The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in charge of monitoring compliance with ECtHR rulings, will now deliberate as to how to handle Turkey’s now judicially confirmed failure to release Kavala. Suspension of Turkey’s membership in the Council of Europe, is an option that is on the table, at least theoretically. The Kavala case is larger than Kavala himself though.
Nun hat also auch der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte in Sachen Tarifeinheitsgesetz entschieden. Wie zuvor schon das BVerfG kommt er zum Ergebnis, dass der neue § 4a TVG in Menschenrechte eingreift, kann sich aber nicht dazu durchringen, Deutschland hierfür zu verurteilen. Und wie bereits im BVerfG haben zwei Richter:innen ihren Widerspruch in einem Sondervotum formuliert.
Verein KlimaSeniorinnen Schweiz and Others v. Switzerland is the first case of climate change litigation before the ECtHR where all domestic remedies have been exhausted. The Chamber to which the case had been allocated relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber. This reinforces the potential of the case to become a landmark ruling determining the Court’s approach to climate change.
Last month, the ECtHR ruled in the case of Johansen v. Denmark on the deprivation of nationality and expulsion for terrorist offenses. It rejected the applicant’s complaint of an infringement of Art. 8 ECHR. The decision underlines the Court’s reluctance to engage with issues raised by deprivations of nationality in terrorism cases. Instead of setting out clear limits on such measures based on the rights guaranteed by the Convention, the Court does not seem to be willing to interfere with measures related to national security, no matter how drastic the consequences for the individual.
With the judgment in A.A. and others v. North Macedonia, the European Court of Human Rights further branches out the creative exception to the prohibition of collective expulsions and turns it into an obligation to offer a place to apply for asylum somewhere at the border. But not only are these legal access points for asylum applications often de facto restricted, the ever more creative exceptions to rights of the Convention and its Protocols threatens the credibility and authority of the Court.
Russia left the Council of Europe on 16 March 2022. The European Court of Human Rights declared that Russia will remain a Party to the Convention until 16 September 2022. This resolution is inconsistent with applicable termination rules. But even beyond technicalities, it reveals fundamental defects in the design of the ECHR denunciation clause. Forced withdrawal and expulsion from the Council, as mechanisms to sanction severe violations of human rights, should not have the effect of relieving the delinquent State of its conventional human rights obligations.
Nur wenige Tage nach seinem Beginn hat der russische Angriff auf die Ukraine gleich mehrere internationale Gerichte erreicht. Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (EGMR) hat bereits gehandelt. Auf einen Antrag der Ukraine hat er am 1. März 2022 vorläufige Maßnahmen seiner Verfahrensordnung ergriffen. Die Entscheidung des EGMR vom 1. März 2022 ist bemerkenswert und ernüchternd zugleich.
On 28 February 2022, Ukraine lodged a request for interim measures against Russia before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Ukraine referred to “massive human rights violations being committed by the Russian troops in the course of the military aggression against the sovereign territory of Ukraine”. Within one day of the Ukrainian request, the Strasbourg Court granted “urgent interim measures” under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
On 3 February 2022, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued a judgment in the case of Advance Pharma sp.z o.o. against Poland. This is another judgment on the irregularities in the appointments of judges to the Polish Supreme Court, in which the ECtHR confirmed its previous rulings. But it also touched on several implications of its conclusions for the Polish judiciary. It suggests that they may be relevant for ordinary courts in Poland as well and that Polish authorities should ensure the possibility to reopen proceedings in certain situations.
On 3 February 2022, the European Court of Human Rights issued its judgment in Advance Pharma v Poland and addressed the question of whether an applicant is required to exhaust domestic remedies that suffer from systemic deficiencies for the first time. While the Court does not yet give a clear answer to this particularly sensitive issue, this case is another reminder of just how difficult it is for the Convention system to engage with countries that structurally impair their judicial system.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters