Grand Chamber inadmissibility decision concerning Italy
The Court has declared inadmissible the applicant’s complaints in the case of Mansouri v. Italy.
The case concerned the lawfulness of the conditions in which a Tunisian national had been confined on board a ship responsible for returning him to his country of origin on the ground that he did not have a visa for entry to Italy.
The applicant, who had been issued with a refusal-of-entry order by the border police, relied on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.
Regarding the complaints under Article 5 of the Convention, the Court found that the applicant had not exhausted available and effective remedies under domestic law. It also found that the applicant’s general accommodation conditions on board the ship had not attained the minimum level of severity required for his confinement to engage Article 3 of the Convention.
Chamber News
In the case of L. and Others v. France the Court held that there had been several violations of the Convention.
In each of the three applications, the applicants complained that French law and practice did not provide effective protection against rape and that their status as minors and the vulnerable situations in which they had been at the time of the events complained of had not adequately been taken into account. The applications mainly concerned the respondent State’s compliance with its duty (“positive obligations”) under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, in their substantive and procedural aspects.
The Court considered that the investigating authorities and the domestic courts had failed to protect the applicants, who had complained of acts of rape and had been aged only 13, 14 and 16 at the relevant dates, in an adequate manner. It also considered that the domestic courts had not properly assessed the impact of all the circumstances surrounding the events; nor had they taken sufficient account, in evaluating whether the applicants had been capable of understanding and of giving consent, of the particularly vulnerable situations in which they had found themselves, particularly in view of their ages.
In the case of Sytnyk v. Ukraine the Court held in particular that there had been violations of the right to a fair trial and of the right to respect for private life.
The case concerned proceedings brought against the applicant, a high-level public official in the field of anti-corruption, for accepting gifts – specifically holidays – in breach of the Code of Administrative Offences. He was found guilty in 2019 and his name was included, indefinitely, in a public register of corrupt officials.
The Court found that there had been serious shortcomings in the judicial proceedings and that the applicant’s inclusion in the register of corrupt officials had had a disproportionate impact on his private life as it continued and would continue to cast a shadow over his reputation and undermine his professional credibility. Moreover, it found that the focus in the case had not been to prevent corruption in the public service, but had been more of a personal attack on his integrity.
In the case of of Van Slooten v. the Netherlands the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to respect for family life.
The case concerned the termination of the applicant’s parental authority over her daughter, who had been placed in foster care.
In the case of Bădescu and Others v. Romania the Court held that there had been no violation of the principle of no punishment without law.
The case concerned a lack of foreseeability in the criminal law alleged by the applicants, who were judges who had been convicted of abuse of office.
In the case of Backović v. Serbia (no. 2) the Court held that there had been no violation of the freedom of expression.
The case concerned a fine imposed on the applicant – a lawyer – for contempt of court in election-related proceedings, in which he sought an acknowledgement that he, and six other individuals, were still city councillors. Among other things, he had called the decision “a supreme nonsense” and the judges in the case “legal geniuses”.
The Court noted that the terms used by the applicant – such as “legal giants” and legal “ingenuity” – had ridiculed the professionalism of the judge in question and the court. It found that sufficient reasons had been given for the fine, and it had not been disproportionate.
Delivered Judgments and Decisions
Grand Chamber News
The Court has accepted the referral to the Grand Chamber of the case Grande Oriente d’Italia v. Italy.
The case concerned a search of a Masonic association’s premises ordered in the context of a parliamentary inquiry into the Mafia. Paper and digital documents, in particular a list of names and personal data of more than 6,000 members of the association, were seized during the search.
The Court has also decided to reject a request to refer ten other cases.
On 28 April 2025 a panel of 5 judges will examine eleven Grand Chamber referral requests.
Hearings
The Court will be holding a Grand Chamber hearing in the case of Yasak v. Türkiye on 7 May 2025.
The case concerns the applicant’s conviction for membership of an armed terrorist organisation described by the Turkish authorities as the Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure.
Communication of cases
The Court has communicated to the Government of the Russian Federation the application Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union on behalf of ten Ukrainian children v. Russia and requested that they submit their observations.
The case concerns ten Ukrainian children who were in childcare in Crimea in 2014 when Russia asserted jurisdiction over the peninsula. According to the association (UHHRU) acting on their behalf, Russian nationality was forced 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.
The Court has communicated to the Government of the Russian Federation the application Ukraine v. Russia (IX) and requested that they submit their observations.
The case concerns the Ukrainian Government’s allegations of political-assassination operations ordered by the Russian Federation and attempts to cover them up. Among the assassinations or attempted assassinations cited by the Ukrainian authorities: Umar Israilov (in Austria); Vladimir Kara-Murza, Alexei Navalny and Anna Politkovskaya (in Russia); and, Alexander Litvinenko and Sergei Skripal (in the United Kingdom).
Decisions
The Court has declared inadmissible the application in the case of Călin Georgescu v. Romania.
The case concerned the annulment by the Constitutional Court of Romania of the presidential elections of 2024, for which the applicant was a candidate.
The Court held that in the light of the constitutional structure of Romania, there was no indication that the powers of the President of Romania are such as to make that office part of the “legislature” of the respondent State, within the meaning of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, guaranteeing the right to free elections. Therefore, it rejected the complaint raised in that respect.
- Press release
- Press release (in Romanian)
The Court has declared inadmissible the application in the case of Kotnik and Jukič v. Slovenia.
The case concerned the emergency measures taken by the Bank of Slovenia in 2013 and 2014 to protect the financial system. As a result of the measures, subordinated bonds and shares belonging to the applicants had been voided without compensation.
The applicants complained that the Slovenian authorities had failed to implement a European Court judgment of 2021 in their favour. That judgment had ruled that it was essential that former holders of cancelled shares or bonds had a legal avenue to effectively challenge the interference with their property rights.
The Court noted that in 2024 a new law had come into force allowing former holders of cancelled bonds or shares to bring legal actions against the Bank of Slovenia, with the possibility of damages being awarded. It therefore rejected the applicants’ complaints because they had not yet used all the legal avenues available at national level.
Other News
The Court has decided to issue an interim measure in the case Đorović and Others v. Serbia.
The case concerns the alleged use of a sonic weapon for crowd control by the authorities at demonstrations and concern that it could be used at future demonstrations. The applicants had requested that the Court issue an interim measure that the Serbian authorities would (i) prevent use of sonic weapons in such circumstances; (ii) prevent criminal prosecution of those who take part in public debate on the use of a sonic weapon on 15 March 2025; and (iii) conduct an effective investigation into the allegations that a sonic weapon had been used.
- Press release
- Press release (in Serbian)
- Factsheet: Interim measures
- More info
The Court has elected Mattias Guyomar (France) as President of the Court. He will succeed Marko Bošnjak and will take up office on 30 May 2025.
The Judge elected in respect of Armenia, Vahe Grigoryan, was formally sworn in in the Court's Main Hearing Room.
On 25 April 2025, Momo Koprivica, the Deputy Prime Minister of Montenegro for Political System, Justice and Anti-Corruption, visited the Court and was received by President Marko Bošnjak. Ivana Jelić, Vice-President of the Court and Judge elected in respect of Montenegro, and Marialena Tsirli, Registrar of the Court, also attended the meeting.