issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 229 (2025)
09.10.2025
Judgments and decisions of 9 October 2025
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 32 judgments1 and 73 decisions2:
seven Chamber judgments are summarised below;
separate press releases have been issued for two other Chamber judgments in the cases of Georgios
Papadopoulos v. Cyprus (application no. 21454/21) and Petruzzo and Others v. Italy (nos. 1986/09 and
67556/13);
23 Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, and the
73 decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.
The judgments in French are indicated with an asterisk (*).
Just Satisfaction
Hrachya Harutyunyan v. Armenia (application no. 15028/16)
The applicant, Hrachya Harutyunyan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1953 and lives in
Yerevan.
The judgment will concern the just satisfaction to be awarded following the European Court’s ruling
of 27 August 2024 with regard to proceedings brought against the applicant for defamation and insult
after he had reported to the management of his former employer, the Electric Networks of Armenia,
corruption on the part of one of his colleagues. In that ruling the Court held that there had been a
violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention.
As the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the European Convention on
Human Rights had not been ready for decision, the Court had reserved it.
In today’s judgment, the Court took note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties with
respect to the question of pecuniary damage and decided to strike the application out of its list of
cases.
Sahiti v. Belgium (no. 24421/20)*
The applicant, Sabit Sahiti, is a Kosovar national who was born in 1985 and lives in Verviers (Belgium).
The case mainly concerns the lack of a final decision by the relevant authorities regarding the
application for a residence permit on medical grounds lodged by the applicant in Belgium in 2010.
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.
Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), the applicant alleges that his
expulsion to Kosovo would give rise to a risk of inhuman and degrading treatment on account of his
state of health.
Relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention, the applicant further
complains that he is the victim of a “procedural ping-pong match” between the Aliens Office and the
Aliens Appeals Board. Lastly, he submits that he has been waiting for the outcome of the proceedings
at issue since 2012 (when his application was first rejected). During most of that time, he asserts, he
has been without either a residence permit or social and medical assistance, and has had to bring
numerous actions before the employment tribunals.
Violation of Article 8
Just satisfaction: the Court rejected the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction
X v. Italy (no. 42247/23)*
The applicant, X, is an Italian national who was born in 2018. His biological mother is acting on his
behalf.
X was born in Italy to a same-sex couple by means of assisted reproduction abroad. The case concerns
the annulment of the registration of the details of his birth certificate in so far as it concerned his
intended second mother.
Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention, the applicant
complains of a violation of his private and family life on account of the loss, five years after his birth,
of the legal parent-child relationship he shared with his intended mother.
No violation of Article 8
Platon v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 74995/17)
The applicant, Veaceslav Platon, is a Moldovan and Ukrainian national who was born in 1973 and lives
in Chișinău.
The case concerns the conditions of the applicant’s detention. In 2014 the applicant, a former member
of Parliament, was charged with fraud and money laundering and was detained in prison pending trial.
During his detention he was held in solitary confinement and was guarded by members of the
“Pantera”, a special forces unit. According to the applicant, members of that unit failed to forward his
requests for medical treatment, insulted and provoked him. The applicant was unable to receive visits
from his relatives as a result of sanctions imposed on him for breaches of the prison rules.
Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), Article 8 (right to respect for
private life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complains about a lack of
medical treatment and of a severe limitation of his right to be visited by his family during his detention.
Violation of Article 3 in respect of the medical assistance in detention
Violation of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 3
Violation of Article 8 in respect of the limitation of family visits
Just satisfaction:
non-pecuniary damage: 15,600 euros (EUR)
costs and expenses: EUR 2,000
A.W. v. Poland (no. 1307/21)
The applicant, A.W., is a Polish national who was born in 1975 and lives in J.
2
The case concerns the applicant’s right of access to a court and the length of proceedings concerning
the recognition of his paternity of and contact with two children born during an informal relationship
with a married woman, a judge. On the basis of the legal presumption of paternity, the mother’s
husband was indicated as the children’s father in the birth register. During domestic proceedings the
applicant submitted the results of DNA tests showing that he is the children’s biological father.
In 2010, following the end of the relationship between the applicant and the married woman, and
having no standing to institute proceedings himself, the applicant petitioned the public prosecutor to
institute proceedings to challenge the husband’s paternity of both children. Proceedings were
eventually instituted in 2013. The applicant was not permitted to take part in those proceedings,
despite his request to do so. Those proceedings are still pending.
In 2011 the applicant applied for a contact order in respect of the children. A final contact order was
made in 2014. The children’s mother and her husband have been refusing to comply with the order
and the applicant has had no contact with the children.
Relying on Article 8 (right to private life), the applicant complains that the domestic authorities failed
to provide him with effective access to a court, which could rule, in an expeditious manner, on matters
concerning his paternity of the children and his contact with them.
Violation of Article 8
Just satisfaction:
non-pecuniary damage: EUR 20,000
Chaykovskyy v. Ukraine (no. 48879/19)
The applicant, Vitaliy Viktorovych Chaykovskyy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1967 and is
serving a life sentence in a prison in the Ukrainian city of Berdychiv.
In 2005 the applicant, together with several accomplices, was convicted of banditry and several
accounts of robbery and murder; the decision was upheld on appeal and on cassation. On 10
November 2016 the European Court found a violation in respect of Mr Chaykovskyy and some of his
accomplices (application no. 7183/04 and applications nos. 48016/06 and 7817/07) on account,
among other things, of restriction on access to legal advice at the investigation stage and the use of
untested witness statements.
The case concerns the alleged unfairness and excessive length of the proceedings before the Supreme
Court for the review of his conviction based on the European Court’s findings in his case.
The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court remitted part of the applicant’s convictions for fresh
examination by the trial court. However, since no violations of Mr Chaykovskyy’s rights had been
found by the Court in regard of other conviction, the Supreme Court upheld the verdict in that part
and maintained the sentence of life imprisonment. Five judges of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme
Court wrote a separate dissenting opinion.
Relying on Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complains
that the Supreme Court reassessed the facts and evidence itself when it had no jurisdiction to do so.
He also complains that the Supreme Court erred in its assessment of the impact that the admission of
improperly obtained evidence leading to the conviction of any co-defendant had on other defendants
and the case generally, and that the length of the proceedings was excessive. Also, given that the
Supreme Court had “unexpectedly” conducted the reassessment of evidence, he had had no adequate
knowledge of the charges against him and no opportunity to prepare his defence.
Violation of Article 6 as regards the fairness of the proceedings
No violation of Article 6 as regards the length of the proceedings
3
Just satisfaction:
non-pecuniary damage: EUR 3,600
costs and expenses: EUR 500
Religious Community of Svyato-Uspenskyy Parish of Rivne Eparchy of Ukrainian
Orthodox Church in Ptycha Village of Dubenskyy District v. Ukraine
(no. 8906/19)
The applicant is a religious community that belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) which,
when the application was lodged in 2019, was associated with the Moscow Patriarchate and headed
by the Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine, Onufriy.
The community owns and uses a church building in the village of Ptycha in the Rivne Region. The case
concerns the applicant community’s liturgical use and peaceful possession of its church building in the
context of a dispute over that building with another religious group.
In 2014 tensions arose between parishioners who had remained part of the UOC and those who
followed the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate. A conflict began over the use of the
church building, resulting in clashes. In January 2016, the Rivne Town Court seized the church building
and banned its use. When that decision was lifted in April 2018, unidentified individuals tried to occupy
the church building, causing damage to the building and injuries to one of its parishioners. The
following day, the Rivne Town Court seized the building again to prevent further clashes and banned
people from using it. In 2018, the applicant community was granted victim status in the investigation
of those events but lost their appeals for the ban to be lifted.
The applicant community alleges that the national authorities failed to comply with their obligations
under Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(protection of property) in respect of those events.
Violation of Article 9
Just satisfaction: The Court dismissed the applicant community’s claim for just satisfaction.
The Court decided to strike the part of the application concerning the complaint under Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 out of its list of cases.
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)
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)
4
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.
5