003-8165181-11449895

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 051 (2025)   25.02.2025   Judgments of 25 February2025   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing seven judgments1 :   four Chamber judgments are summarised below;   three 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 in French below are indicated with an asterisk (*).   Gomes Costa v. Portugal (application no. 34916/16)*   The applicant is a Portuguese national who was born in 1972 and lives in Portugal.   The case concerns the applicant’s detention pending trial for a period of eight months and 21 days in   the context of criminal proceedings opened against him on allegations of rape, which resulted in his   acquittal. It also concerns the domestic authorities’ refusal to grant him compensation for the   damage he claims to have sustained on account of his pre-trial detention.   Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the   applicant complains that he was placed and kept in pre-trial detention despite a lack of relevant and   sufficient grounds. He further complains that he was not afforded redress for the alleged   unlawfulness of his detention.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention, he submits that his right to be   presumed innocent was undermined.   No violation of Article 5 § 3   No violation of Article 6 § 2   Toth and Crișan v. Romania (no. 45430/19)   The applicants, Zoltán-Ovidiu Toth and Alin Crișan, are two Romanian nationals who were born in   and 1974, respectively, and live in Oradea (Romania). They are police officers working for the   local police force (Poliţia Locală Oradea).   The case concerns the posting of a text and a photo of the applicants by a member of the local   community, C.T., on the public Facebook group “Oradea is us” (Oradea suntem noi) in April 2016   after the police officers had fined C.T. and her mother for not putting their bin-bag of household   waste in the right place. The applicants brought proceedings against C.T. on account of the contents   of the post, the information disclosed and the public reaction it had generated.   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention, the applicants   complain that when dismissing the proceedings, the Romanian courts failed to strike a fair balance   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   between the competing interests at stake and to adequately protect their right to respect for their   private lives and reputations.   No violation of Article 8   Öner v. Türkiye (no. 8875/22)*   The applicants, Mehmet Şirin Öner and Besra Öner, are two Turkish nationals who were born in   and 1974 respectively.   The case concerns the death of the applicants’ son, who was run over by an armoured police vehicle   during a demonstration in Diyarbakır (Türkiye).   Relying on Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention, the applicants allege that their son was run over   by the vehicle deliberately, that he was not taken immediately to hospital despite serious injuries   and that the public prosecutor failed to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances   surrounding his death.   No violation of Article 2 in its subtantive and procedural aspects   Ezeoke v. the United Kingdom (no. 61280/21)   The applicant, Obina Christopher Ezeoke, is a British national who was born in 1992 and is currently   serving a prison sentence in HMP Frankland, in Durham (United Kingdom).   The applicant was arrested on 18 September 2016 on suspicion of the murder of a woman and her   21-year-old nephew. The case concerns the length and fairness of criminal proceedings against   Mr Ezeoke, who stood trial five times before he was convicted by a jury of the offences with which   he was charged.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, Mr Ezeoke complains that the length   of the proceedings was incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, and that he did not   have a “fair hearing” as a consequence of delays and the repeated retrials.   Violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against the   applicant   No violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the alleged lack of fairness of the impugned criminal   proceedings   Just satisfaction :   The applicant 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 www.echr.coe.int. To receive   the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on X   (Twitter) @ECHR_CEDH and Bluesky @echr.coe.int.   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.   3