06
Nov
2026
The President and the Registrar of the Court address the 2026 World Forum for Democracy
On 3 November 2026, the President of the Court, Mattias Guyomar, delivered opening remarks at the World Forum for Democracy 2026, held at the headquarters of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg.
He noted that in the face of threats to democracy and the rule of law, the Court has shown that it is able to do its part.
“Our judgments are not simply words on paper. They are tools against lawlessness, arbitrariness, chaos, and war. Tools for defending truly resilient democracies through resilient justice,” President Guyomar highlighted, adding: “We fully count on you, young generations, to turn the dream of our predecessors into the reality of the future.”
The Registrar of the Court, Marialena Tsirli, participated in a debate entitled Putting Council of Europe Insights to the Test. She spoke about how the Court, through its case-law and alongside other Council of Europe bodies and mechanisms, works to guarantee the common European legal order and helps to strengthen democratic resilience.
A.R. and Others v. Poland, H.M.M. and Others v. Latvia and C.O.C.G. and Others v. Lithuania
Forthcoming rulings in three Grand Chamber cases concerning the summary return of migrants at the Belarusian border in 2021-2022
The Court will be delivering a Grand Chamber ruling in the cases of A.R. and Others v. Poland, H.M.M. and Others v. Latvia and C.O.C.G. and Others v. Lithuania on 24 November 2026.
The cases all concern summary returns at the Belarusian borders from summer 2021 to summer 2022.
A.R. and Others v. Poland concerns a group of Afghan nationals who allege that they were left stranded in a makeshift camp on the border between Belarus and Poland from 8 August until 23 October 2021. They eventually returned to Afghanistan, where they currently reside.
H.M.M. and Others v. Latvia concerns a group of Iraqi nationals of Kurdish origin, who allege, among other things, that they were “pushed back” in the vicinity of the Latvian-Belarusian border starting from 11 August 2021. They have since returned to Iraq.
C.O.C.G. and Others v. Lithuania concerns four Cuban nationals and their repeated crossing of the Lithuanian-Belarusian border in March and April 2022. When they entered Lithuania on 13 April 2022, they were apprehended. They have since been issued with permanent residence permits.
Court President meets with Greece’s Prime Minister
On 23 October 2026, the President of the Court, Mattias Guyomar, met with the Prime Minister of the Hellenic Republic, Kyriakos Mitsotakis. On behalf of the Court, the meeting was also attended by Ioannis Ktistakis, Section President and the judge elected in respect of Greece, and Marialena Tsirli, Registrar of the Court. On behalf of the Greek Government, the participants included the Minister of Foreign Affairs, George Gerapetritis, and the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Tasos Chatzivasileiou. The interlocutors exchanged views on the Court’s role in safeguarding human rights across Europe, the importance of the implementation of its judgments, and Greece’s support for the Convention system.
Court delegation visits Athens
On 22 and 23 October 2026, a delegation of judges of the Court and its Registrar, led by President Mattias Guyomar, visited Athens for meetings with Greece's superior courts and participation in two events.
On 22 October, the delegation held a bilateral meeting with a delegation of Greece’s Council of State, led by its President Michalis Pikramenos, while on 23 October they met with the President Panagiotis Lymperopoulos and judges of Greece’s Court of Cassation. The discussions, which formed part of the Court’s continuing judicial dialogue with national superior courts, focused on the principle of shared responsibility in implementing the European Convention on Human Rights.
On 23 October, the Court delegation also attended the presentation of the proceedings of the commemorative event Strengthening Democracy: 50 Years since the Re-ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights and 75 Years since the Founding of the Council of Europe, organised by the Council of State and attended by H.E. the President of the Hellenic Republic, Constantine An. Tassoulas, and other senior State officials. Addressing the participants, the President of the Court highlighted that the democratic ideal lies at the heart of both the Convention and the Court’s case-law, adding that democracy and the protection of fundamental rights are mutually reinforcing. The publication was presented by Ioannis Ktistakis, Section President and judge elected in respect of Greece, who served as scientific editor of the volume. On the sidelines of the presentation, President Guyomar, Judge Ktistakis and Registrar Tsirli had the opportunity to meet with the President of the Hellenic Republic.
On 22 October, the delegation also participated in the Christos Rozakis Workshop entitled Greece and the Strasbourg Court. Ioannis Ktistakis, Section President and judge elected in respect of Greece, delivered the introductory remarks, while President Mattias Guyomar and the Registrar of the Court, Marialena Tsirli, took part in a discussion on the contemporary challenges facing the European Court of Human Rights, chaired by former Court President Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos. In his speech, the President of the Court elaborated on three challenges: armed conflicts, threats to democracy and the rule of law, and the application of the living instrument doctrine in a context of political pressure. The Registrar of the Court, focused on the operational challenges faced by the Court, including the massive influx of applications, insufficient financial resources; and the impact of new technologies, such as artificial intelligence, on the work of the Court.
The President and the Registrar of the Court address the 2026 World Forum for Democracy
On 3 November 2026, the President of the Court, Mattias Guyomar, delivered opening remarks at the World Forum for Democracy 2026, held at the headquarters of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg.
He noted that in the face of threats to democracy and the rule of law, the Court has shown that it is able to do its part.
“Our judgments are not simply words on paper. They are tools against lawlessness, arbitrariness, chaos, and war. Tools for defending truly resilient democracies through resilient justice,” President Guyomar highlighted, adding: “We fully count on you, young generations, to turn the dream of our predecessors into the reality of the future.”
The Registrar of the Court, Marialena Tsirli, participated in a debate entitled Putting Council of Europe Insights to the Test. She spoke about how the Court, through its case-law and alongside other Council of Europe bodies and mechanisms, works to guarantee the common European legal order and helps to strengthen democratic resilience.
A.R. and Others v. Poland, H.M.M. and Others v. Latvia and C.O.C.G. and Others v. Lithuania
Forthcoming rulings in three Grand Chamber cases concerning the summary return of migrants at the Belarusian border in 2021-2022
The Court will be delivering a Grand Chamber ruling in the cases of A.R. and Others v. Poland, H.M.M. and Others v. Latvia and C.O.C.G. and Others v. Lithuania on 24 November 2026.
The cases all concern summary returns at the Belarusian borders from summer 2021 to summer 2022.
A.R. and Others v. Poland concerns a group of Afghan nationals who allege that they were left stranded in a makeshift camp on the border between Belarus and Poland from 8 August until 23 October 2021. They eventually returned to Afghanistan, where they currently reside.
H.M.M. and Others v. Latvia concerns a group of Iraqi nationals of Kurdish origin, who allege, among other things, that they were “pushed back” in the vicinity of the Latvian-Belarusian border starting from 11 August 2021. They have since returned to Iraq.
C.O.C.G. and Others v. Lithuania concerns four Cuban nationals and their repeated crossing of the Lithuanian-Belarusian border in March and April 2022. When they entered Lithuania on 13 April 2022, they were apprehended. They have since been issued with permanent residence permits.
Judicial activities
05/11/26
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.
05/11/26
Interpretation of legislation by national authorities created uncertainty for unions and employees as to lawfulness of strike.
In the case of Alonso Radesca and Others v. Switzerland the Court held that there had been a violation of freedom of assembly and association.
The case concerned a strike in a private hospital over its withdrawal from a collective bargaining agreement. The national authorities had found the strike to be unlawful, resulting in the hospital employees who had participated in it being dismissed and criminal sanctions being imposed on the secretaires of the unions who had been mandated to conduct the negotiations.
The Court found that neither Article 28 of the Constitution, which guaranteed the right to strike, nor the national case-law provided a clear basis for concluding that a lawful strike could become unlawful because a court, with the benefit of hindsight, considered that an employer had offered terms which meant that the continuation of the strike was unnecessary. Such an interpretation created a significant degree of uncertainty for unions and employees as to the circumstances in which they continued collective action while retaining the protection afforded under national law.
05/11/26
Journalist who challenged National Judicial and Legal Service Commission (CSM) decision affecting his reputation should have applied to civil rather than administrative courts.
The Court declared the application in the case of Curea v. Romania inadmissible.
The case concerned a journalist who complained of the impossibility of bringing administrative proceedings to challenge a decision of the National Judicial and Legal Service Commission (Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii – CSM). The decision had been given to protect a prosecutor’s professional reputation following the publication of an article by the applicant, but the applicant alleged that his own professional reputation had been damaged as a result. After his administrative application was rejected, he applied to the Court under Article 6 of the Convention (right of access to a court).
The Court pointed out that the CSM procedure for the protection of reputation concerned judges and prosecutors only and was intended to preserve their independence and impartiality, thereby ensuring public confidence in the justice system. In the case at hand, the CSM’s decision had related to a prosecutor’s professional conduct and had no legal effect on the applicant, a journalist, who could assert his own civil rights before the competent civil courts.
- Press release
- Press release (in Romanian)
05/11/26
State connection to fatal acid attack on anticorruption campaigner breaches right to life and freedom of expression.
In the case of Gandzyuk and Others v. Ukraine, the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to life/effective investigation.
The case concerned a lethal sulfuric acid attack on the applicant, a local anti-corruption activist and public official in Kherson, allegedly commissioned by State officials.
The Court found that the attack had been a premediated and renumerated operation with the purpose of silencing an individual acting as a public watchdog. There were sufficiently strong, clear and concordant influences to conclude that there had been a close connection between the attack and the exercise or abuse of public authority so to engage the State’s responsibility. The Court also found a violation the freedom of expression. The attack had been objectively capable of instilling fear in other journalists, activists and members of civil society. It carried an especially serious chilling effect on public debate concerning corruption and abuse of power.
04/11/26
Romanian judge’s request for interim measure suspending managerial appointment rejected
The Court has decided to reject the request for an interim measure in the case of Marinaş v. Romania.
The case concerns a judge and her complaint about the temporary appointment of another judge to a managerial position within the Craiova Court of Appeal where she works.
The Court has rejected as out of scope her request to suspend a decision by the Romanian Superior Council of Magistracy (CSM) appointing temporarily another judge as vice-president of the Craiova Court of Appeal.
- Press release
- Press release (in Romanian)
Press releases on other judgments and decisions
05/11/26
5 November: 4 Judgments & 10 Decisions
3 November: 8 Judgments
On the agenda
Videos
