24
Sep
2026
Kuijt v. the Netherlands
Grand Chamber rejects as inadmissible case concerning deliberation practice at Netherlands Supreme Court.
The Court has declared the application in the case of Kuijt v. the Netherlands inadmissible.
The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the practice at the Supreme Court of the Netherlands by which judges of the Criminal Law Division who are not part of the judicial panel to which the case has been assigned may participate in the deliberations, without taking part in the vote. This is allowed in the interest of ensuring the uniform interpretation and application of the law and such Supreme Court judges are called “reservisten”.
The ECHR concluded that a legal avenue had been available to the applicant at national level to raise her complaint but that she had not used it. It would have been important to give the Supreme Court the opportunity to assess and respond to her criticisms of a well-known and long-standing internal practice that was intended to serve the purpose of ensuring the uniform application of the law. The decision underlines the importance of shared responsibility between national courts and the European Court, in line with the principle of subsidiarity.
Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union on behalf of ten Ukrainian children v. Russia
Chamber hearing on Ukrainian children from Crimean childcare institutions officially unaccounted for since 2014
The Court held a Chamber hearing in the case of Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union on behalf of ten Ukrainian children v. Russia.
The case concerns ten Ukrainian children who were living in childcare institutions in Crimea in 2014 when Russia asserted jurisdiction over the peninsula. According to the association (UHHRU) acting on their behalf, Russian nationality was imposed 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. UHHRU allege that this effectively amounts to the children’s enforced disappearance.
A joint event with the European Committee of Social Rights
On 8 September 2026, the Court and the European Committee of Social Rights organised a joint event in Strasbourg dedicated to advancing protection of human rights and fostering dialogue between the two institutions.
Entitled A Conversation between the European Committee of Social Rights and the European Court of Human Rights, the first-ever joint event brought together the President of the Committee, Aoife Nolan, the President of the Court, Mattias Guyomar, along with many judges of the Court and members of the Committee. The discussion focused on the themes of protecting the rights of persons with disabilities and promoting gender equality.
In his opening remarks, the President of the Court emphasised how the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Social Charter are the two pillars of the Council of Europe human rights protection system.
“These two human rights instruments have a shared origin and a shared purpose. They both have their roots in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ‘common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations’. Both aim to transpose its aims and aspirations into binding international law,” he said. In his speech, he also referred to several cases decided by the Court on the two main topics of the event.
The President of the European Committee of Social Rights highlighted the complementary mandates of the Committee and the Court and explored the two systems’ intertwined legal approaches.
The first panel discussion, moderated by Ivana Jelić, Vice-President of the European Court and judge elected in respect of Montenegro, centred on the rights of persons with disabilities and saw the participation of Aoife Nolan, President of the European Committee of Social Rights, Ioannis Ktistakis, Section President and judge elected in respect of Greece, Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir, judge elected in respect of Iceland, and Kristina Koldinská, member of the European Committee of Social Rights.
The second panel discussion focused on gender equality. Moderated by George Theodosis, Vice-President of the European Committee of Social Rights, the panel featured Frédéric Krenc, judge elected in respect of Belgium, Diana Sârcu, judge elected in respect of the Republic of Moldova, Kristīne Dupate, General Rapporteur of the European Committee of Social Rights, and Mario Vinković, member of the European Committee of Social Rights.
The event concluded with closing remarks by Kateřina Šimáčková, Section President and judge elected in respect of the Czech Republic, and Tatiana Puiu, Vice-President of the European Committee of Social Rights.
Kavala v. Türkiye (no. 2)
The Court holds that Türkiye must release Mr Kavala immediately and eliminate the consequences of his conviction.
In the case of Kavala v. Türkiye (no. 2) the Court held that there had been several violations of the Convention.
The Court held that the respondent State was required to secure the applicant’s release at the earliest possible date, and that it was incumbent on it to eliminate the consequences of the measures taken against him. His criminal conviction was to be regarded, under Convention law, as null and void.
The case concerns the applicant’s detention after the judgment delivered by the ECHR in 2019 and the ensuing criminal proceedings in which he was sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment.
Kuijt v. the Netherlands
Grand Chamber rejects as inadmissible case concerning deliberation practice at Netherlands Supreme Court.
The Court has declared the application in the case of Kuijt v. the Netherlands inadmissible.
The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the practice at the Supreme Court of the Netherlands by which judges of the Criminal Law Division who are not part of the judicial panel to which the case has been assigned may participate in the deliberations, without taking part in the vote. This is allowed in the interest of ensuring the uniform interpretation and application of the law and such Supreme Court judges are called “reservisten”.
The ECHR concluded that a legal avenue had been available to the applicant at national level to raise her complaint but that she had not used it. It would have been important to give the Supreme Court the opportunity to assess and respond to her criticisms of a well-known and long-standing internal practice that was intended to serve the purpose of ensuring the uniform application of the law. The decision underlines the importance of shared responsibility between national courts and the European Court, in line with the principle of subsidiarity.
Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union on behalf of ten Ukrainian children v. Russia
Chamber hearing on Ukrainian children from Crimean childcare institutions officially unaccounted for since 2014
The Court held a Chamber hearing in the case of Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union on behalf of ten Ukrainian children v. Russia.
The case concerns ten Ukrainian children who were living in childcare institutions in Crimea in 2014 when Russia asserted jurisdiction over the peninsula. According to the association (UHHRU) acting on their behalf, Russian nationality was imposed 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. UHHRU allege that this effectively amounts to the children’s enforced disappearance.
Judicial activities
23/09/26
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.
23/09/26
The ECHR has decided to reject the request for interim measures lodged by 25 French nationals detained in Iraq.
The applicants, all adults, left France to join the ranks of the so-called “Islamic State”. They were subsequently detained in various detention centres in north-eastern Syria before being transferred, between 2025 and 2026, to a prison in Baghdad, Iraq, where they are currently being held for trial. They are being prosecuted for offences falling within the jurisdiction of the Iraqi courts.
On 17 September 2026 they lodged a request for interim measures with the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. They primarily sought their repatriation or the execution of warrants for their arrest or search issued by the French judicial authorities. In the alternative, they asked that the French Government take the requisite steps to ensure that they are not sentenced to death and that they receive a fair trial, in particular by requesting the necessary guarantees from the Iraqi authorities.
21/09/26
Referral to the Grand Chamber
The Court has accepted the referral to the Grand Chamber of the case Miladze v. Georgia.
The case concerns the applicant’s administrative conviction for a video he had posted on TikTok criticising the new transport policies in Tbilisi and alleging misconduct by public officials. The video had gone viral.
The Court has also decided to reject a request to refer eleven other cases.
17/09/26
Seriously deficient investigation into conscript’s death while on duty
In the case of Margaryan v. Armenia the Court held that there had been violations of the right to life/investigation and of the right to an effective remedy.
The case concerned the death of a conscript while on duty. He had been found in a trench near to his sentry post, with a gunshot injury to his chest.
The ECHR found that the investigation had not provided a plausible explanation for the conscript’s death. The authorities’ conclusion that he had taken his own life had mainly been based on a posthumous psychiatric report referring to witness statements about his “strange behaviour”, despite that being in contradiction with his military superiors’ assessments of him while he had been alive. The authorities had therefore closed the investigation on the basis of what could be described as hastily reached conclusions, without having seriously examined any other possible scenario.
The Court also found that the conscript’s father, the applicant in this case, had had no legal avenue in Armenia to establish State liability for the death of his son, nor claim compensation.
The Court held that Armenia was to pay the applicant 50,000 euros in respect of nonpecuniary damage.
17/09/26
Failure to protect vulnerable man with schizophrenia from unnecessary use of force or to effectively investigate his complaints
In the case of Strashunskyy v. Ukraine the ECHR held that there had been two violations of the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment/investigation.
The case concerned a complaint by the applicant, a vulnerable individual diagnosed with schizophrenia, about injuries he had sustained when being transferred from a Staterun boarding house to a psychiatric hospital.
The Court found that the investigation into the applicant’s complaint had not been effective. In particular, an expert medical assessment to determine how his injuries had been sustained had not been obtained. Nor had the authorities clarified whether the staff members responsible for his transfer had been trained to deal with vulnerable individuals.
The Court also found that the authorities had failed to demonstrate that the force used against the applicant had been strictly necessary or that he had been sufficiently protected by those responsible for looking after him. He had sustained multiple injuries in circumstances which had not been shown to have either been unavoidable or managed in a manner consistent with the State’s obligation to protect his physical integrity and dignity.
The Court held that Ukraine was to pay the applicant 7,000 euros in respect of nonpecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 in respect of costs and expenses.
- Press release
- Press release (in Ukrainian)
Transparency and outreach
On the agenda
Videos
