003-7195366-9772040

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 364 (2021)   30.11.2021   Judgments of 30 November 2021   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 19 judgments1:   six Chamber judgments are summarised below;   a separate press release has been issued for another Chamber judgment in the case of Țiriac   v. Romania (application no. 51107/16);   Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, can be   consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgments summarised below are available only in English.   Derenik Mkrtchyan and Gayane Mkrtchyan v. Armenia (application   no. 69736/12)   The applicants, Derenik G. Mkrtchyan and Gayane Mkrtchyan, are Armenian nationals who were   born in 1948 and 1976 respectively and live in Alapars (Armenia).   The case concerns death of Derenik G., the applicants’ grandson and son respectively, at the age of   ten in 2010 following a fight in the classroom in his school. It also concerns the subsequent   investigation and legal proceedings.   Relying on Article 2 (right to life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European   Convention on Human Rights, the applicants claim, in particular, that the boy’s death was a result of   a failure by the school authorities to protect him while under their control and that the subsequent   investigation was ineffective.   No violation of Article 2 (right to life)   Violation of Article 2 (investigation)   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: 24,000 euros (EUR)   Genov and Sarbinska v. Bulgaria (no. 52358/15)   The applicants, Asen Georgiev Genov and Tsvetelina Ognyanova Sarbinska, are Bulgarian nationals   who were born in 1969 and 1973 respectively and live in Sofia.   The case concerns the applicants’ spray-painting on the anniversary of the October Revolution of a   partisans’ monument in protest against the then Government, which was led by the Bulgarian   Socialist Party (the former Communist Party). They were convicted of hooliganism and fined.   Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention, the applicants complain   of their conviction.   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   Violation of Article 10   Just satisfaction:   pecuniary damage: EUR 998.33 to the first applicant   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 4,000 to each applicant   costs and expenses: EUR 767 to the first applicant, EUR 153 to the second applicant and   EUR 2,276.20 jointly to the applicants to be paid directly to the applicants’ representatives.   Avci v. Denmark (no. 40240/19)   The applicant, Cihan Avci, is a Turkish national who was born in 1993 and lives in Turkey.   The case concerns a High Court order to expel the applicant from Denmark following his conviction   and custodial sentence for, among other things, serious drugs offences. Mr Avci was ultimately   expelled on 24 January 2020.   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention, the applicant   complains of the decision to expel him from Denmark.   No violation of Article 8   T.A. and Others v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 25450/20)   The applicants, T.A., A.A. and N., are Moldovan nationals who were born in 1954, 1963 and 2015   respectively and live in Alexandru Ioan Cuza (Moldova). They are grandparents and a grandson.   N. was born with multiple health problems, and his mother died soon after his birth. The child   resided with his grandparents. The case concerns the attempts by A.C., the child’s father, to gain   custody over N.   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicants complain of the   decisions that could lead to the removal of their grandson.   Violation of Article 8   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 5,000 jointly to the first two applicants   costs and expenses: EUR 2,500 jointly to the first two applicants   Mironescu v. Romania (no. 17504/18)   The applicant, Ioan-Dumitru Mironescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1973 and is   currently detained in Iaşi Prison (Romania).   The case concerns the applicant’s being prevented from voting while serving a prison term for   organised-crime offences, despite no order restricting his right to vote having been made by the   courts, for the sole reason that, on the date of the elections, he was serving a sentence in a prison   situated outside the electoral constituency of his place of residence.   The applicant complains, in particular, that he was unlawfully prevented from voting in the 2016   parliamentary elections. The Court examined his complaint from the standpoint of Article 3 of   Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) to the Convention.   Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1   Just satisfaction: the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the   non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant   Pal v. the United Kingdom (no. 44261/19)   The applicant, Rita Pal, is a British national who was born in 1971 and lives in Birmingham (United   Kingdom).   The applicant is a journalist and former psychiatrist. The case concerns her arrest on charges of   harassment following a social-media exchange between her and a certain A.B. concerning health-   service whistle-blowing issues.   Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant complains that her arrest, conditions of   bail and prosecution violated her rights.   Violation of Article 10   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 2,500   costs and expenses: EUR 1,400   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.   3