issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 021 (2025)
21.01.2025
Judgments of 21 January 2025
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing nine judgments1:
five Chamber judgments are summarised below;
four 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.
Church of Greece v. Greece (application no. 44547/15)
The applicant organisation is the Church of Greece.
The Church manages the Asomaton Petraki Holy Monastery, which had owned three tracts of land
totalling 31.9 hectares in the prefecture of Athens. In 1980 the State agreed a contract with the
Church to transfer parts of the 31.9 hectares to the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
for it to build a university hospital within ten years. The hospital was not built, so in 2013 the Church
asked the Minister of Finance for the Monastery to be declared the owner of the 31.9 hectares
again. The case concerns the legal proceedings which followed in that connection.
Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article
1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention, the applicant organisation
complains, in particular, of the rejection of its civil suit and the consequences of the
non-examination of its case.
Violation of Article 6 § 1
Just satisfaction:
non-pecuniary damage: 6,000 euros (EUR)
Panayotopoulos and Others v. Greece (no. 44758/20)
The applicants, Athanasios Panayotopoulos, Ioannis Bekos and Vasilios Loukas, are three Greek
nationals who were born in 1984, 1989 and 1995 respectively. They live in Aspropyrgos and Examilia
(Mr Loukas) (Greece). They are ethnic Roma.
On 8 October 2016 the applicants were arrested following a car accident in which they were
passengers. They had been involved in a car chase with the police before their car had collided with
a police car. The driver of their car fled.
In custody, they were allegedly subjected to racist abuse, and violence, including being beaten, in an
attempt to extract information and confessions. Mr Panaytopoulos ended up in hospital two days
later complaining of chest pains, with wounds to his genitals.
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
Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of torture) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the
Convention, the applicants allege torture while in police custody, and that the ill-treatment and lack
of an effective investigation, were attributable to their ethnicity.
Violation of Article 3 (investigation) in respect of all applicants
Violation of Article 3 (ill-treatment) in respect of the first and the third applicant
No violation of Article 3 (ill-treatment) in respect of the second applicant
No violation of Article 14 taken together with Article 3 (ill-treatment) in respect of all applicants
Violation of Article 14 taken together with Article 3 (investigation) in respect of all applicants
Just satisfaction:
pecuniary damage: 120 EUR to the first and the third applicants, each
non-pecuniary damage: EUR 20,000 to the first and the third applicants, each, and 12,000 EUR to the
second applicant
Jóhannes Baldursson and Birkir Kristinsson v. Iceland (nos. 14175/16,
22729/17, 32167/16, and 22720/17)
The applicants, Jóhannes Baldursson and Birkir Kristinsson, are Icelandic nationals.
Mr Baldursson was an executive at Glitnir bank hf, while Mr Kristinsson was an employee of Glitnir’s
private banking department and the owner of the company BK-44 ehf.
The case concerns the applicants’ indictment and conviction for financial crimes, following the
financial crisis of 2008. They were charged and convicted, along with two others, in relation to a deal
with BK-44.
The applicants complain, in particular, that the court that heard their case was partial and of other
procedural issues. Mr Kristinsson also complains, in particular, that he was allegedly tried twice for
the same offence. They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right
not to be tried or punished twice) to the Convention.
Violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of the first applicant on account of inadequate reasoning of the
Supreme Court judgment
No violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of the first and the second applicants in so far as the
impartiality of the Supreme Court Justices was concerned
No violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of the first applicant in so far as the Supreme Court did not
re-hear oral evidence
No violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of the second applicant in so far as the manner of his
interrogation was concerned
No violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of the second applicant in so far as the length of the criminal
proceedings against him was concerned
Just satisfaction:
To the first applicant:
non-pecuniary damage: EUR 4,000
costs and expenses: EUR 8,000
Çağıl v. Türkiye (no. 19085/18)
The applicant, Ferat Çağıl, is a Turkish national who was born in 1985 and lives in Istanbul.
The case concerns Mr Çağıl’s conviction in May 2016 for making public insults and threats and
inflicting actual bodily harm. He was given 87 day-fines amounting to 1,740 Turkish liras (TRY),
2
25 day-fines amounting to TRY 500 and 120 day-fines amounting to TRY 2,000 respectively. The
judgment was final because the sentences were below the statutory threshold for appeals.
Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Çağıl complains that he could not have the trial-court
decision reviewed by a higher tribunal, specifically the Court of Cassation, solely because the judicial
fines did not exceed the statutory limit for appeal.
No violation of Article 6 § 1
Dilek Genç v. Türkiye (nos. 74601/14 and 78295/14)
The applicant, Dilek Genç, is a Turkish national who was born in 1973 and lives in İzmir (Türkiye).
The case concerns an administrative fine of 3,680 Turkish liras levied on Ms Genç for the late closing
of her music hall in İzmir, which had an alcohol licence, and the subsequent proceedings before the
administrative courts.
Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair trial), Ms Genç complains she was not given a
reasoned judgment, and her submissions and her calling of witnesses were rejected by the İzmir
Administrative Court without any reasons, denying her a fair trial. She also complains that there was
no right to have witnesses give oral evidence in cases before the administrative courts, which was in
contravention of the principle of equality of arms.
Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d)
Just satisfaction: the applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction
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.
3