003-8259181-11618939

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 144 (2025)   17.06.2025   Judgments of 17 June 2025   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 11 judgments1:   three Chamber judgments are summarised below;   eight 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 summarised below are available only in English.   Radobuljac v. Croatia (no. 2) (application no. 38785/18)   The applicant, Silvano Radobuljac, is a Croatian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Pula   (Croatia). He is a lawyer by profession.   The case concerns a refusal by the national authorities to offset the applicant’s tax debt against   amounts owed to him by the State for services he had provided as officially appointed counsel in   several sets of criminal proceedings.   Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human   Rights, Mr Radobuljac complains that the authorities’ refusal to offset his tax debt against his   enforceable claims was unlawful and that, by instituting enforcement and minor-offence proceedings   against him for failing to pay taxes on time, while at the same time not paying its own debts to him,   an excessive individual burden had been placed on him by the State.   No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   Revision   Zăicescu and Fălticineanu v. Romania (no. 42917/16)   The case concerned the retrial and acquittal of two army officers in the 1990s who were convicted in   the 1950s of war crimes and crimes against humanity for their involvement in, among other crimes,   the persecution of Romanian Jews in 1941, in particular the Iași pogrom, which one of the applicants   had survived, and the placement of a high number of Jews in ghettos, which was the case for both   applicants.   In a judgment delivered on 23 April 2024, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 in   conjunction with Article 14 of the European Convention on account of the acquittal of the two high-   ranking military officials previously convicted of crimes connected with the Holocaust, in extraordinary   appeal proceedings not disclosed to the applicants, as Holocaust victims, or to the public, a fact which   provoked in the applicants feelings of humiliation and vulnerability and caused them psychological   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   trauma. The Court also decided to award the applicants 8,500 euros (EUR) jointly for costs and   expenses.   The Government subsequently informed the Court that they had learned in October 2024, during their   attempt to enforce the judgment, that one of the applicants, Ana Fălticineanu, had died on   November 2020. They accordingly requested revision of the judgment.   In today’s judgment, the Court decided to revise its judgment of 23 April 2024 and to strike out the   application in so far as it concerns the complaints of Ms Ana Fălticineanu, and held that the respondent   Government was to pay 8,500 euros (EUR) to Mr. Zăicescu for costs and expenses.   Bülent Bekdemir v. Türkiye (no. 42881/18)   The applicant, Bülent Bekdemir, is a Turkish national who was born in 1977 and lives in Hamburg   (Germany).   The case concerns criminal proceedings against the applicant for allegedly being a member of an   armed terrorist organisation, namely the TKP-ML/TIKKO (Communist Party of   Turkey/Marxist-Leninist/Turkish Workers and Peasants’ Liberation Army), during which the national   courts allegedly relied on statements obtained in the absence of a lawyer to convict him of attempting   to overthrow the constitutional order. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.   Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, the applicant complains that the national courts’   use of the statements he made while in police custody and in the absence of a lawyer infringed his   right to a fair trial.   Violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c)   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 3,000   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 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.   2