issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 061 (2025)
04.03.2025
Judgments of 4 March 2025
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 12 judgments1:
three Chamber judgments are summarised below;
nine Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, can
be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.
The judgments summarised below are available only in English.
The applicant, Galina Mariova Girginova, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1986 and lives in
Sofia. She is one of the journalists at Sadebni Reportazhi, an online media organisation covering the
The case concerns the refusal to give her access to the reasons given for the acquittal of a former
Minister of Internal Affairs, Tsvetan Tsvetanov, whose criminal case for allegedly allowing unlawful
secret surveillance by some of his staff had been classified and heard in private. The reasons for the
acquittal had not been published online, as normally required under Bulgarian law. The Sofia City
Court refused her request on the basis that they contained technical details about the use of covert
surveillance equipment, which was classified information. Her claim for judicial review of that refusal
was dismissed.
The applicant complains that the refusal breached Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the
European Convention on Human Rights, and that she did not have an effective remedy in that
respect, as required by Article 13.
Violation of Article 10
Violation of Article 13
Just satisfaction: The applicant did not claim any sum in respect of pecuniary or non-pecuniary
damage. The Court awarded her 2,750 euros (EUR) in respect of cost and expenses.
The applicant, K.M., is a Macedonian/citizen of the Republic of North Macedonia who was born in
1999.
The case concerns the alleged failure of the State to protect K.M., a 14-year-old girl at the time, from
sexual abuse. She alleged that an employee of a telecommunications company, who had come to
her family home to restore their internet connection, had caressed her leg, touched one of her
breasts, massaged her shoulders and told her that men loved her because she had big breasts. He
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.