issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 324 (2021)
28.10.2021
Judgments and decisions of 28 October 2021
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 16 judgments1 and 38 decisions2:
three Chamber judgments are summarised below;
a separate press release has been issued for a Chamber judgment in the case of Bancsók and László
Magyar v. Hungary (no. 2) (applications nos. 52374/15 and 53364/15);
12 Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, and
The judgment in French below is indicated with an asterisk (*).
Kupás v. Hungary (application no. 24720/17)
The applicant, Levente András Kupás, is a Hungarian and Romanian national who was born in 1981
and lives in Basle (Switzerland).
In May 2015 the applicant and his wife took their four-month-old son on a temporary five-day
passport to Budapest to visit family. The applicant returned to Basle after spending a week in
Hungary, in the belief that his wife and son would follow once the child’s documents and passport
had been issued. However, instead of returning to Switzerland, his wife initiated divorce
proceedings. In April 2016 the applicant lodged an application for the return of his child under the
Hague Convention with the Pest Central District Court.
Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on
Human Rights, the applicant complains that the domestic courts’ refusal to grant the child’s return
breached his right to respect for his family life.
No violation of Article 8
Succi and Others v. Italy (nos. 55064/11, 37781/13, and 26049/14)*
The applicants are eight Italian nationals who were born between 1930 and 1990 and live in Catania,
Frattamaggiore and Teramo.
They rely on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a tribunal) of the European Convention, and complain
about the dismissal of their appeals on points of law by the Court of Cassation, which they claim was
due to an excessively formalistic application of the rules on drawing up cassation appeals.
Violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning application no. 55064/11
No violation of Article 6 § 1 concerning applications nos. 37781/13 and 26049/14
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.
