issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 029 (2026)
03.02.2026
Judgments and decisions of 3 February 2026
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 11 judgments1 and two decisions2:
six Chamber judgments are summarised below;
separate press releases have been issued for three Chamber judgments in the cases of Ramishvili
v. Georgia (application no. 4100/24), Salvador Coutinho dos Santos Amado v. Portugal (no. 44794/19),
and Navalnyy v. Russia (no. 4) (nos. 4743/21 and 37083/21);
two Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, and
the two decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.
The judgment in French below is indicated with an asterisk (*).
Begić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (application no. 5067/23)
The applicant, Mr Zlatan Begić, is a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He was born in 1975 and lives
in Tuzla. He is a high-ranking official of the Democratic Front political party and a member of the House
of Representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina (the first chamber of the
State Parliament).
The case concerned Mr Begić’s ineligibility to stand for election to the position of Chair/Deputy Chair
of the House of Representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly.
Mr Begić alleged that his ineligibility to stand for election to that position was contrary to Article 1 of
Protocol No. 12 (general prohibition of discrimination) and Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free
elections) to the European Convention on Human Rights and to Articles 14 (prohibition of
discrimination) and 17 (prohibition of abuse of rights) of the Convention.
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12
Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just
satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant, and that the respondent State
was to pay 10,000 euros (EUR) to him in respect of costs and expenses.
Begić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 2) (no. 16613/23)
The applicant, Mr Zlatan Begić, is a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He was born in 1975 and lives
in Tuzla. He is a high-ranking official of the Democratic Front political party and a member of the House
of Representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina (the first chamber of the
State Parliament).
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.
The case concerned Mr Begić’s ineligibility to stand for election to the position of President/Vice-
President of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Mr Begić alleged that his ineligibility to stand for election to the position of President/Vice-President
of the Federation was contrary to Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) to the European
Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the
Convention and also contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 (general prohibition of discrimination)
and to Article 17 (prohibition of abuse of rights).
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12
Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just
satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant, and that the respondent State
was to pay 10,000 euros (EUR) to him in respect of costs and expenses.
Szelényi and Others v. Hungary (nos. 15147/23 and 38303/23)
The case concerns so-called “integrity testing” (megbízhatósági vizsgálat) which was introduced in
Hungary in 2011 to combat corruption and to monitor compliance with professional obligations. It
involves undercover operations that place certain categories of State employee, without their
knowledge, in a monitored situation with an opportunity for inappropriate or unethical decision-
making.
The four applicants are Zoltán Szelényi, who was born in 1970 and lives in Vácegres; B.A., who was
born in 1972 and lives in Budapest; Erzsébet Laluska, who was born in 1975 and lives in Szarvas; and,
Julianna Fedorkó, who was born in 1964 and lives in Budapest.
The first applicant is a doctor in a hospital, while the other three applicants are employees at various
public institutions (an Educational Authority expert, an adoption counsellor and a child-protection
guardian). They unsuccessfully brought proceedings before the Constitutional Court to challenge the
relevant legislation on integrity testing, which had been extended in 2020 and 2022 to all employees
who are, like themselves, managed or supervised by the Ministry of the Interior.
The applicants allege that the integrity testing meant that they could be the target of secret
surveillance measures, in breach of their rights under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family
life) of the Convention.
Violation of Article 8
Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just
satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants, and that the respondent State
was to pay 3,000 euros (EUR) to the first applicant and EUR 1,540 to the second, third, and fourth
applicants jointly, in respect of costs and expenses.
O.H. and Others v. Serbia (no. 57185/17)
The applicants are 17 Afghan nationals who were born between 1962 and 2015.
The case concerns the removal of the applicants to Bulgaria after they had expressed their intention
of seeking asylum in Serbia. At approximately 12.15 a.m. on 3 February 2017, the Serbian authorities
arrested the applicants on suspicion of having crossed the border illegally and placed them in
detention. At 10.30 p.m. that day, misdemeanour proceedings against the applicants were
discontinued and the police subsequently transported them to the Bulgarian border and forced them
to cross.
Relying on Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens) to the Convention,
the applicants allege that the Serbian authorities had compelled them to leave the country without
2
having conducted an individual assessment of their personal circumstances. They also make
complaints under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 (right to liberty
and security), and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.
The Court decided to strike the application out of its list in so far as concerned all but the second and
seventh applicants.
In respect of the second and seventh applicants, the Court held that there had been:
No violation of Article 3 – on account of the conditions of their detention in Gradina Border Police
Station
Violation of Article 3 (ill-treatment) – on account of the manner of their removal from Serbia and the
circumstances surrounding it
Violation of Article 3 (investigation) – as regards the respondent State’s failure to examine whether
they would have access to an adequate asylum procedure in Bulgaria
Violation of Article 5 § 1 – on account of their unlawful detention from 10.30 p.m. on 3 February 2017
until between 2.30 and 3 a.m. on 4 February 2017
No violation of Article 5 § 2
Violation of Article 5 § 4
Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4
Just satisfaction: Non-pecuniary damage: EUR 5,000 to each of the second and seventh applicants
Kandemir v. Türkiye (no. 30906/19)*
The applicant, Mehmet Kandemir, is a Turkish national who was born in 1980 and lives in Kocaeli.
The case concerns his dismissal from the Institute of Scientific and Technical Research’s Centre for
Research in Advanced Computer Technologies and Information Security (TÜBİTAK BİLGEM), following
the declaration of a state of emergency in Türkiye, and the subsequent judicial review of that measure.
Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention, the applicant alleges that neither
the dismissal nor the subsequent judicial proceedings complied with the guarantees of a fair hearing.
He further complains that the Constitutional Court did not give sufficient reasons for its decision in his
case.
Violation of Article 6 § 1
Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just
satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.
Tatlı v. Türkiye (no. 35383/19)
The applicant, Ali Tatlı, is a Turkish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Istanbul.
The case concerns his ability to challenge an administrative decision exempting a hydroelectric power
plant from the requirement to commission an environmental impact assessment (“an EIA”).
Relying on Article 6 § 1 (access to court) of the Convention, Mr Tatlı complains about the conclusion
of the Supreme Administrative Court that he did not have the right to bring the case (locus standi),
without having given him an opportunity to present evidence to prove his sufficient interest in
challenging the decision waiving the requirement for an EIA.
No violation of Article 6
3
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)
Claire Windsor (tel.: + 33 3 88 41 24 01)
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.
4