ECHR Press Conference 2025
The President of the ECHR, Marko Bošnjak, will hold a press conference on Friday 31 January 2025 from 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. On that occasion he will present the results of the Court's activities and statistics for the year 2024. The President and Marialena Tsirli, Registrar of the Court, will then take questions from journalists. Journalists who wish to attend are invited to send an email before 27 January 2025.
The event, which will differ in format from previous years, will take place in person only, and a video recording will subsequently be made available on the Court’s website.
Chamber News
In the case of Suren Antonyan v. Armenia the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to a fair hearing as regards the alleged lack of impartiality of the Chair of the Supreme Judicial Council, and no violation of the right to a fair hearing as regards the alleged lack of independence of the Supreme Judicial Council and as regards the applicant’s alleged lack of access to a court.
The case concerned the dismissal of the applicant from his position as judge by the Supreme Judicial Council. He had been appointed as a judge of the Civil and Administrative Chamber of the Court of Cassation with tenure until the age of 65.
The Court found that the way in which non-judicial members were appointed to the Supreme Judicial Council could not be said to have compromised its independence. At the same time, the Court found that the Supreme Judicial Council had failed to dispel the applicant’s justifiable doubts concerning the impartiality of its chair and that he had not been provided with sufficient procedural safeguards in that respect.
In the case of H.W. v. France the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to respect for private and family life.
The case concerned a fault-based divorce in which blame was attributed solely to the applicant, on the grounds that she had ceased to have sexual relations with her husband. The applicant did not complain about the divorce itself, which she had also sought, but rather about the grounds on which it had been granted.
The Court noted that the concept of “marital duties”, as provided for in the domestic legal order and reaffirmed in the present case, took no account whatsoever of consent to sexual relations. Failure to fulfil marital duties could, in the conditions set out in Article 242 of the Civil Code, be considered a fault which justified the granting of a divorce. It could also entail pecuniary consequences and, in certain circumstances, serve as a basis for a claim for damages.
The Court concluded that the very existence of such a marital obligation ran counter to sexual freedom, the right to bodily autonomy and the Contracting States’ positive obligation of prevention in the context of combating domestic and sexual violence.
In the case Ioannides v. Cyprus the Court held that there had been no violation of the right to protection of property as concerned the restriction on public access to the sector of the buffer zone where the applicant’s house was located. However, it held that there had been a violation of the right to protection of property because of Cyprus’s refusal to pay the applicant rent for the use of her house by peacekeeping forces.
The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that a house she owned in Nicosia was used by peacekeeping forces without payment of rent. The house had ended up being situated in the buffer zone after Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974.
In the case of A.C. v. France the Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of the right to respect for private life and no violation of the right to an effective remedy in conjunction with the right to respect for private life.
The case concerned a Guinean national who claimed to have been an unaccompanied minor when he arrived in France. He submitted that he had not received the care provided for under French child-protection laws, because the domestic authorities had contested that he was a minor.
The Court concluded that the relevant authorities had not acted with reasonable diligence and had not complied with their positive obligation to ensure the applicant’s right to respect for his private life. The Court considered that there had been remedies available to the applicant under domestic law in respect of the alleged violation of the right to respect for private life. He had to be regarded as having had effective remedies in practice. The Court thus found that there had been no violation of the right to an effective remedy in conjunction with the right to respect for private life.
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.
Grand Chamber News
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.
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
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
The Court has declared inadmissible the application in the case of Association confraternelle de la Presse Judiciaire and Others v. France.
The applicants in this case alleged that the French legislation on intelligence-gathering techniques infringed the right to respect for private life, the right to freedom of expression and the right to an effective remedy and to a fair hearing.
The Court found that, at the time the applicants lodged their applications, an effective remedy had been available to them before the Conseil d’État. They should have first used that avenue to submit the Convention complaints which they had raised before the Court. Furthermore, the applicants had not established the existence of any special circumstances exempting them from the obligation to make use of that remedy.
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.
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”).
Communication of cases
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
The Court has refused to grant an interim measure in the case of Călin Georgescu v. Romania.
The case concerns the annulling by the Constitutional Court of Romania of the presidential elections of 2024, for which the applicant was a candidate.
The applicant had requested that interim measures be given, indicating that the Constitutional Court decision should be suspended and the election process resumed. The Court rejected the request as it fell outside of the scope of Rule 39 (interim measures) of the Rules of Court.
- Press release
- Press release (in Romanian)
- Interim measures
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.
The Judge elected in respect of Finland, Juha Lavapuro, was formally sworn in in the Court's Main Hearing Room.