|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| November 2025 |
|
|
La non-reconstitution de la commission nationale des droits de l'homme par l'État pendant six ans a privé d'une audience équitable dans un délai raisonnable.
Droits de l'homme — Droit à une audience équitable dans un délai raisonnable (article 7(1)(d) de la Charte africaine) — Applicabilité à la Commission nationale des droits de l'homme en tant qu'organe quasi-judiciaire — Responsabilité de l'État pour la dissolution et la non-reconstitution du conseil de la commission — Réparations et indemnisation (cinq millions de nairas).
|
17 November 2025 |
| July 2025 |
|
|
La demande de révision du jugement antérieur est rejetée comme irrecevable faute de présentation d'un fait nouveau et décisif.
Révision du jugement – Article 27 du Protocole – exigence de fait nouveau et décisif – recevabilité – questions de capacité pour agir, res judicata et prétendue usurpation de la compétence d'appel interne déjà examinées – abus de procédure post‑jugement – condamnation aux dépens.
|
8 July 2025 |
|
L'État a violé ses obligations en omettant de pénaliser les MGF et de mener des enquêtes, poursuivre et réparer les victimes.
Droits de l'homme — Mutilations génitales féminines (MGF) — Obligation pour l'État de pénaliser et sanctionner les MGF en vertu du Protocole de Maputo et de la Charte africaine des droits et du bien‑être de l'enfant — Devoir d'enquêter et de fournir un recours effectif — Responsabilité de l'État pour actes d'acteurs privés en cas de défaut de diligence — Traitement inhumain ou dégradant; la torture n'est pas établie en l'espèce — Réparations : législation, poursuites, indemnisation (30 000 USD).
|
8 July 2025 |
|
L'État déclaré responsable de traitements cruels et inhumains et de la violation de l'intégrité physique et de la santé de l'enfant ; indemnisation accordée.
Droits de l'homme — Victime enfant — Compétence et recevabilité (pas de règle stricte d'épuisement) — Qualité pour agir du parent — Preuve de blessures causées par gaz lacrymogène — La torture requiert une intention spécifique; non établie — Traitements cruels, inhumains ou dégradants établis — Violation de l'intégrité physique et du droit à la santé — Indemnisation partielle accordée (50 000 000 de francs CFA) — Dépens à la charge de l'État.
|
7 July 2025 |
|
Les requérants n'ont pas prouvé les abus liés aux milices ; la Cour considère que l'État n'est pas responsable et rejette les demandes.
Compétence en matière de droits de l'homme – Recevabilité – personnalité juridique des ONG – Jugement par défaut – Charge et norme de la preuve dans les demandes en matière de droits de l'homme – Responsabilité de l'État pour des acteurs non étatiques (milices) – Exigences probatoires (rapports médicaux, témoignages, preuves documentaires).
|
7 July 2025 |
|
Échec à prouver un refus discriminatoire d'une promotion judiciaire discrétionnaire ; aucune violation du droit à l'égalité n'est établie.
Droits de l'homme — Égalité devant la loi — Refus allégué, discriminatoire, d'une promotion judiciaire — Texte national conférant un pouvoir discrétionnaire à l'exécutif pour les promotions — Charge de la preuve incombant au requérant pour établir la discrimination — Preuves tardives et insuffisantes — Aucune condamnation au titre des dommages.
|
2 July 2025 |
| May 2025 |
|
|
La Cour a constaté plusieurs détentions arbitraires mais a rejeté les demandes concernant le plébiscite et l'autodétermination pour défaut de compétence ou de qualité pour agir.
Compétence – violations des droits de l'homme ; actes continus vs actes historiques ; recevabilité – personnalité juridique des ONG ; détention arbitraire – article 6 de la Charte africaine ; contrôle des lois nationales limité à la compatibilité avec les obligations internationales ; autodétermination – qualité pour agir du représentant ; réparations et mesures réparatoires.
|
16 May 2025 |
|
Les divulgations publiques du ministère public et les retards judiciaires ont violé la présomption d'innocence, le droit à un délai raisonnable et ont entraîné une détention arbitraire.
Droits de l'homme — présomption d'innocence — déclarations publiques préjudiciables du ministère public ; droit à être jugé dans un délai raisonnable — non‑respect des délais légaux par les autorités pré‑judiciaires ; détention arbitraire — perte de fondement juridique après l'expiration des délais légaux ; réparations — indemnisation pécuniaire, libération et mesures systémiques.
|
16 May 2025 |
|
La Cour n'a pas compétence pour connaître de prétentions purement contractuelles dirigées contre un État membre en vertu de l'article 9 ; l'exception d'incompétence est accueillie.
Compétence — Cour de la CEDEAO — compétence ratione materiae — article 9 du Protocole additionnel — différends contractuels entre un État membre et une partie privée exclus — exception d'incompétence accueillie — frais à la charge du requérant.
|
15 May 2025 |
|
La détention préventive prolongée a violé les droits à la liberté, à la liberté de circulation, au procès équitable et constituait un traitement inhumain/dégradant ; ordonnant la libération et l'indemnisation.
Droits de l'homme — Compétence en vertu de l'article 9(4) — Recevabilité — La limitation de l'article 9(3) n'est pas applicable aux actions en matière de droits de l'homme — Détention préventive prolongée — Violation des droits à la liberté, à la liberté de circulation, au procès équitable dans un délai raisonnable — Détention prolongée comme traitement inhumain/dégradant — Réparations : libération et indemnisation.
|
15 May 2025 |
|
State-ordered internet and social-media shutdowns violated freedom of expression, access to information and the right to work.
Human rights — Internet shutdowns — Freedom of expression and access to information — Legality, legitimate aim, necessity and proportionality — Right to work affected by arbitrary internet restrictions — Standing of legal persons for expression claims — Limits to Court jurisdiction over non-human-rights regional telecom instruments.
|
14 May 2025 |
|
Court dismissed challenge to Penal/Criminal Code vagrancy provisions for lack of jurisdiction absent identifiable victims.
Human rights jurisdiction – Article 9(4) Protocol – requirement of real and identifiable victims; limits on abstract review of domestic laws; evidentiary threshold – prima facie showing of laws’ application causing rights violations; vagrancy/petty offences challenged under Penal and Criminal Codes; insufficiency of generalized reports without individualised evidence.
|
14 May 2025 |
|
Court dismissed challenge to appointment for lack of evidence, holding efficiency primary and geographical distribution ancillary.
Administrative law; Staff disputes – jurisdiction under Article 9(1)(f); Admissibility – exhaustion of remedies via appeal to Commission President; Employment law – recruitment: primacy of technical efficiency; Equitable geographical distribution ancillary; Burden of proof in discrimination claims; Protection from denigration limited to harms in performance of duty.
|
13 May 2025 |
|
Default judgment: respondent liable for arbitrary arrest and unlawful seizure; insufficient proof of torture; USD 20,000 awarded.
Human-rights jurisdiction of ECOWAS Court; default judgment (Rule 90) for absent State; arbitrary arrest and detention (Article 6 ACHPR); insufficient proof of torture/ill-treatment (Article 5 ACHPR); unlawful seizure/confiscation and property rights violation (Article 14 ACHPR); compensation and costs.
|
13 May 2025 |
|
Application alleging state human-rights violations dismissed for lack of locus standi and legal personality.
Human-rights jurisdiction – Article 9(4) Protocol – admissibility under Article 10(d) – locus standi of indirect victims – legal personality of ‘Estate’ – proof required (birth certificate, Letters of Administration/probate).
|
13 May 2025 |
|
ECOWAS Court: registered copyright alone insufficient to show Article 14 deprivation; Berne/WIPO and domestic constitutional claims outside its competence.
Human rights jurisdiction; Article 14 ACHPR (property) — registration establishes proprietary interest but copying/passing-off without divestment not necessarily an Article 14 breach; Article 26 ICCPR (equality) — insufficiently pleaded; Berne Convention and WIPO Treaty claims are outside ECOWAS Court competence; domestic constitutional claims not for this Court; remedies for alleged IP theft are primarily domestic/criminal or specialised IP fora.
|
12 May 2025 |
|
ECOWAS Court found unlawful restriction of applicant's freedom of movement and awarded compensation.
* Human rights – Freedom of movement – Article 12(2) African Charter – legality, necessity and proportionality of restrictions.
* Admissibility – victim status, non‑anonymity, absence of lis pendens.
* Evidence – burden of proof, prima facie case and burden‑shifting.
* Remedies – cessation of measures, general financial compensation, costs assessment.
|
9 May 2025 |
|
Discrimination challenge to gambling advertising guideline dismissed for lack of evidence and improper party.
* Human rights – Jurisdiction – Court empowered to hear alleged human-rights violations by Member States under Supplementary Protocol; * Parties – State agencies not proper respondents before Court; agencies' acts imputed to State; * Non-discrimination – Article 2 African Charter; requirement to prove differential treatment and produce documentary/empirical evidence; * Burden of proof – claimant must establish identity of counterparties, correspondence and concrete facts supporting alleged discrimination; * Administrative regulation – balancing public interest in regulation of gambling advertising.
|
8 May 2025 |
| April 2025 |
|
|
Alleged non bis in idem and denial of defence rejected where successive prosecutions involved distinct facts.
Human rights – fair trial – non bis in idem/res judicata – scope requires same facts, same cause of action and final decision; rights of defence – personal appearance requirement in criminal trials and limits on counsel pleading in absentia; damages – require proven violation and loss; counterclaim for abusive proceedings – referral to ECOWAS Court is not abuse.
|
12 April 2025 |
|
Court finds two state blasphemy laws incompatible with freedom of expression and orders repeal or amendment.
• Human rights – Freedom of expression – Compatibility of domestic blasphemy laws with Article 9(2) African Charter and Article 19 ICCPR.
• Legality test – Vagueness and discretion: Section 210 (Kano Penal Code) fails legality.
• Proportionality – Death penalty for blasphemy: Section 382(b) (Kano Sharia Penal Code) disproportionate.
• Actio popularis – Admissibility: freedom of expression actionable; rights to life and freedom of religion characterised as private and inadmissible absent broader public impact.
• State responsibility – Federal State accountable for sub-state laws inconsistent with international obligations.
• Evidence – Extra-judicial killings allegations unproven without corroborated evidence.
|
9 April 2025 |
|
Court finds state liable for inhuman treatment and unreasonable delay in investigating applicant’s complaint, awards CFA 6.5 million.
Human rights — Jurisdiction of ECOWAS Court; Admissibility — victim status; Evidence — contemporaneous medical certificate and press reports; Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment by state agents; Right to be tried/ investigated within reasonable time — state obligation to investigate; Remedies — monetary compensation and investigative measures; Costs — borne by respondent.
|
9 April 2025 |
|
Applicant failed to prove the State denied access to hospital-use medication, so no violation of the right to health was found.
Jurisdiction – human rights – right to health; Procedural compliance – preliminary objections must be filed separately under Rule 87; Right to health – availability, accessibility, acceptability, quality; Burden of proof – applicant must show denial or deliberate state omission; Administrative process – authorization granted and applicant failed to follow hospital requisition procedures.
|
7 April 2025 |
|
Applicant failed to prove rape, pregnancy or State denial of safe abortion; Court admissible but found no human‑rights violations.
Human rights — court procedure — preliminary objections must be filed separately under Article 87 of the Rules; Jurisdiction — court cannot review domestic laws in the abstract but may adjudicate concrete human‑rights complaints; Evidence — applicant bears burden to produce minimal corroborative evidence of rape, pregnancy and denial of health services; Reproductive rights — alleged denial of safe abortion examined under Article 16 (right to health), Article 18 (family and women protection), Maputo Protocol Article 14(2)(c) and relevant child‑rights provisions.
|
4 April 2025 |
| March 2025 |
|
|
State breached applicant's rights to an effective remedy and protection from inhuman treatment by failing to investigate and preserve evidence.
• Human rights – jurisdiction of ECOWAS Court over individual complaints; admissibility under Supplementary Protocol.• Procedural law – default judgment (Article 90): duty to assess jurisdiction, admissibility and merits despite defendant’s absence.• State obligations – due diligence to prevent, investigate and prosecute sexual violence by non-state actors; preservation of evidence.• Rights violated – right to effective remedy/access to justice; right to dignity and protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.• Reparations – monetary compensation; systemic legislative, administrative and victim support measures.
|
20 March 2025 |
|
Respondent’s failure to defend; Court finds arbitrary detention, inhuman treatment, media breach of presumption of innocence; awards damages.
Human rights — jurisdiction of ECOWAS Court over individual complaints — default judgment procedure — arbitrary arrest and detention — inhuman and degrading treatment in custody — presumption of innocence and unlawful media exposure — right to privacy, honour and reputation — reparation and investigative obligation under CAT and international law.
|
17 March 2025 |
|
Repeal and replacement of discriminatory land law rendered claims moot; default judgment denied and damages refused.
* Human rights / non-discrimination – Land law – Alleged statutory discrimination against an ethnic community (Krios) via Provinces Land Act 1960 – Whether legislation breaches Articles 2 and 19 of the African Charter.
* Procedure – Default judgment – Requirements: jurisdiction, admissibility, compliance with formalities, and whether the claim is well-founded.
* Mootness – Effect of subsequent domestic legislation (National Land Commission Act 2022; Customary Land Rights Act 2022) repealing impugned statute and curing discrimination – effect on admissibility and merits.
* Reparations – Evidentiary standard for special damages; discretionary approach to general damages when merits not determined.
* Standing – Representative actions by community organisations before the Court under Article 10(d).
|
17 March 2025 |
|
Failure to create an additional state does not automatically breach peoples' equality or development rights.
• Jurisdiction – material jurisdiction over human-rights claims against Member States; lack of personal jurisdiction over non-ECOWAS-domiciled NGO.
• Admissibility – public interest (actio popularis) allowed; NGOs need not show mandate to sue where collective rights are invoked.
• Merits – delimitation/creation of subnational units is a domestic matter within State’s margin of appreciation; failure to create an additional state does not per se violate Articles 19 or 22 African Charter or Article 26 ICCPR.
• Remedies – Court will not order creation of states; no reparations where no violation found.
|
17 March 2025 |
|
The applicants’ violent home arrests and detention to prevent protests breached multiple human rights; Court awarded CFA5,000,000 each.
Human rights law – jurisdiction and admissibility – arbitrary arrest and unlawful entry into homes – freedom of assembly, expression and demonstration – right to legal assistance and fair trial – remedies and modest compensation.
|
17 March 2025 |
|
ECOWAS Court found fair‑trial violations (unreasonable delay and denial of defence), awarded limited damages.
Human rights — ECOWAS Court jurisdiction — admissibility — expedited procedure — right to fair trial — presumption of innocence — right to be tried within reasonable time — right of defence (access to chosen counsel and case file) — arbitrary detention — torture/inhuman treatment — compensation and costs.
|
14 March 2025 |
| February 2025 |
|
|
Court retained jurisdiction over continuing human-rights obligations but dismissed application for lack of applicants’ standing.
* Human-rights jurisdiction – Article 9(4) – Continuing State obligations to investigate, prosecute and provide reparations for past violations.
* Admissibility – Article 10(d) – Standing/victim status; representation of deceased victims and requirement to plead relationship or mandate.
* Limitation – Article 9(3) – Three-year rule does not apply to human-rights claims.
* Jurisdictional limits – International court cannot be treated as appellate forum over national court judgments.
|
28 February 2025 |
|
Court had jurisdiction but dismissed application as inadmissible for failure to exhaust internal administrative remedies.
Administrative law; ECOWAS Staff Regulations – exhaustion of internal remedies; Article 73(a) construed with Article 10(e) of the Court Protocol; former staff as "official" for jurisdictional purposes; permissive language ('may') in staff rules read in context requires exhaustion of Council of Ministers remedy; inadmissibility for failure to exhaust remedies.
|
28 February 2025 |
|
State agents unlawfully caused a death, investigation and timely redress were inadequate, and reparations were ordered.
Human rights — Right to life — Arbitrary deprivation by State agents — Duty to investigate effectively — Right to fair hearing — Victim status/admissibility — Reparations (compensation and interest).
|
28 February 2025 |
|
ECOWAS Court lacks jurisdiction to review national court property decisions and thus declared the application inadmissible.
Human rights jurisdiction – Right to property – Allegation based on domestic judicial decisions – Court not a forum for appellate review of national courts – Lack of jurisdiction – Costs awarded to successful party.
|
14 February 2025 |
|
Representative human-rights claims require proof of victim status or mandate; lacking that, the application is inadmissible.
* Human rights – freedom of expression and assembly – alleged killings at protest site – jurisdiction of ECOWAS Community Court.
* Admissibility – victim status and representative capacity – requirement to produce mandate or authorization to represent identifiable victims.
* Procedural law – failure to provide proof of authorization renders representative application inadmissible despite substantive allegations.
* Remedies – claims for declarations and reparations dismissed on admissibility grounds.
|
14 February 2025 |
|
Public interest human-rights suit dismissed for failing to identify victims capable of being envisaged.
Human rights jurisdiction – Article 9(4) Supplementary Protocol – mere allegations sufficient; Admissibility – public interest litigation – NGO legal personality and locus standi; Admissibility test – rights public in nature; reliefs for public benefit; victims must be capable of being envisaged; Failure to identify envisaged victims renders public interest claim inadmissible.
|
14 February 2025 |
|
Court dismissed damages claim, finding ECOWAS sanctions on Mali lawful and not liable for damages.
ECOWAS jurisdiction – Article 9(1)(g) Supplementary Protocol – damages claims against Community institutions; default judgment – Article 90 Rules; lawfulness of sanctions – Article 77(3) Revised Treaty and Protocols on Democracy and Conflict Mechanism; lawful acts of Community institutions do not attract liability in damages; Article 9(4) human-rights jurisdiction not available against ECOWAS institutions without treaty basis.
|
14 February 2025 |
|
Applicant's human-rights claims dismissed for lack of evidence linking violations to the respondent.
• Human rights jurisdiction – ECOWAS Court competence to hear alleged violations in Member States – admissibility of individual applications.
• Limits on Court’s competence – domestic constitutional claims are not applicable sources under international law for the Court.
• State responsibility – necessity of evidence establishing attribution or failure to protect before holding a State liable for acts of private individuals.
• Evidentiary standard – human-rights claims require probative evidence linking violations to the State to obtain remedies including reparations or injunctions.
|
13 February 2025 |
|
|
13 February 2025 |
| January 2025 |
|
|
Court found jurisdiction over human-rights challenge to broadcasting rules but dismissed the case for lack of standing and mandate.
* Human rights jurisdiction – application of domestic law – Court examines actual application of law causing violations, not laws in abstracto.
* Standing/locus standi – corporate applicants and freedom of expression: corporate bodies may bring claims for certain fundamental rights (eg freedom of expression) under established exceptions.
* Admissibility/actio popularis – requirements: rights must be public, reliefs exclusively for public benefit, victims must be capable of being envisioned.
* Representative actions – requirement of mandate/authorization to act on behalf of the alleged victim.
* Costs – interlocutory costs awarded against respondent for procedural conduct.
|
27 January 2025 |