003-8100426-11333026

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 278 (2024)   28.11.2024   Judgments and decisions of 28 November 2024   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 14 judgments1 and 53 decisions2:   one Chamber judgment is summarised below;   Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, and   the 53 decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgment summarised below is available only in English.   Klaudia Csikós v. Hungary (application no. 31091/16)   The applicant, Klaudia Csikós, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Budapest.   She is a journalist for Blikk, a daily newspaper.   The case concerns the alleged tapping of telephone calls between the applicant and one of her close   acquaintances, a police officer, over a three-day period, apparently with a view to revealing her   journalistic sources within the police in the context of an investigation into abuse of authority.   Relying on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 10 (freedom of expression) and   (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, she complains about   the tapping of those telephone conversations and that she was denied an effective remedy in that   connection.   Violation of Article 8   Violation of Article 10   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: 6,500 euros (EUR)   costs and expenses: EUR 7,000   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)   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.   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