issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 125 (2025)
22.05.2025
Judgments and decisions of 22 May 2025
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing five judgments1 and 11 decisions2:
three Chamber judgments are summarised below;
two Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, and
the 11 decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.
The judgment in French below is indicated with an asterisk (*).
Gevorgyan v. Armenia (application no. 231/16)
The applicant, Ani Gevorgyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1988 and lives in Yerevan. She
was a journalist at the time of the events in this case.
The case concerns Ms Gevorgyan’s covering a group who were handing out Armenian National
Congress flyers on Mashtots Avenue in Yerevan in February 2014. They were confronted by supporters
of the rival Republican Party. The police intervened. In the events that followed, they allegedly
attempted to take Ms Gevorgyan’s camera from her, and arrested her on suspicion of hooliganism.
Relying on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 10 (freedom of expression) of the
European Convention on Human Rights, Ms Gevorgyan alleges police violence and that no effective
investigation was conducted into that complaint by the Armenian authorities, and that the police
action, including allegedly stealing and destroying her memory cards at the police station, was to
prevent her taking footage of the incident and making it public.
Violation of Article 10
Just satisfaction:
non-pecuniary damage: 4,500 euros (EUR)
costs and expenses: EUR 1,000
de Galbert Defforey and Others v. France (nos. 45443/21, 45483/21, and
8701/23)*
The applicants, Albertine de Galbert Defforey, Marc Simoncini and Philippe Jaubert, are French
nationals who were born in 1980, 1963 and 1956 respectively.
The applications concern an allegation of “reverse discrimination” (discrimination à rebours) in tax
matters.
Relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention in conjunction with
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, the applicants complain of the
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.
method used to calculate their income tax. They allege “reverse discrimination”, arguing that they
would have received more favourable tax treatment if the capital gains on which they were taxed had
been generated in respect of transactions falling within the scope of European Directive 2009/133/EC
of 19 October 2009.
No violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Iordan v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 10870/15)
The applicant, Iurie Iordan, is a Moldovan national who lives in Chișinău. He was a judge at the Chișinău
Court of Appeal at the time of events in this case.
The case concerns B., a journalist, filming Mr Iordan in the carpark of the court in 2013, where he was
handed an envelope by a woman. B published that video online, asking in his commentary whether
he had witnessed an act of corruption. Mr Iordan complained to the prosecution service, alleging
slander. B. was found guilty and fined. However the fine was quashed during a retrial of the case by
the Moldovan courts.
Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Mr Iordan complains of the Moldovan
courts’ refusal to punish B.
No violation of Article 8
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.
2