003-8272765-11644429

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 164 (2025) 01.07.2025 Judgments of 1 July 2025 The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing three Chamber judgments1 which are summarised below. These judgments are available only in English. Mustafa and Mustafova v. Bulgaria (application no. 7428/17) The applicants, Metin Mustafa Mustafa and Esengyul Mustafova Mustafova, are Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1981 and 1978 respectively and live in Todor Ikonomovo (Bulgaria). The case concerns the applicants' father, who had claimed non-pecuniary damage as a result of the death of his son (the applicants' brother) in a traffic accident. The applicants' father submitted a request to an organisation tasked with paying compensation in cases where the obligatory civil-liability insurance had not been concluded. However, he died before the refusal of his request and therefore before he could bring a court action. The applicants brought a court claim on behalf of their deceased father in respect of which the national courts found that the entitlement to compensation for nonpecuniary damage was personal and could not be inherited. As their late father had not brought an action before the courts, the applicants could not do so on his behalf. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right of access to court) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants submit that the national courts' finding of inadmissibility in respect of the claim brought on behalf of their late father infringed their right of access to a court. Violation of Article 6 � 1 Just satisfaction: non-pecuniary damage: 1,000 euros (EUR) to each of the applicants costs and expenses: EUR 12 jointly to the applicants A.R. v. the United Kingdom (no. 6033/19) The applicant, Mr A.R., is a British national who was born in 1978 and lives in Rochdale (the United Kingdom). The case concerns the 2011 and 2012 disclosure by the police, in the context of enhanced employment vetting, of information that the applicant had been charged with rape and had subsequently been acquitted at trial, and a description of the circumstances of the alleged offence. Relying on Article 6 � 2 (presumption of innocence) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention, A.R. complains that the disclosure by the police violated his presumption of innocence and was not justified. Violation of Article 8 1 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 Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and that the respondent State was to pay him EUR 25,000 for costs and expenses. Hayes and Others v. the United Kingdom (nos. 56532/22, 56889/22, and 3739/23) The applicants, Valerie Perfect Hayes, Jennifer Amnott and Gary Blake Reburn, are American nationals who were born in 1980, 1985 and 1963 respectively and are currently detained in Scotland (the United Kingdom). The case concerns a request for the extradition of the applicants to the United States of America where they are charged with serious offences relating to the alleged kidnapping of five children from two Mennonite families and the attempted murder of those children's four parents in West Virginia. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the Convention, the applicants submit that their extradition could put them at real risk of a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. They also allege that such a sentence would be grossly disproportionate for a crime that did not involve homicide or even attempted homicide. No violation of Article 3 should the applicants be extradited to the US Interim measure (Rule 39 of the Rules of Court): still in force until the present judgment becomes final or until further notice 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] | 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