ECHR

• 50 requests

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.

Annulment of presidential pardons was justified, but fair trial rights violated for two of the three applicants.

In the case of Taleski and Others v. North Macedonia the Court held that there had been no violation of the right to a fair trial on account of the legislative intervention permitting the annulment of the presidential pardons and the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the applicants. The Court also held that there had been:

• a violation of the right to a fair trial as regards the right to an adversarial trial on account of the failure to serve one of the applicants, with a copy of the higher prosecutor’s submissions; and
• a violation of the right to a fair trial as regards the right to an adversarial trial on account of the failure to serve another of the applicants, with a copy of the higher prosecutor’s submissions.

The case concerned a legislative intervention, the 2016 Pardon Act, which permitted the annulment of presidential pardons that had been granted to the applicants six weeks earlier and which, at the time, had been considered to be final and irrevocable. As a consequence, the pardons were annulled and the applicants, who were public officials, were prosecuted for abuse of official position and authority and various electoral offences. The case also concerned the fairness of those criminal proceedings.

• Press release

Remedy for cramped conditions of detention ineffective for whole life sentence prisoner with no prospect of receiving compensation.

In the case of Ottlakán v. Hungary the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to an effective remedy read in conjunction with the right to prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment.

The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that he had not been able to access compensation awarded to him for cramped conditions of detention, because of legislation that had entered into force in 2021. Under that legislation such compensation is set aside in a holding account (administered by the prison) until the prisoner’s release.

The Court found that since there was no review mechanism of the applicant’s whole life sentence which could genuinely lead to his release, he had no prospect of receiving the compensation. Therefore, making the applicant’s release a condition for its payment to him went against the principle of promptness that was required for a remedy to be effective within the meaning of Article 13.

• Press release

Belgrade COVID19 protestor’s conviction in 2020 decided in unfair proceedings.

In the case of Iskrenović v. Serbia the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to a fair trial / right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses.

The case concerned the applicant’s conviction in 2020 in minor-offence proceedings for insulting the police, amid social unrest sparked by governmental restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Court found that the whole case had hinged on the credibility of the arresting police officer’s account which had differed from the one given by the applicant. The applicant’s request that the Serbian courts hear an eyewitness and obtain video footage from surveillance cameras had therefore been neither unreasonable nor vexatious. Such evidence could have shed light on whether the applicant had been near enough to the police officers to insult them or whether it had been the officers who had noticed him and then trailed him. The national courts had, however, failed to properly consider the relevance of such evidence and had not provided sufficient reasons for refusing to obtain and examine it. The applicant’s conviction had ultimately been based essentially on the testimony of the arresting police officer, making it impossible for the defence to effectively challenge the prosecution’s case which had undermined the overall fairness of the proceedings.

• Press release
• Press release (in Serbian)
• Factsheet: COVID-19

On 15 June 2026, the Grand Chamber panel of five judges decided to reject all six requests for referral to the Grand Chamber.

• Press release
• Cases pending before the Grand Chamber

Grand Chamber to examine case concerning alleged secret surveillance of Hungarian businessman.

The Chamber to which the case Knopp v. Hungary had been allocated has relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber.

The case concerns an 88-year-old Hungarian businessman who was under investigation in the United States of America (the USA) for alleged international racketeering. He fears that the Hungarian authorities, at the request of the US authorities, recorded his phone conversations and monitored his emails.

• Press release
• Country profile: Hungary

National court’s decision authorising applicant’s compulsory hospital admission to give birth had been reasonable in the circumstances.

In the case of C.P. v. Spain, the Court held that there had been no violation of the right to respect for private and family life.

The case concerned a woman’s compulsory admission to hospital to give birth pursuant to a judicial order, despite her wish to give birth at home, owing to a risk of foetal hypoxia and intrauterine foetal death.

The applicant had become pregnant in 2018 and had decided to give birth at home. In April 2019, when she was 42 weeks and two days pregnant, she attended a hospital check-up, during which a risk to both her and to her unborn child was identified. Following an urgent application by the hospital, a duty court ordered the applicant’s compulsory admission for labour to be induced if necessary.

The Court noted that the legal basis for the order had been extensively examined by the national courts. The Constitutional Court had found that, despite there being no specific legal provision for ordering compulsory admission to hospital for a birth classified as posing a risk to the life of the foetus, the legal framework relied on by the duty court had been reasonable and sufficient. The Constitutional Court had not reached that conclusion in an arbitrary or manifestly unforeseeable way, and that generally the national courts had interpreted and applied the law in an acceptable manner.

• Press release