003-8173550-11464281

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 062 (2025)   06.03.2025   Judgments and decisions of 6 March 2025   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 33 judgments1 and 67 decisions2:   four Chamber judgments are summarised below;   a separate press release has been issued for the Chamber judgment in the case F.B. v. Belgium   (application no. 47836/21);   one separate press release has also been issued for the decision in the case of Kotnik and Jukič   v. Slovenia (nos. 56605/19 and 25424/23).   The 28 Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court,   and the 66 other decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgment in French below is indicated with an asterisk (*).   Garand and Others v. France (application no. 2474/21)*   The applicants are seven French nationals who were born between 1959 and 1992 and live in Seur   (France). They are all family members of the late Angelo Garand, who died on 30 March 2017 during   an operation to apprehend him conducted by an operational unit of the gendarmerie. Born in 1979   and convicted and imprisoned multiple times, Angelo Garand had been on the run and had taken   refuge in the applicants’ home.   The applicants submit that the gendarmes’ use of lethal force was in breach of Article 2 (right to life)   of the European Convention on Human Rights.   No violation of Article 2   Gorše v. Slovenia (no. 47186/21)   The applicant, Brane Gorše, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Ljubljana -   Šentvid.   The case concerns criminal proceedings against Mr Gorše, a lawyer, for abuse of office and money   laundering. He was convicted in 2014.   Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 (right to a fair trial/presumption of innocence) of the European   Convention, he alleges that the proceedings were not fair. He argues in particular that the judge   deciding the case was not impartial and prejudged his guilt because he had accepted the guilty pleas   of co-defendants before the trial had begun.   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 2   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.   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 2,400 euros (EUR)   costs and expenses: EUR 2,196   Hasani v. Sweden (no. 35950/20)   The applicant, Esmat Hasani, is an Afghan national who was born in 2001 and lives in Gothenborg   (Sweden).   Mr Hasani and his brother, A.H., arrived in Sweden in 2015 and applied for asylum. The case   concerns A.H.’s suicide after the authorities refused the brothers’ asylum requests. A.H. had a visual   impairment and mental health problems.   Relying on Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention, Mr Hasani alleges that the Swedish   authorities failed to take measures to protect his brother from committing suicide, despite being   aware that the decisions to refuse asylum would cause him distress.   No violation of Article 2   T.A. v. Switzerland (no. 13437/22)   The applicant, T.A., is a Swiss national who was born in Ethiopia in 1967. She moved to Switzerland   in 1995 with her Swiss husband and currently lives there, in Versoix.   The case concerns the Swiss authorities’ refusal to authorise T.A.’s adoption of a child she had   brought to Switzerland from Ethiopia in 2017. She had found the baby in Addis Ababa in 2016 and   the Ethiopian authorities had subsequently authorised adoption. The Swiss courts ultimately   refused, however, her adoption application, in 2021. They based the refusal on her age, financial   situation, which involved her relying on social benefits, and her frail health, as well as the fact that   she had created a fait accompli by bringing the baby to Switzerland even though the adoption   authorities had refused her application in 2016.   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), T.A. complains that the authorities’   refusal to grant her permission to adopt breached her right to respect for family life. She argues that   the courts disregarded the best interests of the child who had been living with her in a parent-child   relationship for the last seven years.   No violation of Article 8   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 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