On 3 September 2026 a Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered judgment in CASE OF A.S. v. LATVIA (application no. 9327/23).
On 3 September 2026 a Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered judgment in a case it titles “CASE OF A.S. v. LATVIA”, brought against Latvia under application no. 9327/23.
It recorded no violation of Article 4.
The Court states its conclusion as: “Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-3-a - Ratione materiae);No violation of Article 4 - Prohibition of slavery and forced labour (Article 4 - Positive obligations;Effective investigation;Article 4-1 - Servitude;Article 4-2 - Forced labour)”
The wording in quotation marks above is the Court's own conclusion, reproduced so that the finding can be checked against the record. It is not this service's summary of the judgment.
This record establishes that the Court delivered this judgment on 3 September 2026 and what it recorded as its findings. It does not establish anything about the underlying events beyond what the Court found, it does not report what either party said, and it does not state what follows for Latvia or for anyone else. A Chamber judgment may be referred to the Grand Chamber and is not necessarily the end of the case.
Times
These are different things and are not interchangeable.
- Event occurred
- 3 September 2026, 00:00 UTC (as recorded by the source)
- Published here
- 12 September 2026, 02:10 UTC
Evidence
- Record identifier
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2026:0903JUD000932723- Retrieved
- 12 September 2026, 14:23 UTC
- Snapshot checksum
7ea04711c70b467dd83770a8834a277c730560330928fbaf334f20fc4a2ee2e6
Where each figure above comes from (8 values)
Revision history
-
12 September 2026, 02:10 UTC — First publication
Assembled from the source record listed under evidence. This record predates the start of this service's coverage and was added when the source was first read.
Limits of this brief
Chamber and Grand Chamber judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, in English. Committee judgments are not reported: they apply well-established case-law to repetitive applications and are roughly two thirds of the Court's output by volume, so excluding them is a large omission and is stated here rather than left to be discovered. Decisions on admissibility, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries are not reported either. Where the Court found a violation on one limb of an article and none on another, that is reported as appearing in both findings; neither half is ever stated without the other. Case names are reproduced as the Court publishes them, including where they name an applicant and where the Court has anonymised one. This service makes no separate anonymisation decision. A judgment establishes what the Court decided on a date. It does not establish anything about the underlying events beyond the Court's own findings, it does not report what either party argued, and a Chamber judgment may still be referred to the Grand Chamber.
If something here is wrong, write to
[email protected]
quoting the record identifier above. Corrections are recorded on this page,
not made silently.