01
Sep
2026
Kavala v. Türkiye (no. 2)
The European Court of Human Rights holds that Türkiye must release Mr Kavala immediately and eliminate the consequences of his conviction
In the case of Kavala v. Türkiye (no. 2) the Court held that there had been several violations of the Convention.
The Court held that the respondent State was required to secure the applicant’s release at the earliest possible date, and that it was incumbent on it to eliminate the consequences of the measures taken against him. His criminal conviction was to be regarded, under Convention law, as null and void.
The case concerns the applicant’s detention after the judgment delivered by the ECHR in 2019 and the ensuing criminal proceedings in which he was sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment.
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.
Kavala v. Türkiye (no. 2)
The European Court of Human Rights holds that Türkiye must release Mr Kavala immediately and eliminate the consequences of his conviction
In the case of Kavala v. Türkiye (no. 2) the Court held that there had been several violations of the Convention.
The Court held that the respondent State was required to secure the applicant’s release at the earliest possible date, and that it was incumbent on it to eliminate the consequences of the measures taken against him. His criminal conviction was to be regarded, under Convention law, as null and void.
The case concerns the applicant’s detention after the judgment delivered by the ECHR in 2019 and the ensuing criminal proceedings in which he was sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment.
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.
Judicial activities
27/08/26
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.
25/08/26
The European Court of Human Rights holds that Türkiye must release Mr Kavala immediately and eliminate the consequences of his conviction
In the case of Kavala v. Türkiye (no. 2) the Court held that there had been several violations of the Convention.
The Court held that the respondent State was required to secure the applicant’s release at the earliest possible date, and that it was incumbent on it to eliminate the consequences of the measures taken against him. His criminal conviction was to be regarded, under Convention law, as null and void.
The case concerns the applicant’s detention after the judgment delivered by the ECHR in 2019 and the ensuing criminal proceedings in which he was sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment.
29/07/26
Forthcoming Grand Chamber ruling
The Court will be delivering a Grand Chamber ruling in the case of Kavala v. Türkiye (no. 2) on 25 August 2026.
The case concerns the applicant’s detention after the judgment delivered by the ECHR in 2019 and the ensuing criminal proceedings in which he was sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment.
- Press release
- Webcast of the hearing (25/03/2026)
- Country profile: Türkiye
20/07/26
Swiss authorities’ overly formalistic approach to complaints about lack of access to vegan diet while in detention breached European Convention.
In the case of G.K. and A.S. v. Switzerland the Court held that there had been violations of the right to freedom of thought and conscience and of the right to an effective remedy. The case concerned the failure to provide the applicants with a vegan diet while they had been in the care of the State. The first applicant had been in pre-trial detention, while the second had been confined in a psychiatric hospital. Despite making requests, the applicants did not receive entirely vegan diets. However, no formal administrative “decisions” had been taken which could have been appealed against under national law and which would have enabled the Swiss courts to examine the merits of their complaints.
The Court found that the Swiss authorities’ reaction to the applicants’ case had been overly formalistic. As a result, the legal avenues the applicants had used were ineffective in practice. It also meant that the applicants’ complaints regarding access to a vegan diet, in keeping with their ethical beliefs, while in the care of the authorities, had never been examined at national level.
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.
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.
Transparency and outreach
On the agenda
Videos
