003-8390019-11860074

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 275 (2025)   25.11.2025   Judgments of 25 November 2025   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing seven judgments1:   cinq Chamber judgments are summarised below;   two 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.   Selimi v. Albania (application no. 37896/19)   The applicant, Shkëlzen Kujtim Selimi, is an Albanian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Tirana.   The applicant is a former judge. The case concerns his dismissal from that post.   Starting in January 2017, as part of comprehensive reforms to Albania’s justice system, the applicant   underwent a “vetting process” carried out by the Independent Qualifications Commission (“the IQC”).   As part of that process, an assessment of his contact with persons involved in organised crime was   undertaken and a report was prepared by the Classified Information Security Directorate. The report,   which was redacted, concluded that the applicant was unfit to remain in office and referred to   information indicating his alleged involvement in corrupt activities and inappropriate contacts. The   IQC also received a submission from the International Monitoring Operation. On 30 July 2018,   following further investigation and enquiries and the preparation of an investigation report, the IQC   dismissed the applicant from office. That decision was upheld on appeal.   Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on   Human Rights, the applicant complains that the vetting proceedings were unfair as, among other   things, the vetting bodies had failed to disclose the facts and the evidence underlying their decisions.   He also raises a complaint under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just   satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and that the respondent State   was to pay him 6,500 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses.   Azadlıq Newspaper v. Azerbaijan (no. 12708/13)   The applicant, Azadlıq, is a newspaper published in Azerbaijan. It stopped publishing its paper version   in 2016 owing to financial difficulties.   The case concerns judgments against the applicant newspaper after its publication in 2012 of an article   criticising the management of the state-owned Baku Metro when fares were increased. In particular,   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   the courts found that the newspaper had damaged the reputation of T.A., the former chief executive   of the Baku Metro, ordered it to publish a retraction and to pay T.A. approximately 30,600 euros in   damages.   Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention, the applicant newspaper   complains that the decisions and sanctions against it were disproportionate.   Violation of Article 10   Just satisfaction:   Pecuniary damage: EUR 25,000   Non-pecuniary damage: EUR 3,000   Costs and expenses: EUR 1,500   Rasmussen and Others v. Denmark (no. 2390/24)   The applicants, Birthe Rasmussen, Walaa Elnakory and Romaysa Rasmussen are Danish and Egyptian   nationals who were born in 1954, 1984 and 2012 respectively and live in Hjorring and Alexandria   (Egypt).   The case concerns the death of J.F in prison in November 2017. The applicants are his mother, wife   and child. On the day before his death, an inmate had informed prison officers that J.F. had taken a   bottle of 100 methadone tablets from the dispensary. An autopsy report concluded that the cause of   death was poisoning caused by methadone, oxycodone, fentanyl and benzodiazepines. Civil   proceedings brought by the applicants were unsuccessful.   Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the   Convention, the applicants complain that the prison authorities failed to provide J.F. with adequate   supervision and medical care and, accordingly, to protect his life.   No violation of Article 2   Akan v. Türkiye (no. 62611/17)   The applicant, İbrahim Akan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1990 and lives in Istanbul.   The case concerns an injury he sustained during the Labour Day demonstrations of 1 May 2013 and   the authorities’ refusal to initiate an investigation into his complaints regarding the responsibility of   the Governor of Istanbul and the head of the Istanbul Security Directorate at the time.   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Akan complains that the   excessive use of force by the police – which had caused his injury – stemmed from the State   authorities’ determination to ban demonstrations in Taksim Square and the instructions they had   given to that effect. He claims that the authorities’ refusal to initiate investigations against   high-ranking officials resulted in impunity.   Violation of Article 3 (investigation)   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: EUR 12,500   costs and expenses: EUR 1,000   Just satisfaction   Associated Newspapers Limited v. the United Kingdom (no. 37398/21)   The applicant, Associated Newspapers Limited, is the publisher of the Daily Mail and the Mail on   Sunday newspapers, and is based in the United Kingdom.   The case concerns the just satisfaction to be awarded following the European Court’s judgment of   November 2024. That judgment concerned the fact that Associated Newspapers Limited, having   been successfully sued in privacy and/or defamation proceedings by claimants who had entered into   a conditional fee arrangement (CFA) with their legal representative and/or had taken out after the   event (ATE) insurance, was ordered to pay the claimants’ legal costs, which included not only their   base costs, but also fee uplifts including the “success fee” in the CFA and the ATE insurance premiums.   In the 2024 judgment the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of   expression) as regards the newspaper company’s liability to pay the success fee, and no violation of   Article 10 as regards the company’s liability to cover the “after-the event” insurance premiums taken   out by the successful claimants.   In today’s judgment, the Court took note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties   and decided to strike the remainder of the application out of its list of cases.   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 www.echr.coe.int.   Follow the Court on Bluesky @echr.coe.int, X ECHR_CEDH, LinkedIn, and YouTube.   Contact ECHRPress to subscribe to the press-release mailing list.   Where can the Court’s press releases be found? HUDOC - Press collection   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)   Jane Swift (tel.: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   Claire Windsor (tel.: + 33 3 88 41 24 01)   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