issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 165 (2025)
03.07.2025
Judgments and decisions of 3 July 2025
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing seven judgments1 and one
decision2:
three Chamber judgments are summarised below;
one separate press release has been issued for another Chamber judgment in the case of Ludes and
Others v. France (applications nos. 40899/22, 41621/22, and 42956/22);
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.
Arvanitis and Phileleftheros Public Company Limited v. Cyprus (application
no. 49917/22)
The applicants are Christos Arvanitis, a journalist, born in 1951 and living in Nicosia and a publisher,
Phileleftheros Public Company Limited.
The case concerns civil defamation proceedings brought against them in 2008 for an article published
in the daily newspaper, Phileleftheros, concerning the recovery of looted art after the 1974 events.
The applicants’ article had been published in response to an article written by a Cypriot lawyer, C.K.,
explaining that he had paid “over thirty silver coins” to recover a painting belonging to his family, while
he had managed to recuperate another by replacing it with a forgery (he said he had been inspired by
the American film, The Thomas Crown Affair). The applicants’ article criticised C.K. for choosing a non-
legal avenue to restore the looted paintings, despite being a lawyer himself, and for being insensitive
enough to write an article about it. The Cypriot courts found that the applicants’ article had been a
personal attack on C.K. and had called into question his reputation. They ordered the applicants to
pay 12,000 euros in damages.
Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the
applicants allege that the judgments against them were disproportionate. In particular, although the
language of their article had been caustic, it had not attacked C.K.’s dignity or reputation and had had
a sufficient factual basis (C.K.’s own article).
Violation of Article 10
Just satisfaction:
to the applicants jointly
pecuniary damage: 24,980.43 euros (EUR)
non-pecuniary damage: EUR 6,500
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.
costs and expenses: EUR 8 919,02
N.T. v. Cyprus (no. 28150/22)
The applicant, Ms N.T., is a Cypriot national who was born in 1992 and lives in Larnaca.
The case concerns the authorities’ investigation into her allegations of rape. In 2021 she reported to
the police that she had been raped ten years earlier (when she had been 18 years old) by a
schoolfriend, A.T. The police immediately opened an investigation and indicted her alleged aggressor,
but the Deputy Attorney General ultimately decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings
essentially based on alleged inconsistencies in the applicant’s statements and her admitting that she
had “liked” A.T. and had perhaps sent him the “wrong signals”.
Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 8 (right to respect for private
life) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention, Ms N.T. complains that the
authorities failed to effectively investigate and prosecute her allegations of rape and to follow a
victim-sensitive approach, exposing her to secondary victimisation and discrimination.
Violation of Article 3 (investigation)
Violation of Article 8
Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Articles 3 and 8
Just satisfaction:
non-pecuniary damage: EUR 20,000
costs and expenses: EUR 15,470
M.K. v. Latvia (no. 26035/23)
The applicant, Ms M.K., is a Latvian national who was born in 1983 and lives in Ulbroka (Latvia).
In 2012 Ms M.K. started living with her same-sex partner, who gave birth in 2016 to a child via artificial
insemination. They took care of the child together and the child called the applicant “Mum M”. The
couple separated in 2022 and, according to the applicant, her former partner refused to allow contact
with the child. The case concerns the authorities’ failure to grant the applicant interim contact,
pending the outcome of the main child-contact proceedings. She was eventually granted contact
rights in February 2024, but they were limited in order to avoid any psychological harm to the child
given that they had not seen one another for two years.
Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention, Ms M.K. alleges that
the courts breached her right to maintain relations with the child for a long period, even though he
had expressed attachment to her and wanted to see her.
Violation of Article 8
Just satisfaction:
non-pecuniary damage: EUR 7,500
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.
2
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