issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 076 (2025)
18.03.2025
Judgments of 18 March 2025
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing six judgments1,
four Chamber judgments are summarised below;
two Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to 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 (*).
Farhad Mehdiyev v. Azerbaijan (application no. 36057/18)
The applicant, Farhad Sovet oglu Mehdiyev, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1974 and lives
in Baku.
The case concerns the termination of his right to practise as a lawyer, only a few days after his
readmission to the Azerbaijani Bar Association (Azərbaycan Respublikası Vəkillər Kollegiyası), for
failure to pay prior membership fees.
Relying on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 6 (right to a fair trial), 10 (freedom of
expression), and 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) in conjunction with Articles 8 and 10 of
the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complains that his disbarment amounted
to a breach of his right to respect for private life, that the domestic proceedings had been unfair, that
he had been deprived of his professional activity because of his critical opinions and that his
Convention rights had been restricted for purposes other than those prescribed in the Convention.
Violation of Article 8
Just satisfaction:
non-pecuniary damage: 4,500 euros (EUR)
costs and expenses: EUR 1,500
BRD - Groupe Société Générale S.A. v. Romania (no. 38798/13)
The applicant, BRD – Groupe Société Générale S.A., is a bank based in Romania. It is owned by the
French bank Société Générale.
The case concerns an unannounced inspection in October 2008 conducted on the premises of the
applicant company by the Competition Council, and allegedly unlawful searches conducted there by
the police in the context of criminal investigations in respect of several of its employees. The
Competition Council was investigating alleged breaches of internal market regulations in the banking
sector. The police searches were part of two investigations concerning the creation of an organised
criminal group within the bank for the purposes of obtaining bank loans unlawfully and committing
1
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a 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
fraud, forgery and money laundering, and suspicion of conspiracy to commit fraud and forgery.
Computers and documents, including information stored electronically, were seized.
Relying on Articles 8 (right to private life, home and correspondence), 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and 13
(right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the
Convention (protection of property), the applicant company complains, in particular, of the inspection
and searches, and alleges that the Romanian courts refused to examine its arguments regarding those.
No violation of Article 8 in respect of the inspection in the context of the Competition Act proceedings
Violation of Article 8 in respect of the seizure of 13 January 2014 and of the electronic search carried
out in the second set of criminal proceedings
Just satisfaction:
non-pecuniary damage: EUR 2,600
costs and expenses: EUR 10,000
Mustafa Aydın v. Türkiye (no. 6696/20)
The applicant, Mustafa Aydın, is a Turkish national who was born in 1982 and lives in Bandırma
(Türkiye). He was, at the time of the events in this case, a correspondent for the Dicle News Agency in
İzmir.
In 2008 Mr Aydın was one of 14 individuals who were put under covert surveillance by the police in
connection with various serious crimes. Information was then given to the police by a suspect, in
exchange for a reduced sentence, connecting Mr Aydın (along with some others) to the YDGH
(Patriotic Democratic Youth Movement), considered to be the youth wing of the PKK (Workers’ Party
of Kurdistan, an armed terrorist organisation). The case concerns Mr Aydın’s subsequent trial and
conviction for membership of an armed terrorist organisation.
Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, Mr Aydın argues that the Turkish courts
failed to individually assess his situation, and did not provide adequate reasoning for his conviction.
Violation of Article 6 § 1
Just satisfaction:
non-pecuniary damage: EUR 6,000
costs and expenses: EUR 75
Şimşek v. Türkiye (no. 23926/20)*
The applicants are four Turkish nationals.
The case concerns the circumstances surrounding the death of their relative, Y.Ş., while he was
performing his compulsory military service.
The applicants complain of a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention in its substantive
aspect.
No violation of Article 2
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 and Bluesky @echr.coe.int.
Press contacts
2
[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