003-8485043-12029952

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 067 (2026) 17.03.2026 Judgments of 17 March 2026 The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing eight judgments1: three Chamber judgments are summarised below; five 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 judgment in French below is indicated with an asterisk (*). B�lent Ak�ay v. T�rkiye (application no. 41669/21)* The applicant, Mr B�lent Ak�ay, is a Turkish national who was born in 1975 and lives in Istanbul. The case concerns the revoking of two taxi licences belonging to the applicant for non-use exceeding 6 months. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complains of an infringement of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Sungur v. T�rkiye (no. 56462/19) The applicant, Ceyda Sungur, is a Turkish national who was born in 1986 and lives in Paris. The case concerns a police officer spraying Ms Sungur with tear gas at close range during a sit-in on 28 May 2013 to protest against the replacement of Istanbul's Gezi Park with a shopping centre. Widespread protests followed and a photograph of Ms Sungur, who was wearing a red dress when sprayed, became one of the symbols of what became known as "the Gezi Park events". The police officer was subsequ ently issued with a disciplinary warning. In criminal proceedings he was also found guilty of causing intentional bodily harm and ordered to plant 300 trees and tend them for six months. Ms Sungur lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court, which found that the sanctions constituted sufficient redress. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention, Ms Sungur alleges that the use of force against her amounted to ill-treatment and that the authorities failed to punish the police officer responsible. Violation of Article 3 (right to life and investigation) 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: non-pecuniary damage: EUR 6,500 euros (EUR) costs and expenses: EUR 5,400 D.A. and R.A. v. the United Kingdom (no. 46692/19) The applicants, D.A. and R.A., are two British nationals who were born in 1992 and 2017 respectively and live in Radlett (United Kingdom). They are mother and child. The case concerns the UK Government's policy of imposing a monetary cap on the total amount of welfare benefits households may receive per year, which was first introduced in 2013. Benefit claimants who work at least 16 hours per week are exempt from the cap. In 2016, the amount of the benefit was revised. At that time, the Government offered free childcare in respect of all children aged three and four and certain children aged two, but did not offer free childcare in respect of children under the age of two. The applicants complain that the Government's failure to exempt lone parents with children under the age of two from the revised benefit cap, in circumstances where such parents were not entitled to free childcare to assist with entering into work, constituted unlawful discrimination within the meaning of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and/or Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). No violation of Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and/or Article 8 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] | 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. 2