003-8280393-11659187

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 175 (2025)   10.07.2025   Judgments and decisions of 10 July 2025   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 32 judgments1 and 62 decisions2:   three Chamber judgments are summarised below;   separate press releases have been issued for four other Chamber judgments in the cases of Gullotti   v. Italy (application no. 64753/14), Rodina and Borisova v. Latvia (nos. 2623/16 and 2299/16),   Korniyets and Others v. Ukraine (nos. 2599/16, 6904/16, and 12704/16), and Tomenko v. Ukraine   (no. 79340/16);   the 25 Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, and   the 62 decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgment in French is indicated with an asterisk (*).   Wulffaert and Wulffaert Beheer NV v. Belgium (application no. 76634/16)*   The applicants are two Belgian nationals and a Belgian public limited company, Wulffaert Beheer. The   case concerns their criminal conviction for carrying out building work without planning permission.   The applicants – who were each ordered to pay a criminal fine of 11,000 euros – submit that the   Flemish Government decree which was in force at the time of their conviction exempted certain types   of work from planning permission.   They rely in this respect on the principle of the retrospective application of the more lenient criminal   law, as guaranteed by Article 7 (no punishment without law) of the European Convention on Human   Rights.   Violation of Article 7   Just satisfaction: the Court rejected the applicants’ claim for pecuniary damage and held that the   respondent State was to pay them jointly 5,000 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses.   Sakkou v. Cyprus (no. 4429/23)   The applicant, Charalambos Sakkou, is a Cypriot national who was born in 1979 and is serving a prison   sentence in Nicosia.   In 2020 Mr Sakkou was convicted of multiple drug offences and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment.   The conviction was based on the testimony of one of his accomplices, R., evidence given by two police   officers and telecommunications data. R. was himself also convicted of various drug offences. The case   concerns Mr Sakkou’s allegation that his conviction was not fair because it had been based, to a   decisive extent, on the testimony of R., his accomplice.   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.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention, Mr Sakkou argues in particular   that the admission of R. into a witness protection programme, the suspension of his prison sentence   and his subsequent removal from Cyprus under a new identity – albeit subsequent to the applicant’s   conviction – showed that R.’s testimony as a prosecution witness had been unreliable.   No violation of Article 6 § 1 on account of the reliance on accomplice testimony   Bednarek and Others v. Poland (no. 58207/14)   The applicants are, Stanisław Bednarek and Dawid Durejko, two Polish nationals who were born in   1991; and Vyacheslav Melnyk, a Ukrainian national who was born in 1992. They all live in Warsaw.   The case concerns the applicants’ complaint about the authorities’ inadequate response to a   homophobic attack against them.   On 1 January 2013 at about 3 a.m. they were assaulted and beaten by two brothers and another   person while walking in one of Warsaw’s main streets. The first and the third applicants, who were a   couple at the time, had been holding hands. They complained to the police and the three aggressors   were subsequently indicted and convicted of battery. All three were given a one-year suspended   prison sentence and fined 100 Polish zlotys (approximately 25 euros).   Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) and 14 (prohibition of   discrimination) of the Convention, the applicants complain that the authorities had not taken into   account the homophobic motivation of their attackers, and, instead, had investigated, prosecuted and   tried them for ordinary criminal offences. They also complain of a lack of adequate legislative and   other measures in Poland to prosecute and combat hate crimes motivated by victims’ sexual   orientation.   Violation of Article 3 taken in conjunction with Article 14   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 7,000 to each applicant   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