Grand Chamber judgment concerning Switzerland
In the case of Semenya v. Switzerland the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to a fair hearing.
The case concerned an international-level athlete, specialising in middle-distance races, who complained about certain regulations of the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF – now called World Athletics) requiring her to take hormone treatment to decrease her natural testosterone level in order to be able to take part in international competitions in the female category. Having refused to undergo the treatment, she was no longer able to take part in international competitions.
Grand Chamber judgment in an inter-State case
In the case of Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia the Court held Russia accountable for widespread and flagrant abuses of human rights arising from the conflict in Ukraine since 2014, in breach of the European Convention.
The case concerned the conflict that began in eastern Ukraine in 2014 following the arrival in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of pro-Russian armed groups, and escalated after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine beginning on 24 February 2022. It also concerned the shooting down of flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine in summer 2014, killing all those on board, many of whom were Dutch nationals.
The Court found that Russia was responsible for repeated human-rights violations over a period of more than eight years. This included indiscriminate military attacks; summary executions; torture, notably rape as a weapon of war; unlawful and arbitrary detentions; intimidation and persecution of journalists and religious groups; looting and destruction of private property; and the organised removal of children to Russia and their adoption there.
The Court also found that Russia was responsible for violating the right to life by shooting down flight MH17 and had added to the profound suffering of the crash victims’ next of kin by being uncooperative and obstructive in the context of international efforts to uncover the truth.
- Press release
- Press release (in Dutch)
- Press release (in Russian)
- Press release (in Ukrainian)
- Delivery of the judgment
- Representatives of the parties present at the public delivery
- Webcast of the hearing (12/06/2024)
- Questions and Answers on Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia case
- Questions and Answers on Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia case (in Dutch)
- Questions and Answers on Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia case (in Russian)
- Questions and Answers on Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia case (in Ukrainian)
- Questions and Answers on Inter-State applications
- Inter-State applications
Chamber News
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Delivered Judgments and Decisions
Grand Chamber News
On 30 June 2025, the Grand Chamber panel of five judges decided to reject all 12 requests for referral to the Grand Chamber.
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
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 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.
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”.
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.
The Judge elected in respect of Monaco, Sébastien Biancheri, was formally sworn in in the Court's Main Hearing Room.