003-8545268-12138807

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 136 (2026) 26.05.2026 Judgments of 26 May 2025 The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing eight judgments1: three Chamber judgments are summarised below; a separate press release has been issued for another Chamber judgment in the case of J.B. v. Greece (application no. 54796/16); four 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 (*). Idris Akhundov v. Azerbaijan (application no. 22824/21) The applicant, Idris Axunbala oglu Akhundov, is an Azerbaijani national who was born in 1967 and now lives in Mainz (Germany). Between June 1993 and May 2016, he worked in various positions in the Khachmaz District Police Office under the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Azerbaijan. Upon reaching retirement age in 2016, he was granted an old-age pension (yaa g�r mk pensiyasi) for life. The case concerns the discontinuance of his old-age pension, as he has allegedly been granted political asylum in Germany. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complains that he has been deprived of his possessions on account of the authorities' decision to discontinue his pension payments. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Just satisfaction: pecuniary damage: the Court held that the respondent State was to pay the applicant his pension arrears from 1 November 2017 onwards, including indexation non-pecuniary damage: 3,000 euros (EUR) Samet Kaya v. T�rkiye (no. 42109/22) The applicant, Samet Kaya, is a Turkish national who was born in 1993 and lives in Ankara. The case concerns Mr Kaya's dismissal by the Council of Judges and Prosecutors (H�kimler ve Savcilar Kurulu) on the basis of a medical report by the Forensic Medicine Institute, which concluded that he was not fit on health grounds to carry out the duties of a judge or prosecutor. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention, the applicant complains that he had no access to a court to challenge the decision of the Council of Judges and Prosecutors of 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 6 April 2022 rejecting his objection against the decision. He also complains under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) that his dismissal was arbitrary as he had already recovered from the health issue in question, further submitting that the loss of employment caused severe financial and moral hardship for him and his family. Violation of Article 6 � 1 Just satisfaction: non-pecuniary damage: EUR 9,000 Mavrakis and Kasapolu v. Turkey (nos. 12549/23, 71/24, and 2023/24)* The applicants, Niko Mavrakis and Corc Kasaolu, are two Turkish nationals who were born in 1941 and 1984 respectively and lived in Istanbul, where they served as Greek Orthodox priests. The case concerns the applicants' removal from the lists of the members of the boards of directors of three religious minority foundations on account of their being members of the clergy, and the ensuing judicial proceedings. Relying on Articles 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the Convention, the applicants complain that their removal from the boards of directors of the foundations belonging to the Greek Orthodox community, of which they are members, infringed their right to manifest their religion and their freedom of association. Relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), taken alone or in conjunction with Articles 9 and 11, they allege that they were discriminated against on the grounds of their status as Greek Orthodox priests and their belonging to the Greek minority. Lastly, relying on Article 6 � 1 and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), they complain of the lack of a remedy on account of the belated referral of the case to the civil courts. Violation of Article 11 read in the light of Article 9 Just satisfaction: non-pecuniary damage: EUR 2,000 to the second applicant individually and to the heirs of the first applicant jointly 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