003-8191195-11496101

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 079 (2025)   25.03.2025   Judgments of 25 March 2025   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing five Chamber judgments1which are   summarised below.   The judgment in French below is indicated with an asterisk (*).   Almukhlas and Al-Maliki v. Greece (application no. 22776/18)*   The applicants, Mohammed Hussein Hasan Almukhlas and Huda Hadi Kareem Al-Maliki, are two Iraqi   nationals who were born in 1967 and 1977 respectively and live in Basra (Iraq).   The case concerns the death of the applicants’ minor son on 29 August 2015, near the island of Symi,   from a shot fired by a coastguard during an operation to intercept a boat that was illegally transporting   persons to Greece.   Relying on Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants submit   that the domestic authorities did not take appropriate steps to plan and conduct the interception   operation as effectively as possible, with a view, above all, to protecting the persons being   transported. Furthermore, they consider that the administrative and judicial investigations to   establish the liability of those responsible for the incident were inadequate.   Violation of Article 2 (investigation)   Violation of Article 2 (right to life) – on account of the conduct of the contested interception operation   No violation of Article 2 (right to life) – on account of the use of force   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: 80,000 euros (EUR) to the applicants jointly   Ali v. Serbia (no. 4662/22)   The applicant, Ahmet Jaafar Mohamed Ali, is a Bahraini national who was born in 1973. He is currently   in prison in Bahrain.   The case concerns the applicant’s extradition from Serbia to Bahrain. He was wanted in Bahrain   following his conviction in absentia for terrorism offences and was arrested in Serbia in November   under an international arrest warrant issued by Interpol. During the ensuing extradition   proceedings he argued that, as a Shiite and political activist, he would be at risk of persecution, torture   or even death in Bahrain. The courts upheld, however, the decision to extradite him, finding that his   presence in Serbia was illegal.   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   He was ultimately extradited on 24 January 2022 after the Serbian Minister of Justice obtained   diplomatic assurances that the applicant would have a retrial with him being allowed to present his   case in person.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention, the   applicant alleges that at the time of his extradition he faced a real risk of being subjected to torture or   inhuman or degrading treatment; that his extradition exposed him to a sentence of life imprisonment   with no prospect of release; and, that the Serbian authorities had not taken any of these issues into   consideration in their decisions. He also argues under Article 34 (right to individual application) that   he was extradited to Bahrain in spite of an interim measure issued on 21 January 2022 by the European   Court under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court.   Violation of Article 3 – in respect of the applicant’s complaint about the domestic courts’ failure to   examine his complaint that he would face a risk of ill-treatment if extradited   Violation of Article 34   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 9,800   Demirer v. Türkiye (no. 45779/18)   The applicant, Serferaz Demirer, is a Turkish national who was born in 1994 and lives in Bayburt   (Türkiye).   The case concerns Ms Demirer’s conviction in May 2016 of, among other things, membership of an   armed terrorist organisation after she had been arrested trying to cross the Turkish border illegally   from Syria with another woman who had confessed to having joined the YPG (the Kurdish People’s   Defence Units movement), the Syrian branch of the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan) and received   political and military training there. Both initially falsely identified themselves as Syrian citizens. After   Ms Demirer’s true identity was discovered, she accused the interpreter, B.S., of “treason”. She was   sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. The courts found unconvincing her argument that she had   gone to Syria to attend a wedding.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention, Ms Demirer alleges that the courts failed   to adequately investigate the allegations against her, to provide grounds for her conviction and to   assess her defence submissions.   No violation of Article 6 § 1   Onat and Others v. Türkiye (no. 61590/19 and six other applications)   The applicants are seven Turkish nationals who live variously in Van, Şırnak, Diyarbakır and Batman   (all Türkiye).   They were all labourers employed by different private companies subcontracted by municipal   authorities in south-east Türkiye. The case notably concerns their dismissal from their jobs on various   dates in 2016 and 2017, against the background of an escalation in fighting between the Turkish   security forces and armed terrorist groups and the declaration of a state of emergency after the 2016   attempted coup d’état.   Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 (right to a fair trial/presumption of innocence), the applicants complain   that the judicial review of their dismissals was ineffective. They argue in particular that, to justify their   dismissal, the labour courts had referred to criminal proceedings or investigations which had taken   place prior to the attempted coup d’état and which had ended with final decisions to acquit or not to   prosecute. All but one of the applicants also complain under Article 8 (right to respect for private life)   that the dismissals have stigmatised them and caused irreversible harm to their reputations and   private lives.   No violation of Article 6 § 2   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 1,500 to each applicant   costs and expenses: EUR 1,000 to Mr. Ahmet İlaslan   N.S. v. the United Kingdom (no. 38134/20)   The applicant, N.S., is a British national who was born in 1969 and lives in Wolverhampton.   The case concerns the applicant’s complaint about the decision authorising the adoption of her son,   Y, (born in 2011), against her wishes. Y and his older brother, X (born in 2002), had been placed in   foster care in 2013 after she had been detained on mental-health grounds. They were returned to her   in 2014, but taken into care again a year later when she had a relapse. In 2016 X was returned to her,   but the Family Court ordered that Y be placed for adoption. In November 2019, the Family Court made   an adoption order, dispensing with the applicant’s consent.   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicant complains about the   decision to sever family ties between her and Y. She argues in particular that the courts rejected her   request to make a special guardianship order, which would have allowed the prospective adopter to   look after Y while preserving his legal ties with his birth family.   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