23
Jul
2026
Jesus Pinhal v. Portugal
Need for fair balance between combating crime and right not to be tried twice for the same offence: Court finds no violation in case where applicant prosecuted in several sets of proceedings.
In the case of Jesus Pinhal v. Portugal the Court held that there had been no violation of the right not to be tried or punished twice.
The case concerned the right not to be tried or punished twice and known as the “ne bis in idem” principle.
The applicant had been a member and Vice-Chairman of the Banco Comercial Português bank (“the BCP”). Following a complaint, the Lisbon public prosecutor’s office, the Securities Market Commission (CMVM) and the Portuguese central bank (BdP) initiated proceedings against him for various criminal and administrative offences. Before the Court, the applicant argued that he had been tried three times for the same acts. The Court used this occasion to clarify the criteria to be applied in striking a fair balance between ensuring that all forms of crime were punished effectively and respect for the fundamental right not to be tried twice for the same acts.
Grande Oriente d’Italia v. Italy
Lack of sufficient safeguards in respect of a search and seizure measure ordered by Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry on combating the Mafia.
In the case of Grande Oriente d’Italia v. Italy the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to respect for the home.
The case concerned a search – ordered by a parliamentary commission of inquiry investigating the infiltration of mafia-type criminal organisations into Masonic lodges – of an Italian Masonic association’s premises, and the subsequent seizure of numerous paper and digital documents, in particular lists containing the names and personal data of more than six thousand individuals.
Having pointed out the discretion enjoyed by the States in the area of parliamentary autonomy, the Court found, however, that the interference with the applicant association’s right to respect for its home had not been accompanied by sufficient safeguards against abuse and arbitrariness, and had therefore not been “necessary in a democratic society”, since it had not had available to it any ex ante guarantee or ex post remedy.
'A Court for All': the Court launches its new project in the presence of Strasbourg’s Mayor
On 3 July 2026 the Court launched its A Court for All project, which will enable anyone interested to visit the Human Rights Building on the first Friday afternoon of every month, starting in September 2026.
Several guests were invited to the project’s launch, including the Mayor of Strasbourg, Catherine Trautmann – who had also attended, in the same capacity, the inauguration of the Human Rights Building on 29 June 1995.
In describing this new project, the President of the Court, Mattias Guyomar, stated “The task of ‘A Court for All’ is to be accessible not only to applicants and to examine the cases brought before it, but also to open up more generally and attempt to reach an audience beyond the sphere of its habitual interlocutors. It must provide information about what it does, in order to earn and maintain public trust”.
The Registrar of the Court, Marialena Tsirli, explained that she and the President had been inspired by the success of the Open Day event in September 2025, and had decided to make the Court accessible on a regular basis. A guided tour would be offered, so that anyone interested could feel welcome within its walls and understand how the Court’s work concerned them.
The Mayor of Strasbourg, Catherine Trautmann, said that returning to the Human Rights Building was a moving experience. She emphasised the building’s symbolism in the heart of the European district, and welcomed the initiative to open the Court’s doors on a monthly basis, noting that an active democracy presupposed open institutions.
Registration for the September visit will open on 8 August; the link will be available on the Court’s website. Given the limited number of places, registration will be on a “first come, first served” basis.
- Speeech by President Mattias Guyomar (in French only)
- Speech by the Registrar, Marialena Tsirli (in French only)
Vainik and Others v. Estonia
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.
Jesus Pinhal v. Portugal
Need for fair balance between combating crime and right not to be tried twice for the same offence: Court finds no violation in case where applicant prosecuted in several sets of proceedings.
In the case of Jesus Pinhal v. Portugal the Court held that there had been no violation of the right not to be tried or punished twice.
The case concerned the right not to be tried or punished twice and known as the “ne bis in idem” principle.
The applicant had been a member and Vice-Chairman of the Banco Comercial Português bank (“the BCP”). Following a complaint, the Lisbon public prosecutor’s office, the Securities Market Commission (CMVM) and the Portuguese central bank (BdP) initiated proceedings against him for various criminal and administrative offences. Before the Court, the applicant argued that he had been tried three times for the same acts. The Court used this occasion to clarify the criteria to be applied in striking a fair balance between ensuring that all forms of crime were punished effectively and respect for the fundamental right not to be tried twice for the same acts.
Grande Oriente d’Italia v. Italy
Lack of sufficient safeguards in respect of a search and seizure measure ordered by Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry on combating the Mafia.
In the case of Grande Oriente d’Italia v. Italy the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to respect for the home.
The case concerned a search – ordered by a parliamentary commission of inquiry investigating the infiltration of mafia-type criminal organisations into Masonic lodges – of an Italian Masonic association’s premises, and the subsequent seizure of numerous paper and digital documents, in particular lists containing the names and personal data of more than six thousand individuals.
Having pointed out the discretion enjoyed by the States in the area of parliamentary autonomy, the Court found, however, that the interference with the applicant association’s right to respect for its home had not been accompanied by sufficient safeguards against abuse and arbitrariness, and had therefore not been “necessary in a democratic society”, since it had not had available to it any ex ante guarantee or ex post remedy.
Judicial activities
16/07/26
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.
16/07/26
No legal basis for Russian authorities to deprive applicants of their ownership of plots of land in Sevastopol
In the case of Bazhenov and Others v. Russia and Ukraine, the Court held that there had been several violations of the Convention.
The case concerned the Russian authorities’ cancellation of the applicants’ titles to plots of land in Sevastopol, Crimea between 2015-2017. The plots had originally been transferred into private ownership by the Ukrainian authorities. The Russian authorities reclaimed them as public property on the basis that they were forest lands and as such should have never been privatised.
16/07/26
Death of Roma man following use of prone position by police – failure by authorities to protect life and effectively investigate use of force and potential discriminatory motives
In the case of S.T. v. the Czech Republic the Court held that there had been several violations of the Convention.
The case concerned the applicant’s complaints about the use of force against her brother, a Roma man who died in 2021 following a police intervention, and the investigation into the actions of the police officers involved.
10/07/26
European Court decides to hold a hearing on Ukrainian children from Crimean childcare institutions officially unaccounted for since 2014.
The ECHR has decided to hold a hearing on 22 September 2026 in the case Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union on behalf of ten Ukrainian children v. Russia.
The case concerns ten Ukrainian children who were living in childcare institutions in Crimea in 2014 when Russia asserted jurisdiction over the peninsula. According to the association (UHHRU) acting on their behalf, Russian nationality was imposed on the children and they were put up for adoption and may have been adopted. There has been no information on their whereabouts since 2014, despite the Ukrainian authorities’ repeated requests. UHHRU allege that this effectively amounts to the children’s enforced disappearance.
10/07/26
Notification to the French Government of case brought by Nicolas Sarkozy.
The ECHR has communicated to the Government of France the application Sarkozy v. France. This application is related to two other applications which have also been communicated to the Government: Herzog v. France and Ordre des avocats au barreau de Paris v. France.
The case concerns the use of transcripts from conversations between the applicant and his lawyer, recorded while their telephones were being tapped in the so-called “affaire des écoutes” (“telephonetapping case”).
09/07/26
Need for fair balance between combating crime and right not to be tried twice for the same offence: Court finds no violation in case where applicant prosecuted in several sets of proceedings.
In the case of Jesus Pinhal v. Portugal the Court held that there had been no violation of the right not to be tried or punished twice.
The case concerned the right not to be tried or punished twice and known as the “ne bis in idem” principle.
The applicant had been a member and Vice-Chairman of the Banco Comercial Português bank (“the BCP”). Following a complaint, the Lisbon public prosecutor’s office, the Securities Market Commission (CMVM) and the Portuguese central bank (BdP) initiated proceedings against him for various criminal and administrative offences. Before the Court, the applicant argued that he had been tried three times for the same acts. The Court used this occasion to clarify the criteria to be applied in striking a fair balance between ensuring that all forms of crime were punished effectively and respect for the fundamental right not to be tried twice for the same acts.
Press releases on other judgments and decisions
16/07/26
Transparency and outreach
On the agenda
Videos
