The European Commission publishes the sixth annual Rule of Law report
For the sixth time, the European Commission examines the rule of law developments in all Member States. The report assesses four different components: the justice system, the anti-corruption framework, media freedom and pluralism and institutional checks and balances. Furthermore, the report also contains country chapters on a number of EU candidate countries.
This year’s report shows that there is a positive direction in a lot of the Member States. This is because important reforms have been adopted in the four key areas covered by the report. While in some Member States challenges remain to be addressed, countries are overall engaged with the process and have addressed a considerable number of the recommendations from the 2024 report.
The European Commission publishes the EU Justice Scoreboard for 2025
The EU Justice Scoreboard is part of the EU’s Rule of Law toolbox and represents an annual comparative information tool. It aims to assist Member States in improving the effectiveness of their national justice systems by providing objective and comparable data on different indicators relevant for assessing the efficiency, quality and independence of the justice systems in the EU Member States.
The updated figures of the 2025 EU Justice Scoreboard include data on accessibility to justice for victims of crime, victims of violence against women/ domestic violence and persons at risk of discrimination and older persons, as well as on the digitalisation of justice.
CJEU judgements:
Commission’s refusal to release text messages annulled
In this judgement the General Court ruled that the decision of the Commission to refuse a journalist access to the text messages between President von der Leyen and the CEO of Pfizer is annulled.
The Commission rejected the application on the basis that it did not hold the requested documents. The Court underlined that the aim of the Access to Documents Regulation is to give the fullest possible effect to the right of public access to documents held by institutions.
It further underlined that, as the applicants have succeeded in rebutting the presumption of non-existence and of non-possession of the documents in question, the Commission cannot merely state that it does not hold the requested documents. Therefore, it must provide credible explanations as to why the documents cannot be found.
Reducing excessive public deficit may justify cutting retired judges’ pay
The Court found that the need to correct an excessive government deficit represents an objective of general interest that is capable of justifying national measures aimed at the prolonged suspension and subsequent cancellation of an allowance to certain judges upon retirement. It further emphasized that such measures do not violate the EU principle of judicial independence.
Previous decision of another member state refusing extradition due to serious risk of fundamental rights infringements
In this reference for a preliminary ruling the Court of Appeal in Montpellier, France, asked the Court if it is obliged to execute Gorgia’s extradition request, given that Belgium has already rejected the same request. The case concerned a Greek citizen who has been sentenced in absentia to life imprisonment in Georgia for serious crimes. Belgium rejected his extradition based on risks of torture and denial of justice.
The Court clarified that EU law does not oblige a Member State to refuse the extradition of an EU citizen to a third country, even if another Member State previously refused extradition for the same sentence on the basis of serious risks to that person’s fundamental rights under Articles 19(2) and 47(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.
Media service providers required to respect the value of human dignity
The Court clarified that national laws requiring media providers (with the exception of those broadcasting online) to respect human dignity and avoid harmful content, with penalties for violations, are covered by the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. Furthermore, EU law precludes national laws imposing these content rules on traditional media providers, while exempting those broadcasting their content via the internet.
National legislation requiring the early retirement of a judge
In this case, the Court clarified that article 19(1) TEU does not allow national legislation to impose early retirement upon a military judge declared unfit for professional military services, without providing reasons for its adoption or identifying any public objective. This is the case especially if similar officials (such as military prosecutors) are not treated the same, the law affects only one judge and has a punitive nature, and the judge cannot legally challenge the decision.
Additionally, if national rules provide for compulsory early retirement in violation of Article 19(1) TEU, courts and authorities must disregard those rules and the judge must be reinstated.
Difference of treatment on grounds of religion
The defendant in this case is a women’s professional association within the Catholic Church in Germany aimed at children, women and families in particular situations, including advising pregnant women. The applicant was employed by the defendant, but when she announced her departure from the Catholic Church, she was also dismissed from her position within the Catholic organisation. The question is whether her dismissal constitutes discrimination. In her opinion, AG Medina that according to EU law, a religious organisation cannot justify dismissing an employee for leaving a church it belongs to if being a member of that church is not necessary for the job, and the employee has not publicly acted agains the values and ethos of the church.
ECtHR judegements:
ECtHR case of 27 May 2025, Case of Martinez Fernandez v. Hungary (Application no. 30814/22)
Involuntary detention and failure to comply with procedural requirements
In this case, the Court found a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (Right to liberty and security). The application concerned the involuntary detention and treatment of an 83-year-old woman with dementia for six days in a psychiatric hospital. Despite acknowledging the aim of therapy to eliminate the patient’s perceived immediately dangerous behavior, the Court highlighted that medication given at or after admission may hinder the patient’s ability to participate in the proceedings or communicate with their lawyer. Issuing such medication requires careful review from mental health professionals and the Court, which was lacking in this case.
ECtHR Judgement of 10 June 2025, Case of B.T. and B.K.CS. v. Hungary (Application no. 4581/16)
Failure of authorities to conduct in-depth assessment
Here the Court found a violation of Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life). The case concerned the placement of a Roma child in temporary state care immediately after birth. The Court found that the state authorities failed to conduct an in-depth assessment of the situation, including short-term and long-term aspects affecting the child. It further emphasized serious shortcomings in the decision-making process, depriving the mother of adequate involvement regarding the care of her child. As such, the Court concluded that there was a disproportionate interference with the right of the mother and her child to respect for their family life.
ECtHR judgement of 12 June 2025, Case of T.H v. The Czech Republic (Application no. 33037/22)
ID gender change denied for not undergoing sex reassigning surgery
This case raised questions under Article 8 of the Convention (Right to private and family life), as it concerned the requirement of sex reassigning surgery as a condition for changing the personal numerical code denoting gender. The Court highlighted that the dilemma faced by the applicant of being required to either undergo surgery (and thus lose his right to respect for his physical integrity), or to renounce the recognition of his gender identity, which relates to his right to respect for private life. Additionally, it concluded that the domestic courts did not strike a fair balance between the general interest of ensuring legal certainty and the interests of the individual. As such, the Court found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
ECtHR judgement of 12 June 2025, Case of Krepelik v. The Czech Republic (Application no. 23963/21)
Lack of legal assistance during criminal proceedings
This case concerned alleged unfair criminal proceeding, as the applicant, a person with an intellectual disability, was not given legal assistance during initial police interviews or a site visit, in breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(c) of the Convention.
The Court emphasized that effective participation in a criminal trial requires the accused not only to understand the nature of the proceedings and their rights but also the implications of waiving those rights, such as the right to legal assistance. In this case, while the domestic courts assessed the applicant’s fitness to stand trial, they failed to evaluate whether he could validly waive his right to a lawyer. Moreover, the confession was not recorded in the applicant’s own words but summarized by the police, and although it was later repeated in court, this repetition was limited and contradicted by the applicant’s later claims of innocence. The Court found that the lack of legal assistance at the pre-trial stage was not remedied later during the trial proceedings.
ECtHR judgement of 24 June 2025, Case of Sagir and Others v. Greece (Application no. 34724/18)
Domestic courts’ refusal to register a cultural association
Here the Court found a violation of Article 11 of the Convention (Freedom of assembly). The case dealt with the refusal of national courts to register the “Cultural Association of Turkish women of the Prefecture of Xanthi”. The Court highlighted that the domestic courts’ reasoning focused on distinguishing between a recognised Muslim minority and a non-recognised Turkish minority, without showing how the association’s name or aims posed a real threat. Moreover, the Court reaffirmed that promoting minority identity alone cannot be seen as a danger to “democratic society” and that this notion is devoid of meaning if there is no pluralism, tolerance or open-mindedness.
Violation of the freedom of expression
The case concerns the alleged breach of the right of a journalist and the publisher of a daily newspaper to freedom of expression (Article 10 of the Convention) in the context of a judgment against them in civil defamation proceedings for publishing a defamatory article about a well-known lawyer. The Court noted that the article is not without foundation, the applicants did not act in bad faith and that the approach of the domestic courts was “overly restrictive”. Thus, mentioning the interest of a democratic society in maintaining the freedom of the press on subjects of public interest, the Court concluded that the reaction of the authorities was disproportionate, not “necessary in a democratic society” or for “the protection of the rights of others”. As such, the Court found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.
ECtHR judgment of 3 July 2025, Case of N.T. v. Cyprus (Application no. 28150/22)
Failure to investigate and prosecute allegations of rape
In this case, the Court found a violation of Article 3 (Prohibition of torture) and Article 8 (Right to private and family life) of the Convention. The case concerns the failure of domestic authorities to investigate and prosecute the applicant’s allegations of rape. In its conclusion, the Court emphasized that the domestic authorities did not engage in a context-sensitive assessment with due regard to the special psychological factors inherent in cases concering sexual abuse. Additionally, the Court pointed out to the language used by the authorities in assessing the case, which “convey prejudices and sexist stereotypes” that can discourage women’s confidence as victims of gender-based violence.
ECtHR judgment of 10 July 2025, Case of Bednarek and Others v. Poland (Application no. 58207/14)
Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation
In this case, the Court found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 14. The case concerned the criminal proceedings related to the assault with homophobic overtones committed against the applicants by third parties. The Court emphasized that the perpetrators were neither charged nor prosecuted for a hate motivated attack, and that their demonstration of hostility towards people they perceived as homosexual was not accounted for in the determination of the punishment. Additionally, the Court found that the lack of legislation specifically identifying and punishing homophobic motives was not adequately compensated by the fact that the national courts merely acknowledged the homophobic aspect of the event or briefly condemned the discriminatory attitude of one of the perpetrators.