In the case of Perovy v. Russia, the Court found that there had been no violation of the Convention.

The applicants, a couple and their son who was 7 at the time, are members of the Church of the Community of Christ. They complained before the Court about a Russian Orthodox rite of blessing ceremony in their son’s municipal school, which they argued was incompatible with their rights to freedom of religion and to educate their children in accordance with their beliefs.

The Court found that the ceremony had been a minor one-off event, limited in scope and duration, without any intention of indoctrination. It had been an error of assessment by the school teacher and had immediately been rectified through specific decisions and sanctions.

Press release 

Factsheet: Children's Rights

In the case of B. v. Switzerland the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) taken together with Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).

The applicant complained about the termination of the widow's pension he was receiving, as the Federal Law on Old-Age and Survivors' Insurance provides that entitlement to a widower’s pension ends when the youngest child reaches the age of 18, whereas this is not the case for a widow.

The Court reiterated that the Convention was a “living instrument” which had to be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions and found that the presumption that the husband provided financially for his wife, particularly when she had children, was no longer valid and could not justify the difference in treatment of which the applicant had been a victim.

Press release

Factsheet: Gender equality

In the case of Kaboğlu and Oran v. Turkey (no. 2), the Court found a violation of the right to freedom of expression.

The applicants, two university professors who held posts of responsibility in the Advisory Council of Human Rights (public body under the Prime Minister), had been prosecuted following the publication in 2004 of a report indicating problems with the protection of minorities in Turkey.

Press release

In the case of Bădulescu v. Portugal, the Court found that there had been a violation of the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment on account of the conditions in which the applicant was held, for six and a half years, in Oporto prison.

The applicant, a Romanian national convicted of theft in Portugal, had been held in an overcrowded prison, with only 3 sq. m of personal space, which constituted degrading treatment, aggravated by a lack of heating. The problem of overcrowding in this prison and its consequences had been the main concern of the Ombudsman in its 2017 report.

Press release

Factsheet: Detention conditions and treatment of prisoners

In the case of Napotnik v. Romania concerning the recall of a Romanian diplomat posted to Slovenia because she was pregnant, the Court found no violation of the Convention.

The Court found that the applicant had been treated differently on grounds of sex, but that the domestic authorities had sufficiently justified such difference in treatment by the need to ensure the functioning of the embassy’s consular section, and ultimately to protect the rights of others, namely Romanians in need of assistance abroad.

Press release

Factsheet: Work-related rights

The Court has declared inadmissible the applications in Faller v. France and Steinmetz v. France.

The applicants were first found liable by the National Medical Council’s disciplinary board in 2009, for professional misconduct in their treatment of patients under social security schemes. Later, in respect of the same facts, they were convicted and sentenced in 2014 by the Court of Appeal of Colmar.

The Court found that the 2009 decision against the applicants pursuant to the Social Security Code had not been a “conviction” for an “offence” within the meaning of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice) and that this Article was therefore inapplicable.

Press release

The Court held a Grand Chamber hearing in the case of In the case of NIT S.R.L. v. the Republic of Moldova.

The applicant, a private television station, alleges that its broadcasting licence was withdrawn on account of the sharp criticisms of the Moldovan Government expressed in its programmes.

Press release

Webcast of the hearing

Country profile - Republic of Moldova

In the case of Muhammad and Muhammad v. Romania the Court held that there had been a violation concerning the procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens.

The case concerned a procedure to remove two Pakistani nationals from Romania after they had been declared undesirable. 

Press release

Delivery of the judgment

Factsheet: Terrorism

Webcast of the hearing (25/09/2019)

Fiche pays - Roumanie

On 20 October 2020, Claire Hédon, French Défenseure des droits, visited the Court and was received by President Robert Spano. Mattias Guyomar, Judge elected in respect of France, and Marialena Tsirli, Registrar-elect, also attended the meeting.

In response to a request from Armenia concerning the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the Court decided on 6 October 2020 to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. It called on all States directly or indirectly involved in the conflict, including Turkey, to refrain from actions that would contribute to breaches of the Convention rights of civilians and to respect their obligations under the Convention.

Having examined the objections made by the Government of Turkey and again taking account of the serious and escalating nature of the conflict, the Court does not find any reason to amend its decision or to lift any part of the interim measure previously indicated.

Press release

Questions and Answers on Inter-State applications

Factsheet: Interim measures

Inter-State Applications