issued by the Registrar of the Court  
ECHR 163 (2021)  
25.05.2021  
Judgments and decision of 25 May 2021  
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing two judgments1 and one decision2:  
Two Chamber judgments are summarised below;  
The decision can be consulted on Hudoc and does not appear in this press release.  
The judgments summarised below are available only in English.  
Nechay v. Russia (application no. 40639/17)  
The applicant, Ilya Petrovich Nechay, is a Russian national who was born in 1974 and lives in  
Zheleznodorozhnyy (Russia).  
The case concerns the decision of the Russian courts to limit the applicant’s contact with his  
daughter to 12 hours per year, at the child’s place of residence and in the presence of the child’s  
mother.  
Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on  
Human Rights, the applicant complains that the judgment determining the contact arrangements  
between him and his daughter significantly reduced his ability to preserve and develop family ties  
with his daughter and amounted to a violation of his right to respect for his family life.  
Violation of Article 8  
Just satisfaction:  
Non-pecuniary damage: 12,500 euros (EUR)  
Costs and expenses: EUR 5,500  
Milosavljević v. Serbia (no. 57574/14)  
The applicant, Ranko Milosavljević, is a Serbian national who was born in 1960 and lives in  
Kragujevac (Serbia).  
The case concerns freedom of journalistic and editorial expression in the context of an incident  
involving the alleged sexual abuse of an underage Romani girl by the head of a local council office in  
April 2010. At the time, the applicant was a journalist and editor-in-chief of Svetlost, a weekly news  
magazine. On 3 June 2010 the magazine published an article he had written, and a second article  
written by another journalist regarding the alleged incident.  
A month later the head of the local council office lodged a civil defamation claim against the  
applicant, the second journalist and Svetlost regarding the published articles. After a first ruling and  
upon appeal, in April 2011, the courts ordered the applicant, the second journalist and Svetlost to  
pay the head of the local council office compensation on account of the mental anguish suffered as a  
1
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a 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.  
2
Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.  
consequence of the breach of his honour and reputation, as well as statutory interest and litigation  
costs. In May 2011 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal, which was dismissed in December  
2013. The order was served on the applicant in February 2014.  
In December 2012, the head of the local council office was acquitted of all charges, that judgment  
being upheld on appeal at second instance in December 2013. In February 2014, he applied for an  
enforcement order, which was issued two days later.  
As of April 2020 the civil judgments remained unenforced, allegedly because the applicant had been  
unemployed and lacking any movable assets since 2013.  
Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention, the applicant complains  
that he suffered a breach of his freedom of expression. In particular, he maintains that the printed  
articles in question raised serious issues concerning the alleged sexual abuse of an underage Romani  
girl; and that he had ultimately ended up being punished for the articles’ publication by losing a civil  
defamation case and being ordered to pay compensation and other costs to the head of the  
municipal branch office.  
No violation of Article 10  
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. To receive  
the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter  
@ECHR_CEDH.  
Press contacts  
During the current public-health crisis, journalists can continue to contact the Press Unit via  
echrpress@echr.coe.int.  
Tracey Turner-Tretz  
Denis Lambert  
Inci Ertekin  
Neil Connolly  
Jane Swift  
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