{"id":14705,"date":"2026-01-21T09:31:42","date_gmt":"2026-01-21T07:31:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2026\/01\/review-of-echr-decisions-for-21-01-2026\/"},"modified":"2026-01-21T09:31:42","modified_gmt":"2026-01-21T07:31:42","slug":"review-of-echr-decisions-for-21-01-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2026\/01\/review-of-echr-decisions-for-21-01-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of ECHR decisions for 21\/01\/2026"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

CASE OF ALTINTOP AND OTHERS v. T\u00dcRK\u0130YE<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Alt\u0131ntop and Others v. T\u00fcrkiye, concerning restrictions imposed by Turkish prison authorities on weekend visits and telephone calls for prisoners, particularly affecting their contact with school-age children. The applicants, who were detained for terrorism-related offenses following the 2016 coup attempt, argued that these restrictions violated their right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court also examined a complaint from one applicant regarding the registration and storage of his private correspondence in the National Judicial Network System (UYAP). The ECtHR found that the restrictions on weekend visits and telephone calls, as well as the registration of private correspondence, violated Article 8 of the Convention. The Court dismissed the government’s objections regarding victim status and non-compliance with the six-month rule. As a result, the Court awarded each applicant 1,500 euros for non-pecuniary damage and granted additional amounts to some applicants for costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

The decision is structured into several key parts: a presentation of the facts common to all applicants, additional facts specific to one application, the Court\u2019s assessment (including joinder of the applications, admissibility, and merits), and the application of Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction). The Court first addresses the joinder of the applications due to their similar subject matter. Then, it examines the alleged violation of Article 8 concerning restrictions on weekend visits and\/or telephone calls, followed by an assessment of the admissibility criteria, including objections raised by the government regarding the applicants’ victim status and compliance with the six-month rule for lodging applications. Finally, the Court assesses the merits of the complaints, referencing its previous case law on similar issues, and determines whether there has been a violation of Article 8. The decision also addresses the alleged violation of Article 8 concerning the registration and storage of private correspondence, again assessing admissibility and merits based on previous rulings.<\/p>\n

The most important provisions of this decision are those concerning the violation of Article 8 of the Convention due to restrictions on family visits and the registration of private correspondence. The Court reiterates its stance from previous cases, emphasizing that blanket restrictions based solely on prison capacity or security concerns, without considering the individual’s right to family life, are not Convention-compliant. Additionally, the finding that the registration and storage of private correspondence on the UYAP system is a violation of Article 8, as it is not considered “in accordance with the law,” is significant. This decision reinforces the need for domestic legal frameworks to provide sufficient safeguards against arbitrary interferences with prisoners’ rights to family life and privacy.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF BEKIROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Here’s a breakdown of the Bekirov and Others v. Russia decision:<\/p>\n

**1. Essence of the Decision:**<\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Russia violated the rights of Crimean residents who participated in peaceful assemblies between 2014 and 2017. These residents, mostly of Crimean Tatar origin, were protesting the Russian occupation of Crimea or expressing support for Ukraine. The Court found that Russia’s actions, including administrative proceedings and detentions, breached Articles 5, 6, and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court emphasized that Russian law, as applied in Crimea, cannot be considered “law” under the Convention because it was implemented in contravention of international humanitarian law. The decision underscores Russia’s administrative practice of suppressing pro-Ukrainian sentiment and intimidating the Crimean Tatar community. The Court awarded compensation to the applicants for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.<\/p>\n

**2. Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\n

* **Subject Matter:** The case concerns administrative proceedings against Crimean residents for participating in peaceful assemblies after Russia’s occupation in 2014.
\n * **Preliminary Issues:** The Court joined the applications due to their similar subject matter and affirmed its jurisdiction over the case, as the events occurred before Russia ceased being a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022. It also reiterated that Russia exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction over Crimea from February 27, 2014.
\n * **Government’s Failure to Participate:** The Court noted the Russian Government’s lack of participation but proceeded with the examination.
\n * **Six-Month Time Limit:** Complaints in applications nos. 39983\/18 and 41321\/18 regarding unlawful arrest were rejected for being lodged outside the six-month time limit.
\n * **Violation of Articles 10 and 11:** The Court found that the measures taken against the applicants, based on Russian law, were not “prescribed by law” under Article 11, leading to a violation of freedom of peaceful assembly.
\n * **Other Alleged Violations:** The Court addressed complaints under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (unlawful detention) and Article 6 \u00a7 1 (fair trial), finding violations based on its established case-law and the illegitimacy of “courts” operating under Russian law in Crimea.
\n * **Remaining Complaints:** Additional complaints under Articles 7, 8, 13, 14, and 18, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, were deemed unnecessary to examine.
\n * **Application of Article 41:** The Court awarded pecuniary damages for administrative fines paid and non-pecuniary damages for the violations suffered. It also awarded costs and expenses to some applicants.<\/p>\n

**3. Main Provisions for Use:**<\/p>\n

* **Extraterritorial Jurisdiction:** The reaffirmation of Russia’s extraterritorial jurisdiction in Crimea is crucial for future cases concerning human rights violations in the region.
\n * **Illegitimacy of Russian Law:** The ruling that Russian law in Crimea is not “law” under the Convention sets a precedent for challenging the legality of Russian actions in the occupied territory.
\n * **Administrative Practice:** The acknowledgment of an administrative practice aimed at suppressing pro-Ukrainian sentiments and intimidating Crimean Tatars highlights the systematic nature of human rights abuses.
\n * **Compensation:** The awarding of compensation provides a tangible remedy for victims of rights violations and may serve as a basis for similar claims in the future.
\n * **Violation of Article 6:** The finding that tribunals operating in Crimea under Russian legislation are not “established by law” within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

**** This decision is particularly relevant for Ukraine as it addresses human rights violations in Crimea following its occupation by Russia and supports the rights of Ukrainian citizens and Crimean Tatars living under occupation.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF GASIMOV v. AZERBAIJAN<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Here’s an analysis of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Gasimov v. Azerbaijan:<\/p>\n

1. **Essence of the Decision:**<\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Azerbaijan in violation of Article 5 \u00a7 1 (right to liberty and security) and Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned Mr. Gasimov, an Azerbaijani citizen of Russian origin, who was convicted of espionage. The Court found that Mr. Gasimov was unlawfully detained for several days without any official record of his detention. Furthermore, the Court determined that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair due to the domestic courts’ failure to properly address allegations of ill-treatment and coerced statements, reliance on questionable evidence, and denial of effective legal assistance.<\/p>\n

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\n

* The judgment begins by outlining the background of the case, including the charges against Mr. Gasimov, his complaints of unlawful detention, and the trial proceedings.
\n * It then details the applicant’s complaints under Article 5 \u00a7 1 (unlawful detention) and Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 (unfair trial).
\n * The Court assesses the admissibility of the complaints, declaring those under Article 5 \u00a7 1 and Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3 admissible, and the complaint under Article 3 (ill-treatment) inadmissible due to the applicant’s failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
\n * The Court analyzes the facts and arguments related to the alleged violations of Article 5 \u00a7 1, finding that Mr. Gasimov was indeed detained unlawfully and unacknowledged for a period.
\n * The Court then examines the complaints under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 3, finding that the domestic courts failed to adequately address the applicant’s arguments, relied on questionable evidence, and deprived him of effective legal assistance, leading to an unfair trial.
\n * Finally, the Court addresses Article 41 (just satisfaction), awarding Mr. Gasimov compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs.<\/p>\n

3. **Main Provisions for Use:**<\/p>\n

* **Unacknowledged Detention:** The Court reaffirms that unrecorded and unacknowledged detention is a grave violation of Article 5 of the Convention.
\n * **Fair Trial Concerns:** The judgment highlights the importance of domestic courts properly addressing allegations of ill-treatment and coerced statements, ensuring the reliability of evidence, and providing effective legal assistance to the accused.
\n * **Burden of Proof:** The Court emphasizes that when serious questions arise regarding an applicant’s complaints, the government must provide convincing evidence to rebut the applicant’s version of events.
\n * **Ineffective Legal Assistance:** The decision underscores that the right to legal assistance must be effective, not merely formal, and that the lack of effective assistance during crucial stages of proceedings can violate Article 6.<\/p>\n

This decision serves as a reminder of the fundamental importance of upholding the rights to liberty and a fair trial, and it provides guidance on how these rights should be protected in practice.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF KISS v. HUNGARY<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Kiss v. Hungary:<\/p>\n

1. **Essence of the Decision:**<\/p>\n

The case concerns a Hungarian applicant who complained about irregularities in the proceedings related to the extension of his interim compulsory treatment in a mental health institution. The Court found that Hungary violated Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights because the applicant was not given the opportunity to see and comment on the prosecutor’s request to extend his treatment before the court made its decision. Additionally, the Court found that the appeal process was excessively long, further violating Article 5 \u00a7 4, which guarantees the right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of detention.<\/p>\n

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\n

* **Subject Matter of the Case:** Defines the core issue as procedural flaws in extending the applicant’s compulsory mental health treatment.
\n * **The Facts:** Summarizes the timeline of the applicant’s arrest, initial detention, the order for interim compulsory treatment, and subsequent extensions. It highlights the disagreement between the applicant and the government regarding the date the appeal was lodged.
\n * **The Law:** Focuses on Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention, which guarantees the right to have the lawfulness of detention decided swiftly by a court.
\n * **The Court\u2019s Assessment:**
\n * **Right to Adversarial Proceedings:** The Court emphasizes the importance of adversarial proceedings, stating that the applicant should have been informed of and allowed to discuss the prosecutor’s request. It references previous case law (Lietzow v. Germany, Bandur v. Hungary) to support this principle. The Court dismisses the government’s argument that the applicant could challenge the prosecutor’s application on appeal, stating that the initial defect in the first-instance proceedings was not remedied.
\n * **Alleged Lack of Speedy Judicial Review:** The Court reiterates the need for “speediness” in reviewing the lawfulness of detention, referencing Ilnseher v. Germany. It notes the delay of 76 days in examining the applicant’s appeal and finds this incompatible with Article 5 \u00a7 4.
\n * **Application of Article 41 of the Convention:** The Court declines to award damages because the applicant did not properly submit a claim for just satisfaction.
\n * **Operative Provisions:**
\n * Declares the application admissible.
\n * Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention on account of a breach of the right to adversarial proceedings.
\n * Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 \u00a7 4 of the Convention on account of the lack of speediness of the review of the lawfulness of the detention.<\/p>\n

3. **Main Provisions for Practical Use:**<\/p>\n

* **Right to Adversarial Proceedings:** The decision reinforces the principle that individuals facing deprivation of liberty, including compulsory mental health treatment, have the right to be informed of and challenge the arguments and evidence presented against them. This means that a person must have the opportunity to see and comment on documents like a prosecutor’s request to extend treatment before a court makes a decision.
\n * **Speedy Judicial Review:** The judgment highlights the importance of swiftness in appeal proceedings related to detention. Delays exceeding three to four weeks are likely to be problematic unless justified by exceptional circumstances.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF MEKVABISHVILI v. GEORGIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Here’s a breakdown of the Mekvabishvili v. Georgia decision:<\/p>\n

1. **Essence of the Decision:**
\n The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Georgia in violation of Articles 6 \u00a7 1 (right to a fair trial) and 11 (freedom of assembly) of the Convention. The case concerned the administrative conviction of Mr. Giorgi Mekvabishvili for disobeying police orders during a protest. The Court held that the domestic courts failed to provide sufficient reasoning for the conviction and improperly shifted the burden of proof onto the applicant. Additionally, the ECtHR found that the dispersal of the demonstration and the applicant’s subsequent arrest were not justified, thus violating his right to freedom of assembly.<\/p>\n

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
\n * **Background:** Sets the stage by describing the protest against a controversial draft law and the applicant’s arrest for disobeying police orders.
\n * **Proceedings Against the Applicant:** Details the administrative proceedings, including the court’s decisions, the evidence presented, and the applicant’s arguments.
\n * **The Court\u2019s Assessment:**
\n * **Article 6 Violation:** The Court found a violation because the domestic courts relied solely on uncorroborated police testimony and failed to address the lawfulness of the police orders, effectively requiring the applicant to prove his innocence.
\n * **Article 11 Violation:** The Court determined that the dispersal of the demonstration and the applicant’s arrest were disproportionate, as there was no evidence he engaged in violence or intended to obstruct parliamentary activity.
\n * **Article 41 Application:** The Court awarded the applicant EUR 665 for pecuniary damage (the fine he paid) and EUR 1,600 for non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n

3. **Main Provisions and Importance:**
\n * **Burden of Proof:** The decision reinforces the principle that in criminal (or quasi-criminal) proceedings, the burden of proof rests on the prosecution, and the accused should not be required to prove their innocence.
\n * **Lawfulness of Orders:** The Court emphasized that domestic courts must provide specific and explicit reasoning when assessing the lawfulness of police orders, especially when that lawfulness is a key element of the offense.
\n * **Freedom of Assembly:** The decision underscores the importance of freedom of assembly and the need for authorities to demonstrate relevant and sufficient grounds for any interference with this right, such as dispersing a protest.
\n * **Evidence Assessment:** The Court highlighted the need for independent and direct evidence, especially when the case relies heavily on police testimony.<\/p>\n

This decision serves as a reminder of the importance of fair trial guarantees and the protection of freedom of assembly, particularly in the context of protests and potential clashes with law enforcement.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF POGHOSYAN v. ARMENIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

This is a judgment regarding the revision of a previous decision in the case of Poghosyan v. Armenia. The initial judgment, delivered on March 26, 2024, found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention due to defamation proceedings against the applicant, Ms. Tamara Poghosyan. However, the Armenian government requested a revision after discovering that Ms. Poghosyan had passed away on August 28, 2018, before the judgment was adopted and that she had no heirs. The Court decided to revise its earlier judgment and strike the application out of its list of cases, as there was no one to pursue the application on behalf of the deceased and no special circumstances requiring further examination.<\/p>\n

The structure of the decision includes a procedural overview, outlining the initial application, the original judgment, and the government’s request for revision. It then presents “The Law,” which details the legal reasoning behind the decision to revise the judgment, referencing Rule 80 \u00a7 1 of the Rules of Court, which allows for revision upon the discovery of a decisive fact unknown to the Court at the time of the original judgment. The decision also cites previous cases where applications were struck out due to the applicant’s death and the absence of heirs. The final section states the Court’s decision to revise the judgment and strike the application from its list of cases. This decision marks a change from the previous judgment, which had found a violation of Article 10 and awarded damages to the applicant.<\/p>\n

The most important provision of this decision is the application of Rule 80 \u00a7 1 of the Rules of Court, which allows for the revision of a judgment based on newly discovered facts that could have a decisive influence on the outcome. In this case, the applicant’s death, unknown to the Court at the time of the original judgment, was deemed such a fact. This decision also reinforces the Court’s practice of striking out applications when the applicant has died, and no heirs or close relatives wish to continue the case, unless there are special circumstances related to human rights that warrant further examination.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

CASE OF ALTINTOP AND OTHERS v. T\u00dcRK\u0130YE The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) delivered a judgment in the case of Alt\u0131ntop and Others v. T\u00fcrkiye, concerning restrictions imposed by Turkish prison authorities on weekend visits and telephone calls for prisoners, particularly affecting their contact with school-age children. The applicants, who were detained for terrorism-related…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[129],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14705","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-echr-decisions","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14705","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14705"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14705\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14705"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14705"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14705"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}