issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 264 (2025)
13.11.2025
Judgments and decisions of 13 November 2025
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 38 judgments1 and 27 decisions2:
two Chamber judgments are summarised below;
three separate press releases have been issued for four other Chamber judgments in the cases of
Constantinou and Others v. Cyprus (applications nos. 77396/14, 45039/20, 45089/20, 45101/20, and
45899/20) and Ilievska and Zdraveva v. North Macedonia (nos. 19689/21 and 42794/22) and Ribarev
v. North Macedonia (no. 39987/22), and A.R. v. Poland (no. 6030/21);
32 Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, and the
27 decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.
The judgments below are only available in English.
Manukyan v. Armenia (application no. 5778/17)
The applicant, Hrayr Manukyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1987 and lives in Amsterdam
(the Netherlands).
In 2014 the applicant, who was a newly elected member of the standing governing body of an
opposition party at the time, was approached by an agent of the National Security Service of Armenia
and asked to cooperate with that service. In June 2014 the applicant met the agent in a café and
secretly recorded their conversation. During the meeting the applicant refused to cooperate. The
agent claimed to know things about the applicant and made a series of statements concerning the
potential consequences of his refusal to cooperate. In July 2014 the applicant submitted a crime report
to the Prosecutor General along with the audio recording of the conversation. No criminal proceedings
were brought against the agent and appeals by the applicant against decisions in that connection were
ultimately unsuccessful. The applicant was granted asylum in the Netherlands in April 2016.
Relying on Article 8 (right to private and family life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the
European Convention on Human Rights the applicant alleges that his personal information had been
collected by the security services and complains of an unjustified interference with his private and
family life and of a lack of an effective investigation in that regard.
Violation of Article 8
Just satisfaction:
non-pecuniary damage: 5,000 euros (EUR)
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.
Abo v. Türkiye (no. 3772/17)
The applicant, Davut Abo, is a Turkish national who was born in 1975. He is serving a prison sentence
in Diyarbakır.
In 2006 the applicant was convicted of being a member of an illegal organisation and was sentenced
to life imprisonment. In 2013 the Court found a violation of the Convention in the applicant’s case on
account of the lack of legal assistance available to him while in police custody. The Court indicated
that the most appropriate form of redress would be a retrial.
On 7 April 2014 the applicant’s lawyer lodged an application for the reopening of the criminal
proceedings, which was dismissed for lack of merit. On 18 December 2015 the applicant lodged an
individual application with the Constitutional Court, complaining, among other things, of the alleged
unfairness of the proceedings that had led to the dismissal of the application for the reopening of the
proceedings. On 9 June 2016, the Constitutional Court declared that application inadmissible.
Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the Convention the applicant
complains that the proceedings concerning his application for the reopening of criminal proceedings
against him were unfair in that the domestic court neither carried out an examination of his
submissions nor made any enquiries in that connection. He also complains that the proceedings were
excessively long.
Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness)
Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length)
Just satisfaction:
non-pecuniary damage: EUR 6,000
costs and expenses: EUR 2,000
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 www.echr.coe.int.
Follow the Court on Bluesky @echr.coe.int, X ECHR_CEDH, LinkedIn, and YouTube.
Contact ECHRPress to subscribe to the press-release mailing list.
Where can the Court’s press releases be found? HUDOC - Press collection
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)
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