European rights court weighs 12 referral requests before 22 rulings

The European Court of Human Rights will examine 12 requests to refer judgments to its Grand Chamber on 2 November and deliver 22 judgments and decisions on 3 and 5 November, the court's registrar said in two press releases issued on 26 and 28 October.

The panel notice, ECHR 266 (2026), lists 6 requests from applicants and 6 from governments: 3 in cases against Italy, 2 against Türkiye and 1 against Azerbaijan. The Azerbaijan case is V.T. and Others (judgment of 18 June 2026); the Turkish cases are Mavrakis and Others (26 May 2026) and Tuncer Çetinkaya (16 June 2026).

The applicant requests include Seksimp Group SRL v. Republic of Moldova (4 June 2026), Taleski and Others v. North Macedonia (23 June 2026) and Aničić v. Serbia (9 June 2026); the other three are against Portugal and Switzerland. The panel's decisions will be published later in a press release, the notice says.

What a referral request does to a judgment

Under Article 43 of the Convention, any party may, in exceptional cases, ask within three months of a Chamber judgment for the case to go to the 17-judge Grand Chamber. A panel of five judges accepts the request only if the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention, or a serious issue of general importance. If the panel rejects it, the Chamber judgment becomes final under Article 44.

That timing matters to anyone who relies on a judgment. A government request keeps a judgment from becoming final until the panel decides, and under Article 46 it is the final judgment that states undertake to abide by and that the Committee of Ministers supervises. For the Azerbaijan and Türkiye cases, the panel's decisions of 2 November, published later, either make those rulings final or send them to the Grand Chamber.

Ukraine's Gandzyuk case and a Turkish single-cell complaint

The forthcoming judgments notice, ECHR 264 (2026), lists eight judgments for Tuesday 3 November and 14 judgments or decisions for Thursday 5 November, published at 10 a.m. local time.

On Thursday the court rules in Gandzyuk and Others v. Ukraine. The case concerns a sulfuric acid attack on Kateryna Gandzyuk, whom the registry describes as a local anti-corruption activist and public official in Kherson, who died several months later. Her parents and partner allege, under Articles 2 and 3, that the attack was commissioned by public officials in retaliation for her anti-corruption work and that the authorities failed to conduct an effective and independent investigation. They also rely on Article 10. These are the applicants' allegations as the registry summarises them; the court's judgment will say which it accepts.

On Tuesday the court rules in Gökçe and Others v. Türkiye. The four applicants, a public servant, a judge and two public prosecutors, were placed in pre-trial detention in 2016 on charges of membership of an organisation the Turkish authorities call FETÖ/PDY. They complain under Article 3 that being held in single cells with restricted contact with other prisoners, for periods of over one to six years, amounted to solitary confinement, and that the placements were not individually justified.

Also on Tuesday, Háttér Társaság and Amnesty International Magyarország v. Hungary concerns fines the National Election Commission imposed on the two organisations for urging voters to cast invalid ballots in the 2022 referendum, under Articles 6 and 10. The referendum was held with the general election and was declared invalid because a majority of registered voters did not cast a valid vote. The written rulings that day include Salamova and Others v. Azerbaijan and Taş v. Türkiye.

Thursday's list adds Curea v. Romania, on a decision by the body the registry calls the National Judicial and Legal Service Commission (CSM) to protect a prosecutor's reputation after a journalist's article, and Alonso Radesca and Others v. Switzerland, on dismissals and convictions after a hospital strike. Its written rulings include Supreme Religious Administration of Muslims of All Georgia v. Georgia and two cases against Türkiye, Melizci and Tuncal.

The registry notes that its press releases are documents of the Registry and do not bind the court.

Related reading: our October governance briefing on Türkiye and our view on enlargement safeguards.