issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 245 (2021)

26.08.2021

Forthcoming judgments and decisions

The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing 15 judgments on Tuesday 31 August
2021 and 11 judgments and / or decisions on Thursday 2 September 2021.

Press releases and texts of the judgments and decisions will be available at 10 a.m. (local time) on
the Court’s Internet site (www.echr.coe.int)

Tuesday 31 August 2021

Karrar v. Belgium (application no. 61344/16)
The applicant, Abdelmajid Karrar, is a Belgian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Andenne
(Belgium). In December 2015 he was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Liège Assize Court for
the murder of his two children on 2 August 2013.
Before the Court he complains of the lack of impartiality of the president of the Assize Court,
particularly in connection with a meeting between the president and the children’s mother in the
week before the trial. He relies on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on
Human Rights.

Galović v. Croatia (no. 45512/11)

The applicant, Miljenko Galović, is a Croatian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Zagreb.
The case concerns the applicant’s convictions for domestic violence in several sets of minor-offence
proceedings and in criminal proceedings on indictment. He was sentenced cumulatively to five years’
imprisonment.
Relying on Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice) to the European
Convention, he complains that he was tried and convicted twice of the same offence.
He also makes complaints under Article 6 § 3 (b) and (c) (right to adequate time and facilities for
preparation of defence/right to defend oneself in person and to legal assistance of own choosing) of
the Convention concerning the appeal stage of the proceedings. He alleges in particular that he was
only notified four days in advance of an appeal court’s session on his case and was not given the
opportunity to attend.

Milošević v. Croatia (no. 12022/16)

The applicant, Milan Milošević, is a national of Bosnia and Herzegovina who was born in 1966 and
lives in Bosanski Brod (Bosnia and Herzegovina).
The case concerns the proceedings following heating oil – which was not legally meant for use as
vehicle fuel – being found in a lorry owned by the applicant in Vukovar (Croatia). Mr Milošević was
found guilty of a minor offence and fined 4,800 Croatian kunas (HRK) for illegal use of heating oil.
Later he was ordered to pay HRK 123,000 in respect of unpaid duties for the amount of heating oil
used.
Relying on Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice) to the Convention, the
applicant complains that he had been punished twice – via the minor offence conviction and the
imposition of excise duty – for the same set of facts.
Vassiliou and Others v. Cyprus (no. 58699/15)
The applicants, Georgia Vassiliou, Vassilis Vassiliou, Maria Vassiliou, and Antonia Kyriakou, are
Cypriot nationals who were born in 1945, 1968, 1967 and 1973 respectively. They all live in
Xylofagou, except for Vassilis Vassiliou who lives in Vrysoules.
The applicants are the wife and children of a Greek-Cypriot reservist who had gone missing in action
during the 1974 Turkish invasion in northern Cyprus. It was discovered 26 years later that he had
been executed by Turkish troops and buried as ‘unknown’ in Cypriot-controlled territory. The Cypriot
authorities identified and returned the body to his family in 2000.
The case concerns the State’s responsibility for the applicants’ distress between the disappearance
of their relative and his identification.
Relying on Article 2 (right to life/investigation) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family
life), the applicants allege that the State failed to effectively investigate and provide them with
information on what had happened to their missing relative, and that such prolonged uncertainty
had caused them anguish.

Bragi Guðmundur Kristjánsson v. Iceland (no. 12951/18)

The applicant, Bragi Guðmundur Kristjánsson, is an Icelandic national who was born in 1944 and lives
in Reykjavik.
The case concerns proceedings against the applicant for tax-code violations. Following an audit, he
had to pay a tax surcharge. He was later convicted of major tax offences and sentenced to three
months’ imprisonment and a fine of 84,000 euros.
Relying on Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice), the applicant
complains that he had been punished twice – via the tax surcharge and the criminal conviction – for
the same set of facts.

Associazione Politica Nazionale Lista Marco Pannella v. Italy (no. 66984/14)

The applicant, Associazione Politica Nazionale Lista Marco Pannella, is an Italian political association
whose head office is in Rome (Italy).
The case concerns a complaint by the applicant association, which was represented in the Italian
Parliament, that it was not invited to take part in political debates scheduled during three major
political news programmes broadcast by the State broadcasting corporation RAI.
Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant association complains of a violation of its
right to impart political ideas and opinions via the public service broadcaster’s television channels.

Associazione Politica Nazionale Lista Marco Pannella and Radicali Italiani v. Italy
(no. 20002/13)
The applicants, Associazione Politica Nazionale Lista Marco Pannella and Radicali Italiani, are two
Italian political associations whose head offices are in Rome.
The case concerns the discontinuance of a type of political programme known as a “political
platform” on State-run television. The applicant associations argue that the discontinuance of a
television programme devoted to political debate breached their right to freely manifest their
opinions and ideas.
They rely on Article 10 (freedom of expression).

2
Estemirova v. Russia (no. 42705/11)
The applicant, Svetlana Khusainovna Estemirova, is a Russian national who was born in 1962 and
lives in Yekaterinburg (Russia). She is the sister of Natalia Estemirova, who was a well-known Russian
human rights activist and board member of Memorial Human Rights Center.
The case concerns the abduction and murder of Natalia Estemirova, and the effectiveness of the
ensuing investigation.
Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complains of
the murder of her sister and the failure to speedily and thoroughly investigate her death. She also
complains under Article 38 (obligation to furnish necessary facilities for the examination of a case)
that the Government did not provide the European Court with the full criminal case file.

Kemal Bayram v. Turkey (no. 33808/11)

The applicant, Kemal Bayram, is a Turkish national who was born in 1948 and lives in Werdohl
(Germany).
In this case, Mr Bayram complains about his loss of ownership of two plots of land he had bought in
1977 in the village of Engiz-Samsun, as a result of the reorganisation of the land register in 1985. The
following year, the land in question was registered as belonging to the Treasury. The applicant also
complains that he was unable to challenge that measure, having not been informed about it.
He relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).

Üçdağ v. Turkey (no. 23314/19)

The applicant, Resul Üçdağ, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Diyarbakır
(Turkey). At the relevant time, Mr Üçdağ was a public official working as an imam at a local mosque
in the Sur district of Diyarbakır.
The case concerns Mr Üçdağ’s criminal conviction for disseminating propaganda in favour of a
terrorist organisation on account of two posts published on his Facebook account; it also concerns
the rejection of his individual application to the Constitutional Court as being out of time.
The authorities found that the posts published by the applicant in 2015 and 2016 amounted to
propaganda in favour of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan, an illegal armed organisation) such as
to legitimise, glorify and encourage the use of that organisation’s methods entailing coercion,
violence and threats. Mr Üçdağ was sentenced to one year, six months and 22 days’ imprisonment,
delivery of the judgment being suspended.
Relying on Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) and 10 (freedom of expression), Mr Üçdağ complains that
his trial was unfair and that his right to freedom of expression was infringed on account of the
criminal proceedings instituted against him. Under Article 6, he also alleges a violation of his right of
access to a court on account of the rejection of his individual application to the Constitutional Court
for failure to comply with the 30-day time-limit laid down in Law no. 6216 for such applications.

Thursday 2 September 2021

Sanchez v. France (no. 45581/15)
The applicant, Julien Sanchez, is a French national who was born in 1983 and lives in Beaucaire
(France).
The case concerns the criminal conviction of the applicant, at the time a Front National local
councillor and a candidate in the parliamentary elections, for incitement to hatred or violence
against a group of persons or an individual on the grounds of their membership of a specific religion,

3
following his failure to take prompt action in deleting comments posted by others on the wall of his
Facebook account.
The applicant argues that his conviction on account of comments posted by others on the wall of his
Facebook account was in breach of Article 10 (freedom of expression).

Z.B. v. France (no. 46883/15)

The applicant, Z.B., is a French national who was born in 1983 and lives in Sorgues (France).
The case concerns the criminal conviction of Z.B. for glorification of serious offences endangering life
on account of slogans on a T-shirt he had given his nephew as a present for his third birthday. Z.B.,
who had ordered the T-shirt specially, had asked to have the phrase “I am a bomb!” printed on the
front and “Jihad, born on 11 September” on the back.
On 25 September 2012 the child wore the T-shirt to nursery school. On the same day, the school’s
head teacher informed the local education authority and the mayor of the municipality. The mayor
lodged a complaint with the public prosecutor. Criminal proceedings were instituted against Z.B.,
who was given a suspended sentence of two months’ imprisonment and fined 4,000 euros.
Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Z.B. complains about his conviction for glorification of
serious offences endangering life.

Ražnatović v. Montenegro (no. 14742/18)

The applicants, Dejan Ražnatović, Darko Ražnatović and Radojica Ražnatović, are Montenegrin
nationals who were born in 1980, 1987 and 1952 respectively and live in Podgorica.
The case concerns the suicide of M.R., the applicants’ wife or mother, while a resident in a State-run
psychiatric hospital on 14 February 2007. She had attempted suicide several times previously.
Relying on Article 2 (right to life) the applicants complain that the authorities had failed to take
reasonable steps to prevent M.R.’s suicide.

Kuchta and Mętel v. Poland (no. 76813/16)

The applicants, Robert Kuchta and Sebastian Mętel, are Polish nationals who were born in 1976 and
1980 respectively and live in Cracow.
The case concerns the applicants’ arrest in 2015 following a knife attack in their apartment block.
Tear gas was allegedly used. They were taken to a police station, where they allege that they were
beaten. A prosecutorial investigation did not lead to charges being brought against the alleged
perpetrators.
Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 6 (right to a fair trial), the
applicants complain of ill-treatment during their arrest and questioning, and that the investigation
into their accusations was not “thorough and effective”.

The Court will give its rulings in writing on the following cases, some of which concern issues
which have already been submitted to the Court, including excessive length of proceedings.
These rulings can be consulted from the day of their delivery on the Court’s online database HUDOC.
They will not appear in the press release issued on that day.

Tuesday 31 August 2021

Name Main application number.
Arzumanyan v. Armenia 63845/09

4
Name Main application number.
Mikayelyan v. Armenia 1879/10
BIMAL d.d. v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 27289/17
Muqishta v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 27994/19
Dimitrie Dan Popescu and Others v. Romania 39480/03

Thursday 2 September 2021

Name Main application number
Marinić v. Croatia 22360/15
Stegić v. Croatia 21106/13
Giuliano v. Hungary 45305/16
C.G. v. Italy 58292/19
Pisani v. Malta 48719/20
KOM, spoločnosť s ručením obmedzeným v. Slovakia 56293/15
Kuc v. Slovakia 17101/19

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. To receive
the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter
@ECHR_CEDH.
Press contacts
[email protected] | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08

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.