issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 152 (2024)
20.06.2024
Forthcoming judgments and decisions
The European Court of Human Rights will be notifying in writing ten judgments on Tuesday 25 June
2024 and 53 judgments and / or decisions on Thursday 27 June 2024.
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 25 June 2024
National Youth Council of Moldova v. the Republic of Moldova (application no. 15379/13)
The applicant, the National Youth Council of Moldova, is a Moldovan non-governmental organisation
(NGO) based in Chișinău (the Republic of Moldova).
The case concerns the local authorities’ refusal to allow the applicant NGO to display anti-
discrimination illustrations on advertising panels, on the grounds that they depicted some social
groups in an undignified and humiliating manner.
Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the
applicant NGO complains that there has been an unlawful, disproportionate interference with its
freedom to use caricatures to represent prohibited grounds of discrimination for advertising
purposes, and its freedom to impart information on the roll-out of a toll-free discrimination helpline.
Vlaisavljevikj v. North Macedonia (no. 23215/21)
The applicant, Velimir Vlaisavljevikj, is a Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia
who was born in 1953 and lives in Skopje.
This case concerns the collection and use of Mr Vlaisavljevikj’s personal data by a private heating
company, which requires users of private heating systems who have been disconnected to pay
heating utilities a standing heating charge. A private heating company issued Mr Vlaisavljevikj
invoices regarding the standing heating charge and initiated proceedings against him for payment of
that charge. Mr Vlaisavljevikj did not have heating pipes installed in his apartment and had never
registered with the heating company.
With several final civil judgments issued between 2017 and 2021, the national civil courts found that
Mr Vlaisavljevikj was not liable to pay the standing heating charges. The highest administrative court
dismissed his data-protection claim.
Relying on Article 8 (respect for private and family life) of the European Convention, Mr Vlaisavljevikj
complains that the domestic authorities failed to protect his personal data from unlawful collection
and use.
Bechi v. Romania (no. 45709/20)
The applicant, Daniel Bechi, is a Romanian national who was born in 1982 and lives in Reteag
(Romania).
Mr Bechi, who was diagnosed with HIV, was placed in specially designated prison wings equipped
with facilities to accommodate the medical needs of HIV-positive prisoners in Targu-Ocna Prison and
Poarta Alba Prison. The prisons were located a distance of 500km and 800km respectively from
Mr Bechi’s family home.
Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhumane or degrading treatment), Article 14 (prohibition on
discrimination), and Article 8 (respect for private and family life) of the Convention, Mr Bechi
complains his detention was unsuitable, in that he was subjected to poor prison conditions during
his incarceration from 2019 to 2022, including conditions of overcrowding which exposed him to a
high contamination risk for hepatitis C. He alleges he was placed in separate wings of the two prisons
from other prisoners and restricted from engaging in any work or activities because of his HIV status.
He also alleges the distance from his family residence to the prisons interfered with his ability to
maintain contact with his family.
Kurkut and Others v. Türkiye (nos. 58901/19, 59988/19, 14944/20, 23565/20, 29101/20;
42116/20, and 28956/21)
The applicants, Naci Kurkut, Şükran Kesgin, Zeycan Doğan Özdemir, Bahar Dolgun Kılıç, Agit Tetik,
Baran Tekin, Mehmet Tanrıkulu, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1985, 1990, 1986, 1989,
1992, 1991, and 1987 respectively and live in Türkiye.
The applicants are Turkish nationals who successfully secured initial employment with the State in
civil service roles, State universities, or State hospitals. They did not have criminal convictions but
were still later refused employment for failed background checks. The concrete factual grounds for
the failed background checks were not disclosed to the applicants, at least until a later stage in the
court proceedings.
This case concerns the Legislative Decree no. 676, which was effective from 2016 to 2019. It created
an amendment to the Civil Servants Act that required a clear background check prior to appointment
to the civil service. Background checks included not only criminal convictions, but also previous
acquittals, police investigations and suspicions regarding whether a prospective employee had
engaged in criminal activity as well as an assessment of character.
Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) the applicants complain that the national courts did not
carry out effective examinations of their appeals against the authorities’ refusal to appoint them, as
the courts failed to scrutinise the administration authorities’ allegations and evidence that the
applicants, or their relatives, were involved in illegal activities.
Mr Tetik, relying on Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence), complains the domestic court’s
reasoning breached his presumption of innocence pending his trial.
Thursday 27 June 2024
Büttner and Krebs v. Germany (no. 27547/18)
The applicants, John Büttner and Jutta Krebs, are German nationals who were born in 1967 and 1939
respectively and live in Zeuthen (Germany).
This case concerns the planning permission for the construction of the Berlin Brandenburg Airport.
The authorities knowingly provided incorrect information about the projected flight paths during the
planning approval procedure that did not accurately represent the airport’s impact on the
applicants’ properties.
The applicants challenged the planning decision in the German courts but were unsuccessful.
Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 8 (respect for private and family life), the
applicants complain that the domestic courts failed to remedy the procedural defects in the
decision-making process, which breached the respect for their property as well as their private and
family life. They allege they did not have access to all the relevant information, which impaired their
ability to effectively challenge a planning decision that negatively impacted their properties and
family life.
2
Cotena v. Italy (no. 15717/16), Gelsomino v. Italy (no. 74064/17), Prinari v. Italy
(no. 20402/16), and Rotolo v. Italy (no. 38908/15)
The applicants, Giovanni Prinari, Salvatore Cotena, Antonino Rotolo, and Giovanni Gelsomino are
Italian nationals who were born respectively in 1963, 1958, 1946 and 1967. The applicants are
detained respectively in Sulmona, San Gimignano (Siena), Opera (Milan) and Parma (all Italy).
All four applicants were convicted of multiple serious crimes dating from the 1980s and 1990s,
including murder. The cases concern the rejection of the applicants’ separate applications to the
Italian authorities for a reduction in their life sentences to 30 years’ imprisonment within
proceedings for the review of the enforcement order relating to their sentences (incidente di
esecuzione).
Relying on Articles 7 (no punishment without law), Mr Gelsomino and Mr Prinari complain that the
denial of access to the summary procedure deprived them of the benefit of the more lenient
provision and therefore a lighter sentence, while Mr Cotena and Mr Rotolo complain that the
domestic courts failed to apply the more lenient sentence provided for by the law in connection with
the summary procedure.
Mr Cotena and Mr Rotolo also rely on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) to argue, respectively, that if the
former’s trial ended earlier, he would have received the more lenient penalty of 30 years’
imprisonment, or that the latter was forced to give up his right to a lighter punishment by the entry
into force of Decree-Law no. 341 of 2000.
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 25 June 2024
Name Main application number
Hrvatin v. Croatia 15655/19
Kalčićek v. Croatia 22458/18
Romić and Others v. Croatia 24501/19
Buttigieg v. Malta 7615/21
Duymaz and Others v. Türkiye 58437/17
Kuriş and Others v. Türkiye 56483/16
Thursday 27 June 2024
Name Main application number
Blažević v. Croatia 26835/19
Tomić v. Croatia 26264/19
Zadeh v. the Czech Republic 35207/17
Priguza v. the Republic of Moldova 81258/17
Platon v. the Republic of Moldova 63588/17
C.C. v. Monaco 37218/19
A.M. v. Norway 2287/22
I.L. v. Norway 28160/22
3
Name Main application number
M.T. v. Norway 24148/22
S.G. and S.O. v. Norway 18004/21
T.E. and J.E. v. Norway 43483/22
Avetisyan v. Poland 73964/17
Boisteau v. Poland 19561/22
Ciszewski and Others v. Poland 31732/18
K.B. and K.C. v. Poland 1819/21
Urbanek and Polaczek v. Poland 18931/18
Pereira Lobo and Others v. Portugal 51230/20
Arbuzov and Others v. Russia 9494/20
Arshinov and Others v. Russia 17472/18
Aydarov and Others v. Russia 84744/17
Barybin and Others v. Russia 28623/21
Bogdanov and Others v. Russia 38690/21
Dmitriyeva and Others v. Russia 83641/17
Dmitriyevskiy and Others v. Russia 19016/18
Fetisov and Others v. Russia 54727/14
Golikov and Others v. Russia 44131/18
Karimullina and Others v. Russia 45351/21
Kislov and Others v. Russia 20864/18
Kokshin and Others v. Russia 45057/21
Kotugin and Others v. Russia 33736/22
Monetov and Others v. Russia 42294/21
Pavlikova and Others v. Russia 32241/18
Rudik and Others v. Russia 60846/15
Rybakin and Others v. Russia 83322/17
Shurshev and Others v. Russia 30947/19
Smolev and Others v. Russia 20140/21
Sokolovskaya and Others v. Russia 14129/20
Sorokin and Others v. Russia 73825/13
Starodubtseva and Others v. Russia 47730/21
Voskresenskiy and Others v. Russia 24098/21
C.M. v. Spain 39920/22
Mousoupetrou Mcrobert and Others v. Türkiye 51601/17
Philitas v. Türkiye 48432/19
Futornyak v. Ukraine 41678/20
Krot v. Ukraine 38112/14
Padaguts v. Ukraine 62818/16
Tsimeyko v. Ukraine 32960/13
Voloshchuk v. Ukraine 46352/19
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.
4
Press contacts
[email protected] | 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.
