Grand Chamber hearing concerning Türkiye
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.
Chamber News
In the case of Russ v. Germany, the Court held that there had been a violation of freedom of assembly and association.
The case concerned the criminal conviction of the applicant for wearing a plastic visor at a demonstration, in breach of a general prohibition on carrying protective weapons (Schutzwaffen) at public outdoor assemblies in Germany.
The Court found that, while the national courts had taken into account the applicant’s freedom of expression, they had not weighed up his right to freedom of assembly against the intended aim of preventing disorder and violence. Moreover, they had not explained as to why wearing a makeshift visor had constituted a threat to public safety.
In the case of Versaci v. Italy, the Court held that there had been no violation of the right to respect for private and family life.
The case concerned the refusal by the head of the Reggio Calabria police authority to issue the applicant with a licence to carry out bookmaking activities on behalf of a foreign company because he did not fulfil the “good character” requirement set out in in Royal Decree no. 773 of 18 June 1931 on public order. Although the reasoning of the decision lacked some detail, the Court accepted that the refusal had been based on an adequate assessment of the facts, and the decision had been adequately reviewed by the Regional Administrative Court and the Council of State.
In the case of Jewish Community of Thessaloniki v. Greece the Court held that there had been a violation of the protection of property.
The case concerned the dismissal of the applicant community’s demand to be judicially recognised as the sole owner of a plot of land on the grounds that it had been categorised as “enemy property” after the end of the Second World War – although the ownership of the plot had been transferred to them in 1934.
The Court found that the Court of Cassation’s interpretation of the relevant domestic legislation and its application to this case had not been foreseeable. It was not reasonable to expect the applicant community to have known that the property which had already come under its ownership in 1934 would be affected in 1950 and 1955 by the legislation concerning enemy property.
In the case of L. and Others v. France the Court held that there had been several violations of the Convention.
In each of the three applications, the applicants complained that French law and practice did not provide effective protection against rape and that their status as minors and the vulnerable situations in which they had been at the time of the events complained of had not adequately been taken into account. The applications mainly concerned the respondent State’s compliance with its duty (“positive obligations”) under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, in their substantive and procedural aspects.
The Court considered that the investigating authorities and the domestic courts had failed to protect the applicants, who had complained of acts of rape and had been aged only 13, 14 and 16 at the relevant dates, in an adequate manner. It also considered that the domestic courts had not properly assessed the impact of all the circumstances surrounding the events; nor had they taken sufficient account, in evaluating whether the applicants had been capable of understanding and of giving consent, of the particularly vulnerable situations in which they had found themselves, particularly in view of their ages.
In the case of Sytnyk v. Ukraine the Court held in particular that there had been violations of the right to a fair trial and of the right to respect for private life.
The case concerned proceedings brought against the applicant, a high-level public official in the field of anti-corruption, for accepting gifts – specifically holidays – in breach of the Code of Administrative Offences. He was found guilty in 2019 and his name was included, indefinitely, in a public register of corrupt officials.
The Court found that there had been serious shortcomings in the judicial proceedings and that the applicant’s inclusion in the register of corrupt officials had had a disproportionate impact on his private life as it continued and would continue to cast a shadow over his reputation and undermine his professional credibility. Moreover, it found that the focus in the case had not been to prevent corruption in the public service, but had been more of a personal attack on his integrity.
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.
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).
Decisions
The Court has declared inadmissible the application in the case of Călin Georgescu v. Romania.
The case concerned the annulment by the Constitutional Court of Romania of the presidential elections of 2024, for which the applicant was a candidate.
The Court held that in the light of the constitutional structure of Romania, there was no indication that the powers of the President of Romania are such as to make that office part of the “legislature” of the respondent State, within the meaning of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, guaranteeing the right to free elections. Therefore, it rejected the complaint raised in that respect.
- Press release
- Press release (in Romanian)
The Court has declared inadmissible the application in the case of Kotnik and Jukič v. Slovenia.
The case concerned the emergency measures taken by the Bank of Slovenia in 2013 and 2014 to protect the financial system. As a result of the measures, subordinated bonds and shares belonging to the applicants had been voided without compensation.
The applicants complained that the Slovenian authorities had failed to implement a European Court judgment of 2021 in their favour. That judgment had ruled that it was essential that former holders of cancelled shares or bonds had a legal avenue to effectively challenge the interference with their property rights.
The Court noted that in 2024 a new law had come into force allowing former holders of cancelled bonds or shares to bring legal actions against the Bank of Slovenia, with the possibility of damages being awarded. It therefore rejected the applicants’ complaints because they had not yet used all the legal avenues available at national level.
Other News
Students from Charles University, Czech Republic have been declared the winners of the 2025 Helga Pedersen Moot Court competition for law students after beating a rival team from IE University, Spain, in the final round.
This was the 13th edition of the Helga Pedersen Moot Court Competition, which was held in Strasbourg from 19-23 May 2025. The competition, consisting of mock legal proceedings conducted in English and based on the European Convention on Human Rights, was open to law students and was organised jointly by the Council of Europe and the European Law Students’ Association (ELSA).
Eighteen university teams from 14 countries (Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Ukraine and the United Kingdom), selected following a written stage and regional rounds, competed to win a fictitious case related to the use of medical cannabis and the right to respect for private life, personal autonomy, and property rights.
- Press release
- More info (web site CoE)
- More info (web site ECHR)
- More info (web site ELSA)
On Sunday, 18 May 2025, the President of the Court, Marko Bošnjak, attended the Inauguration Mass of Pope Leo XIV at the Vatican. The ceremony brought together numerous world leaders, religious representatives, and over 200,000 persons, gathered in St. Peter’s Square to witness this historic moment. After the Mass, President Bošnjak was personally introduced to Pope Leo XIV.
On 15 and 16 May 2025, a High-Level roundtable titled Judicial Dialogue through the Case-Law of the CJEU, the ECHR, and National Courts in the Field of International Protection was held at the premises of the Court.
This event, a tradition since 2012, brought together around 150 judges and legal experts to discuss recent legal developments and case-law, including issues related to the concept of safe countries and return procedures.
The roundtable was co-organised by the Court, the European Union Agency for Asylum, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the International Association of Refugee and Migration Judges, and the Association of European Administrative Judges.
The 13th edition of the Helga Pedersen Moot Court Competition will be held in Strasbourg from 19 to 23 May 2025.
The competition, consisting of mock legal proceedings conducted in English and based on the European Convention on Human Rights, is open to law students. It is organised jointly by the Council of Europe and the European Law Students’ Association (ELSA).