issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 133 (2025)
03.06.2025
Judgments of 3 June 2025
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing six judgments1:
four Chamber judgments are summarised below;
a separate press release has been issued for another Chamber judgment in the case of Manolache
v. Romania (application no. 7908/17);
one Committee judgment, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, can be
consulted on Hudoc and does not appear in this press release.
The judgments summarised below are available only in English.
Sahiner v. Austria (application no. 21669/21)
The applicant, Özlem Sahiner, is an Austrian national who was born in 1996 and lives in Hall (Tyrol,
Austria).
The case concerns the refusal by the Austrian authorities to allow Ms Sahiner to legally change her
first name to “Lemilia”. Essentially, the Innsbruck District Administrative Authority
(Bezirkshauptmannschaft) asserted that as it was not a common (gebräuchlich) name, the request did
not comply with Austrian naming laws. She was unsuccessful in appealing that decision to the courts.
Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 14 (prohibition of
discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Ms Sahiner complains that she should
have been allowed to change her name to “Lemilia”, a name she had always identified with, and that,
as someone born abroad with the name Lemilia would be allowed to keep that name, the refusal was
discriminatory.
No violation of Article 8
Selimi and Krasnići v. Serbia (nos. 20641/20 and 20644/20)
The applicants, Abdurahim Selimi and Bahrije Krasnići, are Serbian nationals who were born in 1939
and 1934 respectively. They lived respectively in Gnjilane and Prizren (Kosovo2).
The case concerns the suspension of pensions paid by the Serbian Pensions and Disability Insurance
Fund (SPDIF) to the applicants, who were based in Kosovo before 1999. Following the intervention of
the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, in June 1999 Kosovo was placed under international
administration. The Serbian State was unable to collect pension contributions from that point in
Kosovo.
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 All references to Kosovo, whether the territory, institutions or population, in this text is to be understood in full compliance
with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 and without prejudice to the status of Kosovo.
Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.
1 (protection of property) to the Convention, the applicants complain that they had not received their
SPDIF pensions since 1999, and of the length of the administrative and judicial review proceedings.
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Violation of Article 6
Just satisfaction:
non-pecuniary damage: 5,000 euros (EUR) to the first applicant’s widow, Ms Sabile Selimi, and the
second applicant’s son, Mr Ramadan Krasnići, each
costs and expenses: EUR 2,000 to Ms Sabile Selimi and Mr Ramadan Krasnići, each
Zuvić v. Serbia (no. 3592/17)
The applicant, Boban Zuvić, is a Serbian national who was born in 1972 and lives in Jagodina (Serbia).
The case concerns the Supreme Military Court’s ordering, in June 2004, of a retrial before the Military
Disciplinary Court of alleged abuse of office by Mr Zuvić while a lieutenant in the then Yugoslav army
in 2002 (on 4 February 2003 the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was renamed the State Union of Serbia
and Montenegro). He had already been discharged from service.
Owing to organisational changes in the judiciary the Military Disciplinary Court ceased to exist. He was
unable to find a forum to have his case retried.
Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), Mr Zuvić complains of the Serbian courts’ refusal to
adjudicate his case, and that the overall length of the disciplinary proceedings had violated his right
to hearing within a reasonable time.
Violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of the applicant’s complaint regarding his right of access to a
court
Just satisfaction:
non-pecuniary damage: EUR 3,600
costs and expenses: EUR 1,170
Uygun v. Türkiye (no. 9389/19)
The applicant, Emrah Uygun, is a Turkish national who was born in 1994 and lives in Muğla (Türkiye).
The case concerns the refusal by the management of the Muğla E-type Prison to send a letter by
Mr Uygun to his fiancée, citing concerns about his alleged involvement with a terrorist organisation
and his continued active role within it.
Mr Uygun relies on Articles 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) and Article 8 (right to protection of
correspondence).
Violation of Article 8
Just satisfaction: The Court decided that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just
satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the 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.
2
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