investigation in respect of the applicant’s immobilisation while in hospital.
The case concerned an applicant who took part in a demonstration in 2020 and complained that he had been subjected to ill-treatment during his arrest by the police, while detained in a police station and while in hospital, where he was attached to the bed with leg restraints and handcuffs.
The Court found that the use of restraints to attach the applicant to his hospital bed, even for the relatively short period of one day, had not been strictly necessary. The measure had been capable of humiliating and debasing him in his own eyes. Furthermore, he had been kept attached to his bed during a visit by his mother, thus intensifying the psychological impact of this measure. He had therefore been subjected to degrading treatment. The authorities had also failed to comply with their obligation to carry out an effective investigation into applicant’s allegation that he had been subjected to degrading treatment while in hospital.
Grand Chamber News
The Court has accepted the referral to the Grand Chamber of the case Grande Oriente d’Italia v. Italy.
The case concerned a search of a Masonic association’s premises ordered in the context of a parliamentary inquiry into the Mafia. Paper and digital documents, in particular a list of names and personal data of more than 6,000 members of the association, were seized during the search.
The Court has also decided to reject a request to refer ten other cases.
The Court has declared inadmissible the applicant’s complaints in the case of Mansouri v. Italy.
The case concerned the lawfulness of the conditions in which a Tunisian national had been confined on board a ship responsible for returning him to his country of origin on the ground that he did not have a visa for entry to Italy.
The applicant, who had been issued with a refusal-of-entry order by the border police, relied on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.
Regarding the complaints under Article 5 of the Convention, the Court found that the applicant had not exhausted available and effective remedies under domestic law. It also found that the applicant’s general accommodation conditions on board the ship had not attained the minimum level of severity required for his confinement to engage Article 3 of the Convention.
Hearings
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
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
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.
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
On 16 June 2025, Michael McGrath, the European Commissioner for Democracy, Justice and the Rule of Law, visited the ECHR and was received by President Mattias Guyomar. Marialena Tsirli, Registrar of the Court, also attended the meeting.
On 11 June 2025 President Mattias Guyomar, accompanied by Marialena Tsirli, Registrar of the Court, paid a visit to the French Court of Cassation, where he met with First President Christophe Soulard and Prosecutor General Rémy Heitz. He continued his visit in the Conseil d’État, where he met with Didier-Roland Tabuteau, the Vice-President, Christophe Chantepy, the President of the Judicial Division, and Thierry-Xavier Girardot, the Secretary General. Finally, he visited the Constitutional Council and met with President Richard Ferrand.
On 11 June 2025, Nathalie M. Tackling, the Minister of Justice of Sint Maarten, visited the Court and was received by Ivana Jelić, Vice-President of the Court and Judge elected in respect of Montenegro. Jolien Schukking, Judge elected in respect of the Netherlands, and Abel Campos, Deputy Registrar of the Court, also attended the meeting.