CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 25 novembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sDC0F5DF3 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sE77B86B8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .sEB972D3E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .s55E5497F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s96D82958 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4F597665 { width:33.22pt; display:inline-block } .sEEEC397 { width:146.09pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block }   SECOND SECTION CASE OF ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPERS LIMITED v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 37398/21)     JUDGMENT (Just satisfaction – friendly settlement)   Art 41 • Just satisfaction • Art 39 • Friendly settlement   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.     STRASBOURG 25 November 2025   FINAL   25/02/2026     This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Associated Newspapers Limited v. the United Kingdom, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Arnfinn Bårdsen , President ,   Saadet Yüksel,   Péter Paczolay,   Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,   Gediminas Sagatys,   Stéphane Pisani,   Hugh Mercer , judges , and Hasan Bakırcı, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 4 November 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     As in MGN Limited v. the United Kingdom (no. 39401/04, 18 January 2011), the present case concerned the compatibility with Article 10 of the Convention of the recoverability of success fees in proceedings brought against a media defendant by claimants who had entered into a conditional fee arrangement with their legal representatives (“CFA”). It also raised a separate issue about the Article 10 compatibility of the recoverability as against the defendant of After the Event (“ATE”) insurance premiums, which underwrite a claimant’s liability to pay the defendant’s costs should his or her case be unsuccessful. 2.     In a judgment delivered on 12 November 2024 (“the principal judgment”), the Court declared the application admissible and held that (i)   there had been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention as regards the success fees payable by the applicant company and (ii) there had been no violation of Article 10 of the Convention in respect of the ATE premiums payable by it (see Associated Newspapers Limited v. the United Kingdom , no.   37398/21, §§ 97 and 105, 12 November 2024). 3.     Under Article   41 of the Convention the applicant claimed 319,977.92   British Pounds (GBP) in respect of the success fees paid to one of the claimants (ibid., § 108). 4.     Since the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was not ready for decision as regards pecuniary damage, the Court reserved it and invited the Government and the applicant to submit, within six months from the date on which the judgment became final in accordance with Article   44 § 2 of the Convention, their written observations on that issue and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement they might reach (ibid., §   111 and point 5 of the operative provisions). 5 .     On 26 August 2025 the Court received declarations duly signed by both parties, whereby the applicant agreed to have his application struck out of the Court’s list of cases against an undertaking by the Government to pay him a total sum of GBP 321,772.23 (inclusive of any and all interest and tax that may be chargeable on that sum) in pecuniary damages. 6.     This amount will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, from the expiry of that period until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. 7.     The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case. THE LAW 8.     The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties with respect to the question of just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention. It finds that the agreement is equitable within the meaning of Rule   75 § 4 of the Rules of Court. It is further satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the matter. 9.     In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to strike the remainder of the application out of its list of cases. Done in English, and notified in writing on 25 November 2025, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   Hasan Bakırcı   Arnfinn Bårdsen   Registrar   President