issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 107 (2025)
29.04.2025
Judgments and decisions of 29 April 2025
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing eight judgments1 and one decision2:
five Chamber judgments are summarised below;
three Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, and
the decision, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.
The judgments summarised below are available only in English.
Jaupi v. Albania (application no. 23369/16)
The applicant, Kastriot Jaupi, is an Albanian national who was born in 1975. He is currently serving a
prison sentence.
The case concerns Mr Jaupi’s trial in absentia, for which he received a life sentence. He was convicted
of the attempted murder of the chief of the criminal police of Berat, I.N., and his driver, and the
murder of I.N. in a bar in Vlora in 2000. As Mr Jaupi was in detention in Spain at the time, the trial was
held without him present.
Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and (d) (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human
Rights, Mr Jaupi complains, in particular of not being allowed a retrial after being convicted
in absentia, of not being able to cross-examine key prosecution witnesses, and of the Supreme Court’s
reasoning being inadequate.
No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) as regards the applicant’s right to take part in the criminal
proceedings against him
No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) as regards the applicant’s right to question prosecution
witnesses in respect of his conviction for murder
Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) as regards the applicant’s right to question the prosecution
witnesses R.B. and B.H. in respect of his conviction for attempted murder
Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just
satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and that the respondent State
was to pay him 1,200 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses.
Avagyan v. Russia (no. 36911/20)
The applicant, Mariya Anatolyevna Avagyan, is a Russian national who was born in 1985 and lives in
Krasnodar (Russia).
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
2
Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.
The case concerns Ms Avagyan’s conviction in 2020 for wilful dissemination of untrue information.
She had posted on a social-media platform questioning the presence of the covid-19 virus in Krasnodar
and the Government’s reasons for reporting deaths as being a result of the disease. She was fined
30,000 Russian roubles (approximately 390 euros at the time).
Relying on Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) and 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention,
Ms Avagyan complains, in particular, of her conviction for dissemination of “untrue information”, and
that there had not been a prosecuting party present at her trial.
Violation of Article 10
Violation of Article 6 § 1
Just satisfaction:
pecuniary damage: EUR 350
non-pecuniary damage: EUR 10,000
costs and expenses: EUR 2,008
Derrek and Others v. Russia (no. 31712/21)
The applicants are six Russian nationals who live in Moscow, St Petersburg and Yaroslavl (all Russia).
The case concerns a police raid on a venue hosting an LGBT workshop on human rights and LGBT
activism in 2020, which the applicants were attending. They were searched and allegedly abused in
different ways before being taken to a hospital to be tested for drugs.
Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security),
11 (freedom of assembly and association), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of
discrimination) of the Convention, the applicants complain, in particular, that their treatment by the
police caused them feelings of fear, anguish and humiliation, that there was no effective investigation
into the alleged police misconduct, and that their deprivation of liberty was in contravention of the
Convention.
Violation of Article 3 (investigation and ill-treatment) taken in conjunction with Article 14
Violation of Article 5 § 1
Violation of Article 11
Just satisfaction:
non-pecuniary damage: EUR 20,000 to Ms Yerokh and EUR 16,000 to each of the other applicants
Kavečanský v. Slovakia (no. 49617/22)
The applicant, Vojtech Kavečanský, is a Slovak national who was born in 1979 and lives in Košice
(Slovakia). He is a notary.
The case concerns an inspection of Mr Kavečanský’s notary’s office in 2021 by the Chamber of Notaries
of Slovakia carried out while he was on sick leave following his alleged kidnapping for a ransom of
4 million euros. The police also searched unoccupied residential premises belonging to
Mr Kavečanský. Both of these searches, and a later search of his home, concerned alleged
embezzlement.
Mr Kavečanský has since been charged with aggravated embezzlement and the proceedings are
ongoing.
Relying on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy),
Mr Kavečanský complains, in particular, of the search of his notary’s office and residential premises
and the seizure of his electronic devices.
2
Violation of Article 8
Just satisfaction:
non-pecuniary damage: EUR 5,000
costs and expenses: EUR 7,580.90
Tergek v. Türkiye (no. 39631/20)
The applicant, Abdül Samed Tergek, is a Turkish national who was born in 1989 and is currently serving
a prison sentence in Kocaeli T-Type Prison (Türkiye) following a conviction for membership of an
armed terrorist organisation described by the Turkish authorities as the “Fetullahist Terror
Organisation/Parallel State Structure”.
The case concerns the withholding of correspondence to Mr Tergek from his sister and his wife by the
prison authorities. The correspondence consisted of letters, notes, pictures and printed material from
internet websites. The letters were ultimately given to Mr Tergek, but the printouts were not passed
on to him.
Mr Tergek relies on Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence).
No violation of Article 10
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
[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