ECHR

• 65 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.

Seriously deficient investigation into conscript’s death while on duty

In the case of Margaryan v. Armenia the Court held that there had been violations of the right to life/investigation and of the right to an effective remedy.

The case concerned the death of a conscript while on duty. He had been found in a trench near to his sentry post, with a gunshot injury to his chest.

The ECHR found that the investigation had not provided a plausible explanation for the conscript’s death. The authorities’ conclusion that he had taken his own life had mainly been based on a posthumous psychiatric report referring to witness statements about his “strange behaviour”, despite that being in contradiction with his military superiors’ assessments of him while he had been alive. The authorities had therefore closed the investigation on the basis of what could be described as hastily reached conclusions, without having seriously examined any other possible scenario.

The Court also found that the conscript’s father, the applicant in this case, had had no legal avenue in Armenia to establish State liability for the death of his son, nor claim compensation.

The Court held that Armenia was to pay the applicant 50,000 euros in respect of nonpecuniary damage.

• Press release

Failure to protect vulnerable man with schizophrenia from unnecessary use of force or to effectively investigate his complaints

In the case of Strashunskyy v. Ukraine the ECHR held that there had been two violations of the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment/investigation.

The case concerned a complaint by the applicant, a vulnerable individual diagnosed with schizophrenia, about injuries he had sustained when being transferred from a Staterun boarding house to a psychiatric hospital.

The Court found that the investigation into the applicant’s complaint had not been effective. In particular, an expert medical assessment to determine how his injuries had been sustained had not been obtained. Nor had the authorities clarified whether the staff members responsible for his transfer had been trained to deal with vulnerable individuals.

The Court also found that the authorities had failed to demonstrate that the force used against the applicant had been strictly necessary or that he had been sufficiently protected by those responsible for looking after him. He had sustained multiple injuries in circumstances which had not been shown to have either been unavoidable or managed in a manner consistent with the State’s obligation to protect his physical integrity and dignity.

The Court held that Ukraine was to pay the applicant 7,000 euros in respect of nonpecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 in respect of costs and expenses.

• Press release

On 21 September 2026 a panel of five judges will examine twelve Grand Chamber referral requests.

• Press release
• Cases pending before the Grand Chamber

No violation of the Convention in refusing residence permits for children born from polygamy

In the case of A.A. v. the Netherlands the Court held that there had been no violation of the right to respect for private and family life.

The case concerned the Dutch authorities’ refusal of the applicant’s request for residence permits for five of his minor children, born of his polygamous marriages in Yemen.

The Court found that the assessment of the Dutch authorities had struck a fair balance between the interests of the applicant and those of the State. It underlined the close connection between immigration policy and considerations of public order and reiterated that, in establishing an immigration policy taking into consideration family ties, a State cannot be required to give recognition to polygamous marriages which are in conflict with their own legal order.

• Press release

No shortcomings in Latvian authorities’ response to allegations of forced labour and servitude

In the case of A.S. v. Latvia the Court held that there had been no violation of the prohibition of slavery and forced labour.

The case concerned the applicant’s allegations that she had been subjected to servitude or, alternatively, to forced or compulsory labour while working on a dairy farm. The operator of the farm was acquitted of charges of human trafficking.

The Court found that the applicant’s complaint had been taken seriously by the national authorities. It had been thoroughly investigated and examined at three levels of jurisdiction. The authorities had taken a significant number of investigative steps to secure the relevant evidence, and they had not failed to pursue any obvious line of inquiry. The investigation had been prompt and thorough and the applicant had been legally represented throughout. The Court did not find any significant flaws capable of undermining the proceedings’ ability to establish the circumstances of the case or the identity of those responsible.

• Press release