003-7561500-10391364

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 038 (2023)   07.02.2023   Judgments of 7 February 2023   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing seven Chamber judgments1;   five judgments are summarised below;   separate press releases have been issued for the two other judgments in the cases of: B v. Russia   (application no. 36328/20) and Elvan v. Türkiye (no 64937/19);   The judgments in French below are indicated with an asterisk (*).   Jacquinet and Embarek Ben Mohamed v. Belgium (application no. 61860/15)*   The applicants, Eric Jacquinet and Lorenzo Embarek Ben Mohamed, were born in 1975 and 2005   respectively. The first applicant is a Belgian national and the second a French national. They are   father and son and live in France.   The case concerns the refusal by the Belgian authorities to replace the surname of the two   applicants by that of the first applicant’s mother.   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on   Human Rights, the applicants complain about the authorities’ refusal to change their surname.   No violation of Article 8   Miladinova v. Bulgaria (no. 31604/17)*   The applicant, Lilia Miladinova, is a Russian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Bulgaria. She   is a nurse by profession.   The case concerns civil proceedings for damages brought by Ms Miladinova against investigative   bodies, seeking compensation for damage sustained by her as a result of criminal charges against   her.   In 2012, while working in a home for elderly people with physical disabilities, Ms Miladinova was   placed under investigation for theft of property belonging to the home and worth approximately   euros (EUR). On three occasions, the prosecutor’s office ordered the closure of the criminal   proceedings in 2012, 2013 and 2014 respectively. In 2015 the prosecutor ordered the reopening of   the criminal proceedings and drew up an indictment against the applicant, estimating the total value   of the stolen items at approximately EUR 46. The applicant was acquitted in 2016.   In the meantime, in August 2014, in consideration of the fact that the criminal proceedings against   her had been discontinued, Ms Miladinova brought a civil action for damages, which was dismissed   in July 2015 as, according to practice, compensation was not possible while the criminal proceedings   were still pending.   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   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention, Ms Miladinova complains of   a breach of her right of access to a court.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction:   pecuniary damage: 7.50 euros (EUR)   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 3,600   costs and expenses: EUR 2,500   Paun Jovanović v. Serbia (no. 41394/15)   The applicant, Paun Jovanović, is a Serbian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Bor (Serbia).   The case concerns the official use of two standard variants of the Serbian language, Ekavian and   Ijekavian, in judicial proceedings. The applicant, a practising lawyer, alleges that he was denied the   opportunity to speak Ijekavian by an investigating judge while defending his client in the course of   criminal proceedings, whereas the lawyer representing the victim was permitted to use the Ekavian   variant.   Relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol   No. 12 (general prohibition of discrimination) to the Convention, the applicant complains that as a   practising lawyer and an Ijekavian speaker of the Serbian language, he had suffered discrimination   due to the way in which he had been treated compared to an Ekavian-speaking lawyer, while they   were both acting on behalf of their respective clients and in the course of the same criminal case.   Moreover, relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), he complains that a decision delivered by the   Constitutional Court in the case was not properly reasoned.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 2,000   costs and expenses: EUR 95   M.B. and Others v. Slovakia (no. 2) (no. 63962/19)   The applicants are six Slovak nationals who were born between 1992 and 1998. They are ethnic   Roma.   In 2009 the applicants were arrested on suspicion of having mugged a 66-year-old woman in Košice.   They were taken to a police station. According to the applicants, while there they were threatened   with and bitten by dogs, kicked, beaten and verbally abused. These allegations have been denied by   the Government. A recording made with a mobile device was subsequently released in the public   domain, purporting to depict the treatment to which the applicants had been subjected, including   being forced to slap and then kiss each other.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 13 (right to an effective   remedy) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), the applicants complain of police   ill-treatment, of the State’s failure to protect them, of a lack of an effective remedy for their   complaints, that their ethnicity had been the primary reason for their ill-treatment and that in the   ensuing investigation the authorities failed to take all reasonable steps to unmask the racist motive   behind it.   Violation of Article 3 (investigation)   Violation of Article 3 (ill-treatment)   No violation of Article 14 taken together with Article 3   Violation of Article 14 taken together with Article 3 (investigation)   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 20,000 to each applicant   costs and expenses: EUR 11,000 to the applicants jointly   Duğan v. Türkiye (no. 84543/17)   The applicant, Cemal Duğan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1980 and lives in Bursa (Türkiye).   The applicant is a transgender person.   The case concerns the applicant’s being taken to a police station for disrupting traffic and allegedly   being detained there and fined because of her transgender identity.   Relying on Articles 5 (right to liberty and security) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), the   applicant maintains that the police officers could have accomplished the necessary official   procedures at the scene of the incident.   Violation of Article 5 § 1   No violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 5   Just satisfaction: the applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction   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   We would encourage journalists to send their enquiries via email.   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