issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 060 (2024)
14.03.2024
Judgments and decisions of 14 March 2024
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 16 judgments1 and 43 decisions2:
two Chamber judgments are summarised below;
14 Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, and
The judgments below are available only in English.
(application no. 26821/17)
The applicant is the Association of People of Silesian Nationality (Stowarzyszenie Osób Narodowości
Śląskiej). It was registered in 2011 and went into liquidation in 2016.
Silesia (Śląsk) is a historic region that is now in south-western Poland. According to a 2011 census
nearly half a million people declared that they had Polish and “Silesian” nationality. The case
concerns the Polish courts’ ordering the dissolution of the applicant association in 2015. The
Supreme Court had held in particular that the name of the association, which in its view was linked
to a non-existent nation, would be misleading to the public.
Relying in particular on Article 11 (freedom of association) of the European Convention on Human
Rights, the applicant association complains that the decision to dissolve it was arbitrary.
Violation of Article 11
Just satisfaction: The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction.
Moldovan v. Ukraine (no. 62020/14)
The applicant, Oleksandr Volodymyrovych Moldovan, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1993
and lives in the village of Chornivka, Chernivtsi Region (Ukraine).
Mr Moldovan was born out of wedlock. The person who he considered to be his father died in 2012.
The case concerns the rejection of Mr Moldovan’s civil action for judicial recognition of paternity.
The courts dismissed his application essentially because he had failed to prove that his mother and
late putative father had ever cohabited or that the latter had ever recognised his paternity in any
way.
Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention,
Mr Moldovan complains that the courts refused to take into account DNA evidence, insisting instead
on applying outdated legislation requiring proof of cohabitation and other “social” circumstances.
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.
