issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 255 (2024)
05.11.2024
Judgments of 5 November 2024
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing nine judgments1:
three Chamber judgments are summarised below;
a separate press release has been issued for a Chamber judgment in the case of Miron v. Romania
(application no. 37324/16).
a separate press release has also been issued for a Committee judgment in the case of Nezirić
v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 4088/21).
the four other Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the
Court, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.
The judgment in French below is indicated with an asterisk (*).
Lindholm and the Estate after Leif Lindholm v. Denmark (application
no. 25636/22)
The applicants are Lilian Elisabeth Lindholm, born in 1953 and currently living in Randers (Denmark);
and the estate of her late husband, Leif Ingolf Lindholm, born in 1947. They are/were both Jehovah’s
Witnesses.
Ms Lindholm’s husband died on 21 October 2014; he had spent the previous month in hospital after
a two-metre fall through a roof, first disoriented and then unconscious. The case concerns a blood
transfusion administered to him, despite his carrying a “blood-refusal card” at the time of the
accident.
Ms Lindholm unsuccessfully brought legal proceedings to complain that the blood transfusion had
been against her husband’s will. In 2022 the Supreme Court found in particular that doctors had
avoided giving Mr Lindholm blood until they had considered it necessary to save his life; and, that
there had been a legal basis for that decision in national law, which provided that a patient’s refusal
of a blood transfusion had to be “current and informed”.
The applicants complain that the Supreme Court judgment finding the blood transfusion lawful,
despite Mr Lindholm’s previously stated refusal of the procedure on account of his religious beliefs,
was in violation of Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 9 (freedom of religion)
of the European Convention on Human Rights.
No violation of Article 8 read in the light of Article 9
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
Zahariev v. North Macedonia (no. 26760/22)
The applicant, Borislav Zahariev Zahariev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1965 and lives in
Sofia.
The case concerns the indictment of Mr Zahariev in February 2013 and his subsequent trial for abuse
of office and tax evasion. He asserts that he had immunity from prosecution at that time as his wife
was an official at the Bulgarian Cultural and Information Centre attached to the Bulgarian embassy in
Skopje.
Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention, Mr Zahariev complains
about the manner in which the courts of North Macedonia dealt with his arguments related to his
alleged immunity from prosecution under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
Violation of Article 6 § 1
Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just
satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.
Roxana-Mihaela Ioniță v. Romania (no. 51309/20)*
The applicant, Roxana Mihaela Ioniță, is a Romanian national who was born in 1976 and lives in
Constanţa.
The case concerns the effectiveness of the criminal investigation into her parents’ death following a
fire in their building on the night of 26 to 27 January 2016. The applicant’s mother died on
27 January 2016 and her father on 18 February of the same year.
Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and
Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, the applicant alleges that the national
authorities failed to clarify the circumstances of her parents’ death and, in particular, overlooked
material evidence.
Violation of Article 2
Just satisfaction:
non-pecuniary damage: 20,000 euros (EUR)
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
https://www.echr.coe.int/home. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here:
www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on X (Twitter) @ECHR_CEDH.
Press contacts
[email protected]e.int | 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)
Neil Connolly (tel: + 33 3 90 21 48 05)
Jane Swift (tel: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)
2
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