003-8511539-12077817

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 094 (2026) 14.04.2026 Judgments of 14 April 2026 The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing two Chamber judgment1 which are summarised below. The judgment in French below is indicated with an asterisk (*). �berling and Others v. Hungary (application no. 19002/20) The applicants are one Bulgarian national, four Hungarian nationals, one Romanian national and one Serbian national, all born between 1975 and 1991. They are serving whole-life sentences in different penal institutions in Hungary for (attempted) aggravated murder and other crimes. The case concerns their life imprisonment without the possibility of release on parole, and the fact that the mandatory pardon procedure can only take place after they have served 40 years of their life sentences. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complain that their sentences constitute inhuman and degrading punishment. Violation of Article 3 Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants and that the respondent State was to pay them 250 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. Pitek v. T�rkiye (no. 27385/20)* The applicants are five Turkish nationals who were born between 1971 and 2003. They are the wife and children of Mehmet Pitek, who died after being shot by an as yet unidentified perpetrator. The events occurred in the context of the curfews imposed in various towns in south-eastern Turkey between 2015 and 2016. On 3 April 2016, at around 10 a.m., Mehmet Pitek was fatally wounded by a gunshot while sitting with his wife outside their home in the Bari area of Nusaybin. He was treated by an emergency medical team and taken by ambulance to hospital, where he died. Relying on Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention, the applicants complain that the authorities failed in their obligation to investigate their relative's death and to protect the deceased's life. Violation of Article 2 (investigation) Just satisfaction: to the applicants jointly: 1 Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber judgment's delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final. Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution non-pecuniary damage: EUR 10,000 costs and expenses: EUR 1,000 This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. Follow the Court on Bluesky @echr.coe.int, X ECHR_CEDH, LinkedIn, and YouTube. Contact ECHRPress to subscribe to the press-release mailing list. Where can the Court's press releases be found? HUDOC - Press collection Press contacts [email protected] | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08 We are happy to receive journalists' enquiries via either email or telephone. Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel.: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Denis Lambert (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 41 09) Inci Ertekin (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 55 30) Jane Swift (tel.: + 33 3 88 41 29 04) Claire Windsor (tel.: + 33 3 88 41 24 01) The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. 2