issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 128 (2025)
27.05.2025
Judgments and decisions of 27 May 2025
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 14 judgments1 and three decisions2:
six Chamber judgments are summarised below;
separate press releases have been issued for two other Chamber judgments in the cases of ARB SHPK
and Others v. Albania (applications nos. 39860/19, 38996/20, 6142/22, and 27370/22) and Pedev
v. Bulgaria (no. 27165/21);
six Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, and the
three decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.
The judgment in French is indicated with an asterisk (*).
Engels v. Belgium (application no. 38110/18)*
The applicant, Raphaël Engels, is a Belgian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Belgium.
The case concerns the applicant’s conviction on the basis of statements made at the investigation
stage by his co-defendants, whom he was unable to have examined during the objection proceedings
before the court of appeal, seeking to have the conviction decision set aside and the case reheard.
He relies on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d)
Kalkan v. Denmark (application no. 51781/22)
The applicant, Nermin Kalkan, is a Danish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Vejle (Denmark).
The case concerns Ms Kalkan’s son’s death in prison in January 2011 from a heart attack after having
been restrained in a prone position leg lock. Allegedly he had been in a violent and agitated state and
had had to be restrained in this manner several times. He had been serving a sentence for robbery
and threats against prison staff.
Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the
European Convention, Ms Kalkan alleges that prison guards were not given clear instructions on use
of prone positions, and that its use on her son for 13 minutes was excessive.
Violation of Article 2 in respect of the positive obligation on the State to give prison guards clear and
adequate instructions on the use of the prone position when restraining prisoners and to train its
law-enforcement officials accordingly
Just satisfaction:
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.
non-pecuniary damage: 25,000 euros (EUR)
costs and expenses: EUR 6,000
Martinez Fernandez v. Hungary (no. 30814/22)
The applicant, Benitóné Martinez Fernandez, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1937 and lives
in Budapest. She has been diagnosed with dementia.
Following a suspected overdose, Ms Martinez Fernandez was transferred to a psychiatric hospital as
she appeared disoriented on 2 September 2020. The next day a short court hearing was held with
herself, her son and an appointed guardian ad litem present, at which her involuntary detention was
approved and its continuation ordered, which is the subject of the case. Ms Martinez Fernandez was
discharged six days later.
Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 (e) and 4 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention, Ms Martinez
Fernandez complains that her involuntary hospitalisation was unjustified and the procedure ordering
that did not respect her rights.
Violation of Article 5 § 1
Just satisfaction:
non-pecuniary damage: EUR 4,000
costs and expenses: EUR 5,000
Kári Orrason and Others v. Iceland (nos. 29791/21, 40600/21, and 2281/22)
The applicants, Kári Orrason, Hildur Harðardottir and Borys Andrzej Ejryszew, are, respectively, two
Icelandic nationals and one Polish national. They were born in 1997, 1996 and 1991 respectively.
The case concerns the applicants’ participation in a demonstration concerning asylum seekers in April
2019 at the Icelandic Ministry of Justice. The applicants entered the lobby of the building and refused
to leave when ordered to do so by the police. They were then arrested and convicted of refusing to
obey police orders under the Police Act.
Relying on Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association), the
applicants complain of their convictions.
No violation of Article 11
Nemytov and Others v. Russia (nos. 1257/21, 3244/21, and 46231/21)
The applicants, Viktor Aleksandrovich Nemytov, Ilya Vilyamovich Azar and Yelizaveta Aleksandrovna
Burma are Russian nationals who were born in 1982, 1984 and 1998 respectively and lived in Moscow
and St Petersburg (Ms Burma) at the time of the events in this case.
The case mainly concerns the measures taken by the authorities against the applicants in respect of
their participation in protests or in solo demonstrations during a period of covid restrictions in the
Russian Federation. Fines and/or administrative detention, which the applicants characterised as
disproportionate, were ordered by the courts.
They rely on Articles 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial), 10 (freedom of expression),
and 11 (freedom of assembly and association), and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (right of appeal in
criminal matters).
No violation of Article 10 in respect of the first applicant in relation to the solo demonstration on
26 May 2020
Violation of Article 10 in respect of the first applicant in relation to the solo demonstration on
2
25 June 2020
Violation of Article 11 in respect of the first applicant in relation to his participation in the solo
demonstrations on 5 June 2020
Violation of Article 11 in respect of the second and third applicants
Violation of Articles 5 § 1, 6 § 1, and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 in respect of all three applicants
Just satisfaction:
pecuniary damage: EUR 1,730 to the first applicant
non-pecuniary damage: EUR 9,700 to each of the three applicants
Selishcheva and Others v. Russia (no. 39056/22 and nine other applications)
The applicants are 10 Russian nationals who were born between 1959 and 2001. They live, variously,
in Russia, Israel, Lithuania and the United States of America.
The case concerns the refusal to register the applicants as candidates in municipal elections based on
police information alleging their “involvement” with organisations designated as “extremist” by the
Russian courts. They registered to stand in the Berdsk municipality (Novosibirsk Region) for the Berdsk
Coalition 2021 (a descendent of the opposition Novosibirsk Coalition). They submitted signatures and
completed other formalities. However, they were denied access to the ballot in July or August 2021
owing to their alleged connections to, in particular, Alexei Navalny. In June 2021 the courts had
declared three organisations associated with Mr Navalny to be extremist and ordered that they be
banned.
The applicants rely, in particular, on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 10 (freedom
of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association).
Violation of Article 8
Violation of Articles 10 and 11
Just satisfaction:
non-pecuniary damage: EUR 10,000 to each applicant
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