issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 202 (2021)
29.06.2021
Judgments of 29 June 2021
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 17 judgments1:
three Chamber judgments are summarised below;
two separate press releases have been issued for two Chamber judgments in the cases of: Broda and
Bojara v. Poland (applications nos. 26691/18 and 27367/18) and Tercan v. Turkey (no. 6158/18);
12 Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, can be
consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.
The judgments summarised below are available only in English.
Monir Lotfy v. Cyprus (application no. 37139/13)
The applicant, Nashat Monir Lotfy, is an Egyptian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Egypt.
The case concerns his detention with a view to his deportation and the conditions while being held.
He relies on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 § 1 (right to liberty and
security), and 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) of the
European Convention on Human Rights.
Violation of Article 3 (ill-treatment)
Violation of Article 5 § 1
Just satisfaction:
non-pecuniary damage: 26,000 euros (EUR)
costs and expenses: EUR 4,867.99
A.O. Falun Dafa and Others v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 29458/15)
The applicants are A.O. Falun Dafa, A.O. Qigong Falun Gong Moldova, Tatiana Chiriac and Dumitru
Roman. The first two are organisations registered in the Republic of Moldova. The last two are
Moldovan and Romanian nationals who were born in 1970 and 1965 respectively and live in
Chișinău. They are the presidents and founders of the first two applicant organisations.
The case concerns the banning of the applicant organisations’ symbols, which resemble a swastika,
followed by their dissolution.
The applicants rely on Articles 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and 11 (freedom of
assembly and association) of the European Convention.
Violation of Article 9
Violation of Article 11
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: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution - _blank
