Judicial activities


Human Rights building
02/07/26

Measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court are decided in connection with proceedings before the Court, without prejudging any subsequent decisions on the admissibility or merits of the case.

Human Rights building
02/07/26

Refusal of authorities to recognise a legal parent-child relationship established abroad failed to take account of Polish child’s best interests.

 

In the case of A.P. and R.P. v. Poland, the Court held that there had been no violation in respect of most of the complaints but a violation of the right to respect for private life and the prohibition on discrimination in respect of the child.

The cases concerned the refusal by the Polish authorities to recognise a legal parentchild relationship established abroad.

In both cases, a same sex couple living in the United Kingdom in a civil partnership asked to have their child’s birth certificate registered in Poland. The Polish authorities refused in both cases, referring to public policy grounds. In A.P. and R.P. the birth (and biological) mother and her partner were both Polish nationals; they spoke Polish at home and spent a significant amount of time in Poland. The Government confirmed that R.P. had acquired Polish citizenship at birth. In A.D.-K. and Others the birth (and biological) mother was a British national and her partner was Polish.

Main hall of the Human Rights building
02/07/26

Forthcoming Grand Chamber ruling.

 

 

The Court will be delivering a Grand Chamber ruling in the case of Jesus Pinhal v. Portugal on 9 July 2026.

The case concerns three sets of proceedings brought against the applicant by the criminal-law authorities, the Securities Market Commission and the Bank of Portugal, respectively, for criminal and administrative offences committed while he was Vice-Chairman of the Board of Directors of a private bank, Banco Comercial Português, S.A.

 

Human Rights building in winter
02/07/26

Authorities’ inadequate response to allegations of domestic violence, leaving a mother and her children to live in a shelter for over three years.

 

In the case of Ubeda and Others v. Italy, the Court held that there had been a violation of the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment and of the right to respect for private and family life of the Convention in relation to the complaints of domestic violence.

The case concerned an alleged failure by the national authorities to duly address and assess allegations of domestic violence. The applicants in the case were a mother and her two children. The mother had lodged a complaint with the police against the father of her children and former cohabitant, alleging that, during their relationship, he had been violent towards her and her children, both physically and psychologically. She and her children were placed in a shelter.

The Court held that the proceedings against the alleged perpetrator had not met the requirements of a prompt, thorough and effective investigation as required under the Convention. In addition, sexist and stereotyped remarks made by the prosecutor had resulted in the applicant being subjected to further victimisation. By keeping the applicants in the shelter for over three years, the authorities had breached their obligation to adopt proportionate measures and to carry out, on an ongoing basis, an assessment of the adequacy and proportionality of that measure.

Human Rights building (roof)
01/07/26

As part of its prevention of conflicts of interest, the Court has revised the Practice Direction on the Institution of proceedings. This revision clarifies the conditions under which a former member of the Registry may represent an applicant before the Court. This text will enter into force on 1 January 2027.

Judges hammer
30/06/26

European Court strikes out case concerning total ban on tobacco in Estonian prisons.

 

In the case of Vainik and Others v. Estonia the Court decided to strike the applications out of its list of cases.

The case concerned the total ban on tobacco in Estonian prisons from October 2017. The three applicants in the case, prisoners at the time, complained that they could not smoke, which had led to them suffering from withdrawal symptoms.

The Court considered that it was no longer necessary to examine the application as the applicant had died and no heirs had come forward. The other two applicants were no longer affected by the ban because they had since been released and had, in any event, failed to respond to the Court’s attempts to contact them.

Responsive Image

Press releases on other judgments and decisions

02/07/26

2 July 2026: 11 Judgments & 7 Decisions

30 June: One judgment

 

Transparency and outreach


On the agenda


Videos


Responsive Image