003-8072874-11284791

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 249 (2024)   24.10.2024   Judgments and decisions of 24 October 2024   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 25 judgments1 and 55 decisions2:   two Chamber judgments are summarised below;   a separate press release has been issued for a Chamber judgment in the case of B.B. v. Slovakia   (application no. 48587/21);   Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, and   the 55 decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgment in French below is indicated with an asterisk (*).   Eckert v. France (application no. 56270/21)*   The applicant, Myriam Eckert, is a French national who was born in 1972 and lives in Bordeaux.   The case concerns the applicant’s criminal conviction for taking part in a “yellow vests” (“gilets   jaunes”) demonstration on Saturday 11 May 2019 which was banned by the prefect of Gironde.   Relying in particular on Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European   Convention on Human Rights, the applicant submits that her criminal conviction for participating in a   banned demonstration infringed her rights to freedom of expression and to freedom of peaceful   assembly.   No violation of Article 11   Drozdyk and Mikula v. Ukraine (nos. 27849/15 and 33358/15)   The applicants, Mariya Petrivna Drozdyk and Olga Pavlivna Mikula, are Ukrainian nationals who were   born in 1946 and 1949 respectively. They live, respectively, in Chudei (Chernivtsi Region) and   Bryukhovychi (Lviv Region) (both in Ukraine).   The case concerns the annulment of the applicants’ titles to plots of land, which they had used and   owned for decades, on the basis that the lands fell within railway exclusion zones and thus should   never have been transferred into private ownership.   They rely on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1   (protection of property) to the Convention.   Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: 1,500 euros (EUR) to the second applicant   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   Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.   costs and expenses: EUR 500 to the second applicant   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   https://www.echr.coe.int/home. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here:   www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on X (Twitter) @ECHR_CEDH.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | 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.   2