In the case of Popović and Others v. Serbia the Court held that there had been no violation of the Convention.

The applicants, four civilians with disabilities, maintained that the Serbian legislation on disability benefits was discriminatory because paraplegic civilians were awarded fewer benefits than war veterans with the same disability.

The Court found that the choice made by the legislature to treat paraplegics differently depending on whether they were civilians or war veterans had a reasonable foundation. That choice had been based on  the ways in which the two groups had sustained their injuries, namely as the result of an accident in the case of disabled civilians and in the line of duty in the case of war veterans.

Press release

In the case of Petro Carbo Chem S.E. v. Romania the Court held that there had been a violation of freedom of expression.

The case concerned a civil court order issued in 2010 to the applicant company to pay symbolic compensation to the CEO of the Oltchim company (which was the largest chemicals factory in Romania) for criticising the CEO’s management of the company in the context of a media conflict.

Press release

In the case of Stavropoulos and others v. Greece the Court held that there had been a violation of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. The case concerned the practice of certain registry offices in Greece indicating on birth certificates when a child is named by a civil act. Stavroula-Dorothea Stavropoulou and her parents, the applicants in the case, complained in particular that the handwritten note “naming” on her birth certificate, next to her first name, implied that she had not been christened.

Press release

In the case of Moustahi v. France, the Court found several violations of the Convention. The case concerned the conditions in which two unaccompanied children then aged 5 and 3, who had come from the Comoros on a makeshift boat, had been apprehended in 2013 for unlawfully entering the French territory of Mayotte, then placed in administrative detention with adults. The children were promptly returned to the Comoros, having been arbitrarily associated with an unrelated adult, without any careful or individual examination of their situation.

Press release

In the case of Ghoumid and Others v. France, the Court found that there had been no violation of the Convention. The applicants, who at the time all had French nationality as well as Moroccan or Turkish nationality, were convicted in France of conspiring to commit a terrorist act. After serving their sentences they were released in 2009 and 2010, then stripped of their French nationality in 2015. They argued before the Court that the deprivation of their nationality had breached their right to respect for their private life and that it was a criminal sanction in disguise.

Press release

The Court will be delivering its Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Mugemangango v. Belgium on 10 July 2020.

In this case the applicant, Chairman of the Belgian Labour Party (PTB) for Hainaut Province, alleges that the post-electoral disputes procedure in Belgium does not have minimum safeguards against arbitrariness; he complains that the legislative assemblies themselves have the power to verify any irregularities arising during the elections.

Press release 

Webcast of the hearing (04/12/2019)

Country profile - Belgium

The Court will be delivering its Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Albert and Others v. Hungary on 7 July 2020.

The case concerns the legislation introducing the mandatory integration of two banks, namely Kinizsi Bank Zrt. and Mohácsi Takarék Bank Zrt, of which the applicants were shareholders, into a state control scheme.

Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, the applicants complain about the impact of the legislation on their right to influence the conduct and policy of the banks in which they were shareholders.

Press release 

Webcast of the hearing (18/12/2019)

Country profile - Hungary

On 30 June 2020, Arman Tatoyan, Ombudsman of Armenia, visited the Court and was received by President Robert Spano. Armen Harutyunyan, judge elected in respect of Armenia, and Roderick Liddell, Registrar, also attended the meeting.

25 years ago, on 29 June 1995 to be precise, the new Human Rights Building was inaugurated in the presence of Václav Havel (President of the Czech Republic), Jacques Toubon (French Justice Minister), Catherine Trautmann (Mayor of Strasbourg) and a number of international figures.

Here is a chance to discover, or rediscover, the exhibition concerning the building which was mounted

in 2015 for the visit to the Court by Ivan Harbour, one of the designers of the Human Rights Building.

Exhibition on HRB

Video