issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 012 (2025)
14.01.2025
Judgments of 14 January 2025
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 11 judgments1:
two Chamber judgments are summarised below;
separate press releases have been issued for two other Chamber judgments in the cases of Petrović
and Others v. Croatia (applications nos. 32514/22, 33284/22, and 15910/23) and Pruteanu
v. Romania (no. 9308/18);
seven 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 judgments summarised below are available only in English.
Kunshugarov v. Türkiye (applications nos. 60811/15 and 54512/17)
The applicant, Yeldos Kunshugarov, is a Kazakhstani national who was born in 1988. He arrived in
Türkiye in 2011.
The case concerns concurrent proceedings initiated against Mr Kunshugarov in Türkiye for his
deportation and extradition. In 2011 the Kazakh authorities requested his extradition; he was
wanted on charges linked to his being involved in an armed jihadist organisation. This set of
proceedings resulted in his extradition on 16 October 2018 to Kazakhstan. In parallel, the Turkish
authorities had initiated deportation proceedings against him for possessing a forged passport and
because of his alleged affiliation with terrorist organisations.
Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) in
conjunction with Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human
Rights, Mr Kunshugarov complains about his expulsion to Kazakhstan, alleging that the authorities
failed to adequately examine his allegations that he would be exposed to a real risk of the death
penalty or ill-treatment.
He further complains under Article 3 of the European Convention, of poor conditions of detention at
the Kumkapı Removal Centre pending the expulsion proceedings against him, in particular from 4 to
19 November 2015 and from 31 December 2015 to 12 July 2016.
Finally, he relies on Article 5 §§ 1, 2, 4 and 5 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention to
complain in particular that his detention pending removal was unlawful and that the national courts
failed to assess effectively and speedily his requests for release.
No violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2
Violation of Article 3 on account of the applicant’s extradition to Kazakhstan on 16 October 2018
Violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention at the Kumkapı
Removal Centre
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
No violation of Article 5 § 1
Violation of Article 5 § 4
Just satisfaction:
non-pecuniary damage: 8,450 euros (EUR)
costs and expenses: EUR 4,250
N.Ö. v. Türkiye (no. 24733/15)
The applicant, N.Ö., is a Turkish national who was born in 1978 and lives in Ankara.
The case concerns an alleged sexual assault on Ms N.Ö. by the Chief Medical Officer of the hospital
where she worked as a dentist, and her subsequent complaint to the authorities and court
proceedings. She did not go to the police immediately, which was part of the grounds for the
acquittal. A constitutional complaint by N.Ö. was declared manifestly ill-founded by the
Constitutional Court.
Relying on Articles 6 (right to a fair trial), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 14
(prohibition of discrimination), Ms N.Ö. complains, in particular, that the domestic courts had placed
too much emphasis on the timing of her complaint, that they failed to take into account medical-
expert opinions, and that she suffered discrimination.
Violation of Article 8
Just satisfaction:
non-pecuniary damage: EUR 2,600
costs and expenses: EUR 2,000
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)
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.
2