Chamber News


Human Rights building's main entrance in winter
14/01/25

In the case of Petrović and Others v. Croatia the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to respect for private and family life.

The case concerned three mothers’ suspicions that their new-born children, born between 1986 and 1994, had not become ill and died, as the State-run hospitals alleged, but had been abducted and unlawfully given up for adoption. The Court noted similarities between this case and the case of Zorica Jovanović v. Serbia.

The Court found that Croatia had failed to fulfil its duty (“continuing positive obligation”) with regard to the applicants’ allegations that their babies had been abducted from maternity hospitals and had been given up for unlawful adoption. This being so, the Court found that general measures at national level were required in order to establish a mechanism aimed at providing individual redress to all parents in a similar situation. This mechanism should be supervised by an independent body with adequate powers, capable of providing credible answers regarding the fate of each child and awarding adequate compensation as appropriate.

Judges' hammer in the main hearing room of the Human Rights building
07/01/25

In the case of F.D. and H.C. v. Portugal the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to respect for private and family life.

The case concerned the enforcement of a seek-and-find order issued by the French authorities in the context of a custody dispute in respect of H.C. – who had been brought by his father, F.D., to Portugal from France – and his subsequent return to his mother.

The Court found that neither father nor son had been heard by a court in Portugal before the decision to return the child had been taken, and the alleged risk to the child of ill-treatment had not been examined, denying them their procedural rights. The Portuguese authorities had ignored the applicant’s rights as the father, and ignored whether the child’s return had been in his best interests. The Court also found that the authorities had failed to protect the child when he had been taken and kept at a police station while his father had been arrested. Overall, the decision had not been “necessary in a democratic society”.

Main hearing room of the Human Rights building
07/01/25

In the case of Văleanu and Others v. Romania the Court held that there has been a violation of the protection of property in respect of all the applications which had not been struck off its list of cases.

The case concerned mainly restitution of property, which had been nationalised by the communist regime, and a prolonged non-enforcement of outstanding judgments given in the applicants’ favour and the lack of an effective remedy; the annulment of the applicants’ titles on account of the State’s failure to correctly implement the applicable law without any compensation; and the failure of the authorities to ensure that the compensation awarded had been reasonably related to the current value of the property.

The Court made awards of just satisfaction in respect of the pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants’ due to their inability to have their property restored to them.

Rear entrance of the Human Rights building
07/01/25

In the case of Alexandru Pătraşcu v. Romania the Court held that there had been a violation of the freedom of expression on account of the applicant’s conviction for statements made by him on his Facebook page, and in relation to the applicant’s conviction for the comments made by third parties on his Facebook page.

The case concerned the applicant’s liability for his statements and the comments published on his Facebook page. As a passionate fan of opera and classical music, the applicant covered a scandal involving the National Opera in Bucharest, which had given rise to extremely strong feelings. He was ordered to pay compensation for the damage caused by the many posts published on his Facebook page. The appellate court found that 22 comments exceeded the limits of freedom of expression and ought to be punished, and that four messages written by the applicant had interfered with the rights and legitimate interests of others.

The Court noted that the factual context of the case could have been used to assess whether each of the applicant’s contested statements had contributed to a debate of public interest. It considered that the national authorities had failed to conduct a proper balancing exercise with a view to demonstrating that the civil judgment against the applicant had corresponded to a “pressing social need”.

With regard to the civil judgment against the applicant for the comments made by third parties on his Facebook page, the Court considered that the legal provisions relied on and interpreted in the present case by the national courts had not been sufficiently clear and detailed to afford appropriate protection against interference by the authorities with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression.

Human Rights building in winter (detail)
07/01/25

The Court has ruled on two cases, G.R.J. v. Greece and A.R.E. v. Greece, concerning allegations that international protection seekers had been “pushed back” from Greece to Türkiye.

The Court declared the application in the case G.R.J. v. Greece inadmissible. It found that there were strong indications to suggest that there had existed, at the time of the events alleged, a systematic practice of “pushbacks” from the Greek islands to Türkiye. However, it took the view that the applicant, whose statements and allegations had appeared contradictory and inconsistent at times, had failed to provide prima facie evidence of his presence in Greece and of his “pushback” to Türkiye from the island of Samos on the dates alleged. Consequently, he could not claim victim status for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention.

In the case A.R.E. v. Greece the Court found several violations of the Convention. It considered that there were strong indications to suggest that there had existed, at the time of the events alleged, a systematic practice of “pushbacks” of third-country nationals by the Greek authorities, from the Evros region to Türkiye. In particular, it noted that the applicant had been sent back to her home country, Türkiye, – from which she had fled – without a prior examination of the risks she faced on her return. The Court did not, however, find a violation of the right to life or the prohibition of torture, taking the view that the applicant had not produced any prima facie evidence to substantiate her allegations.

Responsive Image

Delivered Judgments and Decisions


Responsive Image

Forthcoming Judgments & Decisions


Grand Chamber News


Main hearing room of theHuman Rights building (detail)
20/12/24

On 16 December 2024 the Court decided to refuse the request for an advisory opinion submitted by the High Court of Cassation and Justice of Romania. 

The High Court requested that the ECHR give an advisory opinion on two questions concerning (1) the applicability of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and (2) the level of precision required of the domestic law which had served as the legal basis for the dismissal. The Court decided not to accept the request, considering that it did not concern a question of principle, within the meaning of Article 1 § 1 of Protocol No. 16, which warranted examination by the Grand Chamber. Presenting an overview of its relevant caselaw, the Court showed that the requesting court already had guidance on Convention issues when determining the case before it. It thus saw no reason to elaborate further on the existing principles.

Main hearing room of the Human Rights building
16/12/24

The Court has accepted the referral to the Grand Chamber of the case Yasak v. Türkiye.

The case concerned the applicant’s conviction for membership of an armed terrorist organisation described by the Turkish authorities as the Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure.

The Court has also decided to reject a request to refer six other cases.

Hearings


Grand Chamber hearing in the case of Danileţ v. Romania
18/12/24

The Court held a Grand Chamber hearing in the case of Danileţ v. Romania.

The case concerns a disciplinary sanction imposed on a judge by the National Judicial and Legal Service Commission for posting two messages on his Facebook account.

Decisions


Human Rights building in winter
12/12/24

The Court has declared inadmissible the application in the case of Uçar v. Türkiye.

The case concerned the commander of one of the 15 tanks deployed in the context of the attempted military coup in Türkiye of 15 July 2016. He was subsequently convicted of attempting to overthrow the constitutional order and causing criminal damage.

The Court rejected his complaints alleging that the criminal proceedings against him had been unfair. There had been nothing arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable in the Turkish courts’ assessment. They had based their findings on various pieces of evidence, and after a detailed analysis of both the accusations against him and of arguments or points in his favour.

Human Rights building by night
12/12/24

The Court has declared inadmissible the application in the case of Borzykh v. Ukraine.

The case concerned the prohibition on wearing the St George ribbon (a war commemoration symbol) in public.

In 2016 Ukraine banned the production and use of the St George ribbon for its associations with the Soviet totalitarian rule and the modern Russian military. The applicant is a former military officer who wished to wear the ribbon on Victory Day. Since the occupation of the Crimean Peninsula by Russia and the start of hostilities in the eastern regions of Ukraine, the red poppy has been adopted in Ukraine as a symbol of commemoration.

The Court noted the changed significance of the St George ribbon in the ongoing armed conflict with Russia and found that although Ukraine’s ban had restricted freedom of expression, it had been within the State’s discretion (“margin of appreciation”).

Human Rights building in winter
12/12/24

The Court has declared inadmissible the applications in the cases of Kaya v. Türkiye and Feza Almaz and Others v. Türkiye.

The cases concerned disciplinary sanctions imposed on the applicants for participating in one-day work stoppages called by their trade union.

The applicant in the first case was fined for taking part in a one-day work stoppage to protest against the curfew which had been imposed in certain cities in south-east Türkiye. The other applicants received disciplinary sanctions for failing to report for work, in protest against “the Government’s actions” during the Gezi Park events in Istanbul.

The Court found that, in the circumstances of the present cases, the applicants could not rely on the right to trade-union freedom protected by Article 11, in that the sanctions imposed had related to industrial action, organised by their trade union, that had not been intended to defend their own professional interests.

Communication of cases


Responsive Image
25/11/24

The Court has communicated to the Government of Türkiye five cases covering 1,000 other applications.

The applications concern convictions for membership of an armed terrorist organisation, based on the alleged use of the encrypted messaging application called ByLock.

The core issues raised by the applicants have already been judged in the Court’s Grand Chamber case Yüksel Yalçınkaya v. Türkiye. In that judgment the Court highlighted that there were over 8,000 applications on the Court’s docket involving similar complaints. These 1,000 apparently comparable applications are the fourth batch to be notified to the Turkish Government. Against that background, the Court decided not to put any questions to the parties or to require any observations on the applications. 

Other News


Solemn Hearing for the opening of the judicial year at the French Court of Cassation
13/01/25

On 10 January 2025, the President of the Court, Marko Bošnjak, attended the Solemn Hearing for the opening of the judicial year at the French Court of Cassation in Paris. He was accompanied by Mattias Guyomar, Section President and Judge elected in respect of France.

Responsive Image
13/01/25

The Judge elected in respect of Finland, Juha Lavapuro, was formally sworn in in the Court's Main Hearing Room.

Official visit by Ingrid Derveaux, Secretary General of the European Judicial Training Network, to the ECHR
17/12/24

On 17 December 2024, Ingrid Derveaux, Secretary General of the European Judicial Training Network (EJTN), visited the Court and was received by President Marko Bošnjak. Arnfinn Bårdsen, Vice-President of the Court, also attended the meeting.