issued by the Registrar of the Court  
ECHR 229 (2021)  
22.07.2021  
Judgments of 20 July 2021  
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing ten judgments1:  
five Chamber judgments are summarised below;  
separate press releases have been issued for five Chamber judgments in the cases of: Polat v. Austria  
(no. 12886/16), Loquifer v. Belgium (nos. 79089/13, 13805/14, and 54534/14), D v. Bulgaria  
(no. 29447/17), Polgar v. Romania (no. 39412/19), and Akgun v. Turkey (no. 19699/18);  
The judgment in French below is indicated with an asterisk (*).  
Avanesyan v. Armenia (application no. 12999/15)  
The applicant, Artur Avanesyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1995 and lives in Masis  
(Armenia).  
The case concerns the applicant’s refusal to perform military service because, as a Jehovah’s  
Witness, his conscience did not allow him to serve in the army. He was convicted of draft evasion  
and sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment.  
Relying on Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on  
Human Rights, he complains about his arrest and subsequent detention, prosecution and conviction  
for conscientious objection, despite having requested to do alternative civilian service.  
Violation of Article 9  
Just satisfaction:  
non-pecuniary damage: 9,000 euros (EUR)  
costs and expenses: EUR 1,500  
Stoyan Nikolov v. Bulgaria (no. 68504/11)*  
The applicant, Stoyan Nikolov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1960. He died in April 2015.  
His widow and children expressed the wish to continue the proceedings before the Court.  
In this case the applicant complained about administrative proceedings resulting in an order for him  
to pay an administrative fine and in the confiscation in full of a sum of money (34,300 euros) which  
he had not declared to the Bulgarian customs authorities. The events took place in February 2009  
and the administrative proceedings ended in April 2011 with a final judgment of the Sofia  
Administrative Court.  
Relying on Articles 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European  
Convention, and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, the  
applicant complained of the penalties imposed on him in the administrative proceedings. He alleged  
that the Sofia Administrative Court had not addressed an important argument which he had raised  
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  
in the proceedings challenging the penalties. He also complained of the lack of a domestic remedy  
by which to obtain redress for the alleged breach of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his  
possessions.  
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1  
No violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1  
Just satisfaction:  
pecuniary damage: EUR 34,300  
non-pecuniary damage: the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for  
any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant  
costs and expenses: EUR 3,500  
Y.B. v. Russia (no. 71155/17)  
The applicant, Mr Y.B., is a French national who was born in 1978 and lives in France.  
The case concerns his complaint that he was unable to appeal against his conviction in Russia for  
production and distribution of pornography and child pornography and for child molestation. He was  
convicted in his absence and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment.  
Relying on Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 (right of appeal in criminal matters) to the Convention, the  
applicant complains that the Russian courts refused to accept and examine his statement of appeal,  
noting that conviction in absentia was not amenable to appeal.  
Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7  
Just satisfaction:  
non-pecuniary damage: the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for  
any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant  
costs and expenses: EUR 2,000  
Yartsev v. Russia (no. 16683/17)  
The applicant, Dmitriy Sergeyevich Yartsev, is a Russian national who was born in 1988 and lives in  
Moscow.  
The case concerns the applicant’s conviction for shouting the slogans “Stop abuse by cops” and  
“Down with the police State” during a labour-rights march.  
Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) and  
Article 6 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complains that he was convicted and fined for shouting  
slogans that did not correspond to the declared aims of the lawful public event in which he had  
participated.  
Violation of Article 10  
Just satisfaction:  
non-pecuniary damage: EUR 7,500  
Zoltán Varga v. Slovakia (nos. 58361/12, 25592/16, and 27176/16)  
The applicant, Zoltán Varga, is a Slovak national who was born in 1966 and lives in Bratislava.  
The case concerns a surveillance operation, code-named “Gorilla”, carried out in 2005-06 by the  
Slovak Intelligence Service on the applicant, a former police officer working with an influential  
finance group, and a flat owned by him. Various public figures and others were said to have been  
2
meeting in the flat to coordinate high-level corruption. Material allegedly from the operation and  
posted anonymously on the Internet led to a number of investigations and extensive litigation,  
which had widespread political implications.  
Mr Varga brings a number of complaints under Article 8 (right to respect for private life and  
correspondence) with regard to implementation of the three warrants authorising the surveillance  
operation, the material collected and retained and the alleged lack of adequate safeguards.  
Violation of Article 8  
Just satisfaction:  
non-pecuniary damage: EUR 9,750  
costs and expenses: EUR 5,561.75  
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  
echrpress@echr.coe.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08  
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)  
Neil Connolly (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 48 05)  
Jane Swift (tel.: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)  
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.  
3