003-7165480-9721950

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 324 (2021)   28.10.2021   Judgments and decisions of 28 October 2021   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 16 judgments1 and 38 decisions2:   three Chamber judgments are summarised below;   a separate press release has been issued for a Chamber judgment in the case of Bancsók and László   Magyar v. Hungary (no. 2) (applications nos. 52374/15 and 53364/15);   Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, and   the 38 other decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgment in French below is indicated with an asterisk (*).   Kupás v. Hungary (application no. 24720/17)   The applicant, Levente András Kupás, is a Hungarian and Romanian national who was born in 1981   and lives in Basle (Switzerland).   In May 2015 the applicant and his wife took their four-month-old son on a temporary five-day   passport to Budapest to visit family. The applicant returned to Basle after spending a week in   Hungary, in the belief that his wife and son would follow once the child’s documents and passport   had been issued. However, instead of returning to Switzerland, his wife initiated divorce   proceedings. In April 2016 the applicant lodged an application for the return of his child under the   Hague Convention with the Pest Central District Court.   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on   Human Rights, the applicant complains that the domestic courts’ refusal to grant the child’s return   breached his right to respect for his family life.   No violation of Article 8   Succi and Others v. Italy (nos. 55064/11, 37781/13, and 26049/14)*   The applicants are eight Italian nationals who were born between 1930 and 1990 and live in Catania,   Frattamaggiore and Teramo.   They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a tribunal) of the European Convention, and complain   about the dismissal of their appeals on points of law by the Court of Cassation, which they claim was   due to an excessively formalistic application of the rules on drawing up cassation appeals.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning application no. 55064/11   No violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning applications nos. 37781/13 and 26049/14   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.   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: 9,600 euros (EUR) to the applicant in application no. 55064/11   costs and expenses: the Court rejected the applicant’s claim for costs and expenses   Carmelina Micallef v. Malta (no. 23264/18)   The applicant, Carmelina Micallef, is a Maltese national who was born in 1962 and lives in Birkirkara   (Malta).   The case concerns the taking of a piece of property under successive titles, its eventual expropriation   and, in particular, the adequacy of the compensation due on the basis of the Maltese Land   Acquisition (Public Purpose) Ordinance. The applicant, who inherited property from her mother in   2009, was awarded 1,398 euros (EUR) in compensation for the acquisition of the property by the   Government in 2010, despite its estimated value of around EUR 65,000.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, the applicant   complains that the compensation for the taking of her property was inadequate.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction:   pecuniary damage: EUR 57,000   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 8,000   costs and expenses: EUR 2,124   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.   2