003-8550569-12148895

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 144 (2026) 02.06.2026 Judgments of 2 June 2026 The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing four judgments1 : two 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 below only exist in English. O� Parem Kallas v. Estonia (application no. 18440/23) The applicant, O� Parem, is a private limited company based in P�rnu (Estonia). In 2002 the applicant company became the owner of a parcel of land on the right bank of P�rnu River, part of which had been earmarked for the future extension of a public road. The applicant company and the municipal authorities eventually agreed in 2022 on the sale of the parcel for 30,000 euros. The case concerns the proceedings for the municipality to acquire the land and the proceedings brought by the applicant company claiming compensation. Relying on Article 6 � 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant company complains about the delay in establishing the price for the land and the fact that this delay was not taken into account when deciding on the sum the applicant company would receive for the parcel, which was calculated on a 2001 basis. No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Serbian-Chinese Friendship Society FDH v. Serbia (no. 54936/20) The applicant, Serbian-Chinese Friendship Society FDH, is an organisation based in Belgrade. The case concerns the applicant society's attempt to hold public protests in Belgrade against the alleged persecution of Falun Gong in the People's Republic of China. Falun Gong describes itself as a spiritual practice rooted in the Buddhist tradition. The protests were ultimately banned by the Serbian authorities on the grounds of public safety. In particular, they considered that the gatherings were timed to coincide with the official visit of the Chinese President on 17 and 18 June 2016, which could have led to counter-demonstrations and clashes. Relying on Article 11 (freedom of association) of the European Convention, the applicant society argues in particular that the official assessment of a threat to public safety was merely speculative and, even if there was a risk of counter demonstrations, this was not a reason to ban a peaceful protest. Also relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, the applicant 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 society complains that the judicial review proceedings in the administrative courts and constitutional appeal proceedings were not effective remedies for its complaints. Violation of Article 11 Violation of Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 11 Just satisfaction: The applicant society did not make any claim for just satisfaction. 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