issued by the Registrar of the Court  
ECHR 150 (2024)  
13.06.2024  
Judgments and decisions of 13 June 2024  
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 19 judgments1 and 14 decisions2:  
four Chamber judgments are summarised below;  
a separate press release has been issued for a Chamber judgment in the case of Daniel Karsai  
v. Hungary (application no. 32312/23);  
14 Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, and  
the 14 decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.  
The judgment in French below is indicated with an asterisk (*).  
RFE/RL Inc. and Others v. Azerbaijan (applications nos. 56138/18, 48735/19,  
51207/19, and 58694/19)  
The case concerns the authorities’ decisions to completely block access to four online media outlets  
since 2017-18. The online media outlets are azadliq.org, anaxeber.az, az24saat.org and xural.com.  
More specifically, the applicants are RFE/RL Inc. (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) which, apart from  
radio broadcasting, operates the website azadliq.org; Azer Mammad oglu Talibov, an Azerbaijani  
national who is the founder and editor of the online news portal anaxeber.az; 24Saat.org, a mass  
media company which operates the online news portal az24saat.org, and its founder Vugar  
Alakbarov; and Khural, a newspaper published in Baku which operates the website, xural.com, and  
its founder and editor-in-chief, Avaz Zeynalov.  
The courts decided to block access to the websites on the grounds that certain articles published on  
them had featured allegedly unlawful content under Azerbaijan’s media laws. In particular  
azadliq.org was found to have published “information promoting violence and religious extremism  
and calling for, among other things, mass riots”, while the other four websites were found to have  
published “false, misleading and libellous information”.  
Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the  
applicants allege that the decisions to block access to their entire websites, instead of to specific  
articles, were extreme. They argue in particular that the blocking orders were because they were  
critical of the Government and exposed abuse of power and corruption. They also rely on Article 6  
(right to a fair trial), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 18 (limitation on use of  
restrictions on rights) of the European Convention.  
Violation of Article 10  
Just satisfaction: For the details of the amounts awarded to the applicants for non-pecuniary  
damage, as well as for costs and expenses, please see the operative part the judgment.  
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: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution  
2
Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.  
Just satisfaction  
SCI Le Château du Francport v. France (no. 3269/18)*  
The applicant, Société Civile Immobilière (SCI) Le Château du Francport, is a legal person constituted  
under French law.  
The case concerned a château belonging to the applicant company, which had been seized as part of  
a judicial investigation into suspected offences before being returned to the applicant company four  
years later in a state of disrepair, and the applicant company’s claim for compensation, which had  
been rejected for failure to prove that the damage sustained had been the consequence of gross  
negligence on the part of the State.  
Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, the applicant  
company complained that its claim for compensation had been rejected for failure to prove damage  
directly attributable to the State, whereas the domestic authorities responsible for the upkeep and  
preservation of the château had taken no effective measures to protect and preserve it throughout  
the time it had remained seized.  
In its Chamber judgment of 7 July 2022 the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that  
there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). As the question of  
the application of Article 41 was not ready for decision, the Court reserved it.  
Today’s judgment concerned the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of  
the Convention.  
Just satisfaction:  
pecuniary damage: 2,000,000 euros (EUR)  
non-pecuniary damage: EUR 10,000  
Bluks Savickis v. Latvia (no. 44570/19)  
The applicant, Jurijs Bluks Savickis, is a Latvian national who was born in 1962. At the time the  
application was lodged, he was detained in Riga.  
The case concerns his pre-trial detention after being arrested in November 2017 on suspicion of  
drug-related offences.  
Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 (right to liberty and security) and 3 (entitlement to trial within a reasonable  
time or to release pending trial), he complains about his continued pre-trial detention.  
Violation of Article 5 § 3 (on account of the failure to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the  
applicant’s continued detention)  
Just satisfaction:  
non-pecuniary damage: EUR 2,600  
Cviková v. Slovakia (nos. 615/21, 9427/21, and 36765/21)  
The applicant, Denisa Cviková, is a Slovak national who was born in 1970 and lives in Bratislava.  
The case originates in a large-scale investigation in 2019 into alleged organised corruption in the  
judiciary in the Bratislava region. Ms Cviková, a lawyer and judge of the Bratislava I District Court,  
was a target of the investigation, which led to her and 17 others being charged with various  
offences, including corruption, abuse of official power and interfering with the judiciary. She was  
suspected in particular of having accepted a bribe in exchange for assisting another judge to  
unlawfully rule in a case concerning a promissory note. As part of the investigation, her home was  
searched and she was detained pending trial from 11 March to 8 October 2020.  
2
Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security), Ms Cviková complains about her  
detention, which she argues was unjustified and arbitrary, and the proceedings to review the  
lawfulness of her detention in relation to her request for release. Lastly, she complains that the  
search of her home breached Article 8 (right to respect for home) because it was unnecessarily  
invasive and the authorities seized information unrelated to the criminal proceedings.  
No violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 - as regards the period until the dismissal of the applicant’s  
request for release (decision of 24 August 2020)  
Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 - as regards the period upon the dismissal of the applicant’s  
request for release (decision of 24 August 2020)  
Violation of Article 5 § 4  
Just satisfaction:  
non-pecuniary damage: EUR 19,500  
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  
[email protected]e.int | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08  
We are happy to receive journalists’ enquiries via either email or telephone.  
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