003-8150766-11423383

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 032 (2025)   06.02.2025   Judgments and decisions of 6 February 2025   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 28 judgments1 and ten decisions2:   three Chamber judgments are summarised below;   two separate press releases have been issued for two other Chamber judgments in the cases of   Italgomme Pneumatici S.r.l. and Others v. Italy (application no. 36617/18 and 12 other applications)   and M.B. v. Spain (no. 38239/22);   Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, and   the ten decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgment summarised below is available only in English.   Caldarar and Others v. Poland (application no. 6142/16)   The applicants are five families comprising 16 Romanian nationals of Roma origin.   The case concerns the demolition in 2015 of an encampment that the families had built without   planning permission on a plot of land at Paprotna Street in the city of Wrocław (Poland). The   applicant families submit that following the demolition, they had lived on the streets before some   moved to another site and others took up offers of welfare housing. At the time nine of the   applicants were adults and seven were children.   Relying in particular on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life and the home), 13 (right   to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on   Human Rights, the applicants complain that the public authorities demolished their encampment   following administrative proceedings in which they had not been given the opportunity to   participate. They argue that their community had been broken up, with the authorities failing to   provide them with an adequate alternative solution that respected their way of life.   Violation of Article 8   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: 5,000 euros (EUR) to each of the five households   Gaydashevskyy v. Ukraine (no. 11553/21)   The applicant, Vadim Oleksandrovych Gaydashevskyy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1990   and lives in Khmelnytskyi (Ukraine).   The case concerns an administrative-offence case against the applicant for driving under the   influence of drugs in 2020. He was convicted as charged, given a fine and had his driving licence   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.   suspended for a year. On appeal he argued that his intoxication had only been established by a quick   test, with no laboratory testing. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument and upheld the   conviction, after holding hearings in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention the applicant complains that   there was no party to support the prosecution’s case against the applicant, meaning there was a   confusion between the roles of prosecutor and judge, and the Court of Appeal could not be   considered impartial.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction.   Ukrkava, TOV v. Ukraine (no. 10233/20)   The applicant Ukrkava, TOV, is a Ukrainian limited liability company based in Ukraine.   In 2011 the applicant company entered into a loan agreement with the State Savings Bank. The loan   was secured by a mortgage, which the bank had to have endorsed by a notary. The case concerns   the proceedings instituted by the applicant company against the bank and the question of the time-   limit for the notary to endorse the mortgage document, after the bank requested repayment of the   loan in 2016. The lower courts ruled that the bank had exceeded the time-limit, but the Supreme   Court found against the applicant company in 2019.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to   the Convention, the applicant company complains that the Supreme Court of Ukraine reinterpreted   the one-year time-limit for the notarisation of an endorsement on a document in the case of   proceedings between legal entities, in breach of the principle of legal certainty.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: The applicant company did not submit a 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   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