issued by the Registrar of the Court  
ECHR 009 (2026)  
13.01.2026  
Judgments of 13 January 2026  
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 11 judgments1:  
three Chamber judgments are summarised below;  
two separate press releases have been issued for three Chamber judgments in the cases of R.E. and  
Others v. Iceland (applications nos. 59809/19, 8034/20, 14407/20, and 17008/20) and Z v. Iceland  
(no. 3538/21), and SIC - Sociedade Independente de Comunicação, S.A v. Portugal (no. 2)  
(no. 2746/21);  
five 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 judgment in French below is indicated with an asterisk (*).  
Pešić v. Serbia (application no. 4545/21)  
The applicant, Vesna Pešić, is a Serbian national who was born in 1940 and lives in Belgrade. She is a  
former politician and long-term political activist.  
The case concerns an article she published in May 2016 on the website of the citizens’ association  
“Peščanik” to which she was a regular contributor criticising the Minister of the Interior following the  
demolition of a certain number of structures in the Savamala neighbourhood of central Belgrade and  
the detention of several individuals present in the area at the time. In July 2016 the Minister of the  
Interior, brought a civil suit against Ms Pešić, the association and its editors-in-chief before the  
Belgrade High Court, seeking 200,000 Serbian dinars (RSD) in compensation for the alleged mental  
distress caused by the attack on his honour and reputation.  
Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Ms Pešić  
alleges that the damages awarded against her in those civil proceedings were unjustified.  
Furthermore, she submits under Article 6 (right to a fair trial) that the civil proceedings were unfair,  
as she had not been permitted to put certain questions to the plaintiff, and that the subsequent  
judgment of the Constitutional Court was “inadequately reasoned”. Lastly, under Article 6 (access to  
court), she complains that the Serbian Supreme Court of Cassation refused to consider her appeal on  
points of law (revizija).  
Violation of Article 10  
Just satisfaction: The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction  
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  
Mladina d.d. Ljubljana v. Slovenia (no. 2) (no. 43388/17)  
The applicant, Mladina d.d. Ljubljana, is a Slovenian company and the publisher of the weekly  
magazine Mladina.  
The case concerns defamation proceedings brought against the applicant company for publishing a  
photo in March 2011 of a prominent Slovenian politician, B.G., and his family alongside a photo of the  
family of the German Nazi politician Joseph Goebbels. The Slovenian courts concluded that there had  
been a breach of B.G.’s right to reputation because of the comparison between his family and that of  
Joseph Goebbels. The applicant company was ordered to publish an apology and to pay B.G.  
3,000 euros. B.G.’s family members were awarded compensation in separate domestic proceedings.  
Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention, the applicant company  
complains of a breach of its right to freedom of expression.  
Violation of Article 10  
Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just  
satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant company and that the  
respondent State was to pay the applicant company 5,253.85 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary  
damage and EUR 10,000 in respect of costs and expenses.  
İ. Ç v. Türkiye (no. 48061/19)*  
The applicant, İ. Ç, is a Turkish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Ankara.  
The case concerns his dismissal (as a lecturer at a private university), following the declaration of a  
state of emergency in Türkiye, on the grounds that his name was on a list of users of ByLock, a  
messaging system which, according to the Turkish authorities, was used exclusively by an organisation  
described by them as the “Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure” (FETÖ/PDY). It also  
concerns the subsequent judicial review of that measure.  
Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention, the applicant complains that the  
proceedings brought by him to challenge the termination of his employment contract were unfair,  
given that the judicial bodies which examined his complaint refused to admit decisive evidence. He  
submits that the employment tribunal accepted the authorities’ argument, without complying with  
the adversarial principle and the principle of equality of arms, and that the authorities provided no  
reasoning or criteria capable of justifying the dismissal order. Relying on Article 8, he also complains  
of an interference with his right to respect for his private life.  
Violation of Article 6 § 1  
Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just  
satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant.  
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.  
Follow the Court on Bluesky @echr.coe.int, X ECHR_CEDH, LinkedIn, and YouTube.  
Contact ECHRPress to subscribe to the press-release mailing list.  
Where can the Court’s press releases be found? HUDOC - Press collection  
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)  
2
Denis Lambert (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)  
Inci Ertekin (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)  
Jane Swift (tel.: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)  
Claire Windsor (tel.: + 33 3 88 41 24 01)  
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