003-8513331-12081184

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 092 (2026) 15.04.2026 Forthcoming judgments and decisions The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing four rulings on Tuesday 21 April 2026 and one ruling on Thursday 23 April 2026. Press releases and texts of the judgments and decisions will be available at 10 a.m. (local time) on the Court's Internet site (www.echr.coe.int). Tuesday 21 April 2026 E.H. v. Germany (application no. 25914/21) The applicant, E.H., is a German national who was born in 2002 and lives in Berlin. In March 2018 E.H., who was then aged 15, was questioned on suspicion of having murdered a schoolmate with a knife. His mother, who was with him at the police station, was not present during the interview, during which E.H. confessed to having committed the offence. In November 2018 the Regional Court convicted E.H. of aggravated murder. It rejected an objection by E.H. to the confession made during police questioning being used as evidence and based its decision, in part, on that confession. E.H. lodged an appeal on points of law, arguing that the right to parental consultation was necessary to ensure that juveniles could exercise their rights of defence and that the courts should have excluded his confession as evidence. The Federal Court of Justice rejected an appeal on points of law, leaving open the question of whether a right to parental consultation existed. It held that even assuming such a right existed, there were no indications of a violation capable of justifying excluding the confession as evidence. The Federal Constitutional Court refused to admit a constitutional complaint. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complains that the Regional Court convicted him on the basis of his confession during police questioning, even though he had not been informed of his right to consult his parents or been given an opportunity to privately consult with this mother prior to being questioned. F.B. and Others v. the Netherlands (no. 28157/18 and 6 others) The applicants are an Azerbaijani national, a Moroccan national and five Dutch nationals who were all born between 1960 and 1990 and are serving sentences of life imprisonment. The case concerns the applicants' complaints that Dutch legislation and procedures make their life sentences irreducible, both in law and in practice. Life-sentence prisoners have to wait 25 years from the start of police custody or pre-trial detention before the Minister may admit them to the reintegration phase, in which activities are offered aimed at a return into society. After 28 years the Minister must take an ex officio decision on whether or not to grant pardon. The Life-Sentence Prisoners Advisory Board assists the Minister in making these decisions. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention, the applicants complain that the Dutch review mechanism does not meet the Convention standards. Nederlandse Omroep Stichting and Others v. the Netherlands (no. 20066/18) The applicants are two Dutch broadcasting organisations, Nederlandse Omroep Stichting and RTL Nederland B.V.; and a newspaper, De Volkskrant B.V. The case concerns requests by the applicant media organisations for the disclosure of information relating to the Dutch Government's handling of the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 in July 2014. Relying on Article 10 (right to receive and impart information and ideas), the applicant media organisations complain about the partial non-disclosure of that information. Y.F.C. and Others v. the Netherlands (no. 21325/19) The case concerns seven Venezuelan nationals who were intercepted in April 2019 attempting to enter the territorial waters of Cura�ao (an island which is part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in the southern Caribbean) on a small boat. They were taken ashore by the coast guard and served with decisions refusing them entry and ordering their detention pending removal. They lodged objections against these decisions, which were rejected or declared inadmissible in December 2019 by the Dutch Minister of Justice. In the meantime, five of the applicants had been released and ordered to report to the immigration authorities on a weekly basis, while the other two had left Cura�ao. The applicants complain that the decisions and detention orders against them, as well as the conditions of their detention, were in breach of Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) and 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens). They all also make a further complaint under Article 3, alleging excessive use of force by prison guards and police officers during their transfer to an ordinary prison. The Court will give its rulings in writing on the following cases, some of which concern issues which have already been submitted to the Court, including excessive length of proceedings. These rulings can be consulted from the day of their delivery on the Court's online database HUDOC. They will not appear in the press release issued on that day. Thursday 23 April 2026 Name Bitar v. the Netherlands Main application number 36163/21 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. 3