003-7018344-9466806

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 141 (2021)   11.05.2021   Judgments and decisions of 11 May 2021   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 15 judgments1 and four decisions2:   five Chamber judgments are summarised below;   separate press releases have been issued for three other Chamber judgments in the cases of: Halet   v. Luxembourg (application no. 21884/18), Caamaño Valle v. Spain (no. 43564/17), and Stetsov   v. Ukraine (no. 5170/15);   seven Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court,   and the four decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgment in French is indicated with an asterisk (*).   Yocheva and Ganeva v. Bulgaria (applications no. 18592/15 and 43863/15)   The applicants, Katerina Borislavova Yocheva and Katerina Nikolova Ganeva, are Bulgarian nationals   who were born in 1974 and 1966 respectively and live in Sofia. They are single mothers.   The case concerned the refusal to give the applicants family-allowance payments under section 7(9)   of the Family Allowances for Children Act 2002. That section provided for payments for families   “with only one living parent”. The authorities had refused the applicants access to the allowance as   they had not shown that their children had been recognised by their fathers and that the latter had   died.   Relying in particular on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 8 of the   European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complained that the conditions for accessing   payments were in breach of their rights, and that interpreting the phrase “with only one living   parent” to mean “with one deceased parent” discriminated against their families, where one parent   is unknown.   Violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8 in respect of the first applicant,   Ms Katerina Borislavova Yocheva.   Just satisfaction:   Pecuniary damage: 3,915 euros (EUR) to the first applicant   Non-pecuniary damage: EUR 4,500 to the first applicant   Costs and expenses: EUR 2,160 to the first applicant   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a 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.   Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.   Penati v. Italy (application no. 44166/15)*   The applicant, Antonella Penati, is an Italian national who was born in 1963. She lives in San Donato   Milanese.   The case concerned the murder of an eight-year-old child by his father.   Relying on Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention, the applicant alleged that the national   authorities had breached their positive obligation under that provision by omitting to take all the   necessary measures to protect the life of her child.   No violation of Article 2   Epure v. Romania (no. 73731/17)   The applicant, Culiță Epure, is a Romanian national who was born in 1978 and lives in a specialised   State institution providing care to disabled adults in Măicăneşti (Romania). He suffers from epilepsy   and has been diagnosed with slight to moderate mental impairment.   The case concerned the conditions of the applicant’s detention for the period from 6 December   to 16 June 2019. He had been serving an eight-year sentence for rape dating from 2014. During   this time, he had been held under a maximum-security regime in Focşani, Galaţi and Giurgiu prisons.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention,   the applicant complained that the prison regime under which he had been placed was incompatible   with his mental condition; that he had not received appropriate medical treatment for his mental   disability; and that he had not been provided with a personal care assistant on a permanent basis, as   required by his state of health.   Violation of Article 3 concerning the failure of the authorities to implement and provide a coherent   and appropriate therapeutic strategy capable of responding adequately to the applicant’s medical   needs during the period from 6 December 2016 to his release on 16 June 2019.   Just satisfaction:   Non-pecuniary damage: EUR 3,000   Kilin v. Russia (no. 10271/12)   The applicant, Roman Olegovich Kilin, is a Russian national who was born in 1991 and lives in   Kemerovo (Russia).   The case concerned the applicant’s trial and conviction for disseminating extremist materials. The   applicant had been accused of posting allegedly racist video and audio files involving neo-Nazis,   racial epithets, people of apparently Caucasian descent and calls to extremism on a popular online   social network.   Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, the   applicant complained that his criminal conviction had been in violation of his rights and that his trial   had been held in camera.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   No violation of Article 10   Just satisfaction:   Non-pecuniary damage: EUR 1,500   RID Novaya Gazeta and ZAO Novaya Gazeta v. Russia (no. 44561/11)   The applicants, “Redaktsionno-Izdatelskiy dom ‘Novaya Gazeta’” and “Izdatelskiy dom ‘Novaya   Gazeta’”, are Russian organisations. The first is a publisher. The second is a joint-stock company and   was the founder of the Novaya Gazeta newspaper. Since 2007, under the terms of a contract, the   first applicant organisation acts as the editorial board and publisher of Novaya Gazeta.   The case concerned an article called “Gang, agency, party. Who are the ‘Legal Nationalists’   [легальные националисты]?”, which had been published in the Novaya Gazeta in 2010 on the   anniversary of the assassination of anti-fascists Stanislav Markelov and Anastasia Baburova by   alleged ultra-far-right individuals. The article focussed on, among other things, an organisation called   Russkiy Obraz. On 31 March 2010 the Rozkomnadzor (a federal mass-media regulator) issued a   caution (предупреждение) for alleged dissemination of extremist information in relation to the   above article. That caution had been upheld by the courts.   Relying in particular on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention, the applicant   organisations complained that the anti-extremism caution issued to them interfered with, in   particular, their freedom to impart the results of investigative journalistic work.   Violation of Article 10   Just satisfaction:   Non-pecuniary damage: EUR 2,000 to the first applicant organisation   Costs and expenses: EUR 2,237 to the first applicant organisation   The finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary   damage sustained by the second applicant organisation   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   During the current public-health crisis, journalists can continue to contact the Press Unit via   [email protected].   Tracey Turner-Tretz   Denis Lambert   Inci Ertekin   Neil Connolly   Jane Swift   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