The Supreme Court Published a Review of the ECtHR Practice for April

The Supreme Court has prepared a review of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights based on decisions made in April 2026.

In the case of E. H. v. Germany, the ECtHR examined the applicant's complaint, who was 15 years old at the time of police interrogation. He was convicted of murdering a classmate, and the conviction was partly based on a confession made during the police interrogation. The applicant claimed that before the interrogation, he was not given the opportunity to confidentially consult with his mother and was not informed about such an opportunity.

The ECtHR recalled that in cases involving minors, criminal proceedings must be organized taking into account the best interests of the child, and authorities must ensure that the child understands the nature of the proceedings and their procedural rights. The Court also noted that a minor's waiver of important guarantees under Article 6 of the Convention can only be accepted if the minor fully understands the consequences of their behavior. Assessing the circumstances of the case, the ECtHR noted that the applicant was informed of the right to remain silent and the right to a lawyer, as well as the possibility of the mother’s presence during the interrogation. The police informed both the applicant and his mother that she could be present even if the son did not want her to be. Furthermore, the applicant did not claim that the police forced him to confess. The ECtHR concluded that the authorities took all reasonable measures to ensure that the applicant was aware of his rights to defense and the consequences of his actions. Accordingly, no violation of paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention was found by the ECtHR.

In the case of NEDERLANDSE OMROEP STICHTING AND OTHERS v. the Netherlands, the applicants were media organizations requesting documents regarding the actions of the Dutch government after the downing of flight MH17 in July 2014. The authorities refused to disclose some documents, including minutes of the Ministerial Crisis Management Committee meetings, citing the need to ensure confidentiality of government discussions, protection of international relations, personal data, and staff security.

The ECtHR gave importance to the fact that the applicants had access to full judicial review at the national level. National courts reviewed the full content of the documents and assessed the legitimacy of the refusal to disclose them. The ECtHR agreed that Dutch legislation, which is based on the principle of openness of public information, can simultaneously provide for restrictions necessary to protect interests defined by the Convention. Regarding the crisis committee meeting minutes, the ECtHR noted that government bodies must be able to freely discuss issues confidentially, and national authorities provided relevant and sufficient grounds for partial non-disclosure of information. The ECtHR also noted that the significant public interest in the MH17 disaster alone did not grant journalists the right to full access to all requested documents. The Court concluded that the authorities struck a fair balance between competing interests and acted within their discretionary powers. No violation of Article 10 of the Convention was established.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page Facebook and on Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.