Inter-State case Armenia v. Turkey
The Court received a completed application form in the inter-State case Armenia v. Turkey.
The case concerns the respondent State’s alleged role in the recent armed hostilities between Armenia and Azerbaijan which took place between 27 September and 10 November 2020 (the date of entry into force of a ceasefire agreement). Notably, Armenia alleges that Turkey provided assistance to the Azerbaijani armed forces during the conflict.
The French authorities have introduced a number of restrictions in the framework of the COVID-19 public-health crisis. The Court, while complying with the public-health measures adopted by our host State, in particular by prioritising teleworking and electronic communications, is continuing all its activities in accordance with the usual rules. Unlike during the previous lockdown periods, no special arrangements have been made in respect of procedures and time-limits.
Hearings in May30/04/2021
The Court will be holding two Grand Chamber hearings in May 2021.
The case Grzęda v. Poland concerns a reform of the judiciary in Poland as a result of which the office of a Supreme Administrative Court judge elected to the National Council of the Judiciary was terminated before the end of his four-year term. There are currently 27 applications pending before the Court which raise issues relating to various aspects of the reform of the judicial system in Poland under laws that entered into force in 2017 and 2018.
The case Savickis and Others v. Latvia concerns the applicants’ allegations of discrimination in the calculation of their State pensions as permanently resident non-citizens of Latvia, as contrasted with Latvian citizens....
The Court will be ruling in the Grand Chamber cases of Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom and Centrum för rättvisa v. Sweden on 25 May 2021.
The case of Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom concerns complaints by journalists, individuals and rights organisations about three different surveillance regimes: the bulk interception of communications; intelligence sharing with foreign governments; and the obtaining of communications data from communications service providers.
The case of Centrum för rättvisa v. Sweden concerns a complaint brought by a non-profit foundation about legislation permitting the bulk interception of electronic signals in Sweden for foreign intelligence purposes....
Request for an advisory opinion12/05/2021
The Court has accepted a request for an advisory opinion submitted by the Court of Cassation of Armenia on 11 March 2021.
In its request, the Court of Cassation of Armenia has asked the ECHR to provide an advisory opinion on whether the non-application of limitation periods for imposing criminal responsibility in respect of torture or equivalent criminal offences with reliance on sources of international law is compatible with Article 7 of the Convention, if domestic law does not require such non-application of those limitation periods....
Communication of a case to Switzerland17/05/2021
The Court has communicated to the Government of Switzerland the application Semenya v. Switzerland.
The applicant, Mokgadi Caster Semenya, is an international South African athlete specialising in middle-distance races (800 to 3,000 metres), who complains about regulations issued by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), requiring her to lower her natural testosterone levels through hormone treatment in order to be eligible to compete as a woman in international sporting events....
Judgment concerning Luxembourg11/05/2021
In the case of Halet v. Luxembourg the Court held that there had been no violation of the Convention.
The case concerned Mr Halet’s criminal conviction in the “Luxleaks” case for disclosing tax documents concerning some of his employer’s clients.
The applicant, who was employed at the relevant time by the company PricewaterhouseCoopers, was convicted following criminal proceedings brought against him.
The Court held, in particular, that it was not unreasonable to regard this as a relatively mild penalty that would not have a real chilling effect on the exercise of the freedom of the person concerned or of other employees....
Delivered Judgments & Decisions
Forthcoming Judgments & Decisions