003-8266417-11632207

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 151 (2025)   24.06.2025   Judgments of 24 June 2025   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing ten judgments1:   five Chamber judgments are summarised below;   separate press releases have been issued for four other Chamber judgments in the cases of Sagir and   Others v. Greece (application no. 34724/18), H.Q. and Others v. Hungary (nos. 46084/21, 40185/22,   and 53952/22), Păcurar v. Romania (no. 17985/18), and Aksüngür and Others v. Serbia (no. 69080/13   and four other applications);   one Committee judgment, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, can be   consulted on Hudoc and does not appear in this press release.   The judgments summarised below are available only in English.   Just satisfaction   Bagirova and Others v. Azerbaijan (application no. 37706/17)   The applicants are six Azerbaijani nationals.   The judgment concerned the just satisfaction to be awarded following the European Court’s ruling of   August 2023 with regard to the expropriation of the applicants’ properties for a road-improvement   project. In that ruling the Court had held that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights.   As the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the European Convention had not   been ready for decision, the Court had reserved it.   The table of the amounts awarded for pecuniary damage and non-pecuniary damage as well as for   costs and expenses is annexed to the judgment.   Karović and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (nos. 43201/22, 555/23,   5241/23, and 23976/23)   The applicants are four nationals of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Zlatan Karović, Tarik Kršlak, Vanja   Bradarić and Osman Šabanović who were born in 1987, 1979, 1976 and 1967. They all live in Sarajevo,   except for Mr Šabanović, who lives in Ilidža (Bosnia and Herzegovina).   The case concerns the non-enforcement of domestic decisions in their favour in respect of unpaid   work-related benefits.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to   the European Convention, the applicants complain that, unlike others, the enforcement of the   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   decision in their favour had not been prioritised as they had refused to renounce their claims for   default interest and legal costs.   No violation of Article 6 § 1   No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1   A and B v. Malta (no. 4986/24)   The applicants are Mr A and, his son, B who were born in 1980 and 2012, respectively, and live in   Swieqi (Malta).   Mr A separated from the mother of B in 2017. Mr A filed a request with the courts in 2018 for B to   reside with him and to have no contact with his mother’s partner who was accused of drug offences.   That request was granted. The case concerns the subsequent childcare proceedings, and in particular   the mother’s contact rights and supervision of visits.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicants allege that a judge in the childcare   proceedings was not impartial because she had links to the opposing party’s lawyer and had decided   herself on the challenge lodged against her. Also relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and   family life), they allege that the decisions ordering B to spend time with his mother were not in the   child’s best interests.   No violation of Article 6 § 1   No violation of Article 8   M.L. v. North Macedonia (no. 30206/23)   The applicant, M.L., is a Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia who was born in   and lives in Skopje.   In December 2013 a daughter, D., was born to M.L. and his then wife D.B.L. In December 2021 M.L.   filed for divorce and requested custody of D. In 2022, while the divorce and custody proceedings were   still pending, D.B.L. initiated criminal proceedings against M.L. in 2022. The case concerns the issuing   and prolonged validity of a barring order in the context of the criminal proceedings, preventing M.L.   from seeing his daughter, owing to allegations of physical and psychological abuse. The criminal   complaints against M.L. were dismissed.   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), M.L. complains of the barring order   which prevented him from approaching his daughter.   Violation of Article 8 on account of the procedural shortcomings in the confirmation and periodic   reassessment of the barring order   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: 4,500 euros (EUR)   costs and expenses: EUR 1,460   D.G. and S.G. v. Serbia (no. 61347/21)   The applicants, Mr D.G. and Ms S.G., are Serbian nationals who were born in 1964 and 1977   respectively.   The case concerns the placement of the applicants’ three-year-old son, M., in foster care in 2017 due   to his allegedly being left at home without adequate care and supervision while his mother was at   work and the proceedings to divest the applicants of their parental rights in his respect.   Relying on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right   to an effective remedy) of the Convention, the applicants complain of M.’s initial and continued   placement in foster care, their lack of regular contact with him, the length of the proceedings to divest   them of their parental rights in his respect, and there being no legal avenue for these complaints.   Violation of Article 8 on account of the continued placement of the applicants’ son M. in foster care   and the lack of regular contact between the applicants and M.   Violation of Article 8 on account of the length of the proceedings to divest the applicants of their   parental rights in respect of their son M.   Just satisfaction: The applicants made no request 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 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