The ECtHR held a hearing in the case KlimaSeniorinnen v Switzerland. It is one of the first gender-based climate cases worldwide. The case offers novel perspectives on a range of issues. Crucially, it highlights new potential avenues for standing in human rights cases and pinpoints how age, health, gender, and climate change intersect.
Bei Fällen aus dem LGBTIQ*-Themenkreis vor dem Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (EGMR) lässt sich ein gewisses Muster erkennen: In dem jeweils ersten Beschwerdefall (sei es das Adoptionsrecht für homosexuelle Personen, sei es die Frage der Anerkennung der Geschlechtsidentität von trans* Personen), erkennt der EGMR zunächst keine Verletzung eines Konventionsrechts an. Häufig erklärt er aber auch, dass diese Einschätzung sich ändern kann. So könnte es auch bei der Frage des Personenstatus von inter* Personen kommen.
Ein Märchenbuch für Kinder, in dem gleichgeschlechtliche Beziehungen dargestellt werden, (vorübergehend) aus dem Verkehr zu ziehen und es anschließend als „schädlich für Kinder unter 14 Jahre“ zu kennzeichnen, verstößt gegen das in Art. 10 EMRK gewährleistete Recht auf freie Meinungsäußerung. Dies hat die Große Kammer des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte (EGMR) in ihrer richtungsweisenden Entscheidung Macatė v. Lithuania festgestellt. Der Gerichtshof betonte außerdem, dass die gleiche und gegenseitige Anerkennung von Personen unterschiedlicher sexueller Orientierungen der gesamten Konvention inhärent ist.
In Fedotova and others v Russia issued on 17 January 2023, the ECtHR held that Russia had breached its positive obligation to secure the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention by failing to provide any form of legal recognition and protection for same sex couples. The ground-breaking aspect of the judgment is the clear rejection by the Court of the justifications advanced by the Contracting State.
On 17 January 2023, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights ruled in Fedotova v Russia that the absence of any legal recognition and protection for same-sex couples amounts to a violation of Art. 8 of the Convention. For 30 Member States of the Council of Europe (CoE), this judgment changes nothing since their legal orders already allow same-sex couples to enter into marriage or into other forms of legally recognised relationships. For the remaining countries, however, the Fedotova judgment amounts to an external judicial pressure to change their legal landscape in a politically very sensitive area of LGBT+ rights. Fedotova is probably the most political judgment of all times.
Last week, the ECtHR ruled in Spasov, for the first time, that there was a 'denial of justice' and thus a violation of Article 6(1) ECHR due to a manifest error of law by a national court regarding the interpretation and application of EU law. A Romanian court had convicted Mr Spasov, the owner and captain of a Bulgarian-flagged vessel, of illegal fishing inside Romania’s exclusive economic zone. Spasov is an important principled judgment that further intertwines the EU and ECHR legal systems.
Russia’s justified expulsion from the Council of Europe after the beginning of the full-scale military invasion in Ukraine continues to pose problems for the European Court of Human Rights and the European Convention machinery in general. Even though Russia remained bound by the Convention until 16 September 2022, a number of decisions in Moscow, but also in Strasbourg, made matters complicated. Especially processing the outstanding 17,000 cases and enforcing those judgments now require innovative solutions.
On 11 November, the European Court of Human Rights published its decision in a case initiated eight years ago, which found that the Hungarian parliamentary electoral system's regulations on the representation of national minorities in parliament violates the right to free elections (Article 3 of the 1st Protocol to the ECHR, Bakirdzi and E.C. v. Hungary). The plaintiffs claimed that the Electoral Act of 2011 was unlawful on three points: the secrecy of the vote, the real election and the preferential quota for minority representation. In its judgment, the Court found in favour of the applicants on all three points and ordered the Hungarian State to pay damages, putting an end to a decade-long violation of voting right. The following analysis is not primarily intended to provide a detailed description of the judgment itself, but to review the unlawful situation and the necessary actions resulting from the judgment.
Amongst the ECtHR jurisprudence giving rise to political disgruntlement in the United Kingdom have been judgments on extradition and deportation. Attempts to remove individuals from the UK through one of these avenues have occasionally been frustrated on human rights grounds. In the context of the UK government’s ill-disguised hostility to human rights the Grand Chamber on 3 November issued Sanchez-Sanchez v. UK (App.no. 22854/20). The case considered the application of article 3 of the ECHR prohibiting torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment where an accused drug trafficker was sought by way of extradition by the United States where he faced the possibility of an irreducible life sentence of imprisonment.
After almost four years under unchanged detention conditions in the high-security prison Belmarsh, Julian Assange is facing yet another challenge. The upcoming decision of the High Court of England and Wales might ultimately determine whether Julian Assange can be extradited to the United States where he would face up to 175 years in prison if convicted on all 18 charges. If the High Court concludes that the first-instance proceedings should not be reopened, legal recourse in the United Kingdom would be exhausted. Many voices are therefore pinning their hopes on the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters