issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 238 (2025)
16.10.2025
Judgments and decisions of 16 October 2025
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 21 judgments1 and 19 decisions2:
four Chamber judgments are summarised below;
a separate press release has been issued for a decision in the case of Italmoda Mariano Previti and
Others v. the Netherlands (application no. 16395/18);
17 Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, and the
18 other decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.
The judgment in French is indicated with an asterisk (*).
Fajstavr v. the Czech Republic (application no. 48303/21)
The applicant, Aleš Fajstavr, is a Czech national who was born in 1957 and lives in Jihlava (Czech
Republic).
In September 2019 the applicant was convicted of manufacturing and trafficking illegal drugs
committed with an organised group and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. His conviction was
based to a decisive extent on the testimony of one of his co-accused, who had been granted the status
of “cooperating accused”. The domestic court found her statements to be reliable since, among other
things, they described the actions of all members of the group in a logical and consistent way. It also
found the applicant’s alibis to be untenable. The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that his
conviction was not fair.
Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights the
applicant alleges in particular that his criminal conviction was based on unreliable statements of one
of his co-accused, who had cooperated with the criminal authorities in exchange for a reduction of
her sentence.
No violation of Article 6 § 1
Brun and Lledo v. France (no. 53686/21)*
The applicants, Stéphanie Brun and Frédéric Lledo, are French nationals who were born in 1972 and
1957 and live in La Batarelle (Bouches-du-Rhône).
The case concerns the death of the applicants’ relative in hospital four months after being admitted
following a serious road-traffic accident, as well as the criminal investigation and the claims for
compensation brought by the applicants before the ordinary and administrative courts.
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 2 (right to life) of the European Convention, the applicants allege that the death of
their relative was caused, or at the very least hastened, by various failings on the part of the hospital’s
medical personnel. They complain about the proceedings before the administrative courts and their
outcome. Furthermore, Ms Brun alleges that the police investigation conducted following her
relative’s accident was not effective.
Finally, relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private life) of the Convention the applicants complain
of a violation of their relative’s rights to health and bodily integrity, alleging that he did not receive
the appropriate medical care.
No violation of Article 2 (right to life)
Violation of Article 2 (investigation)
Just satisfaction:
non-pecuniary damage: 7,000 euros (EUR) jointly to the applicants
costs and expenses: EUR 4,800 jointly to the applicants
Basyuk and Others v. Ukraine (no. 55156/19 and ten other applications)
The applicants are 11 Ukrainian nationals, former employees of the State enterprise “Donetsk
Railways” (later – of “Ukrzaliznytsya”).
As of May 2014, the government of Ukraine lost control over the Donetsk and Luhansk regions where
the applicants were employed (see the 2022 decision in Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia). The
applicants were ultimately dismissed from their jobs in 2017. Civil proceedings instituted by them
seeking, among other things, unpaid wages and compensation for their untimely payment were in
part unsuccessful. The key issue before the courts was related to the fact that the labour law, as it
stood at the time, did not provide any specific rules in the event an employer was unable to ensure
timely payment of wages and arrears on account of objective impediments, such as military activity.
The applicants’ claims for compensation were eventually dismissed on the grounds of force majeure.
Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the
applicants complain about the refusal of the courts to grant their claims for salary and various
dismissal-related payments, in particular on the grounds of force majeure, and that the courts relied
on improper evidence to confirm force majeure.
No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
M.S.L., TOV v. Ukraine (no. 18049/18)
The applicant, M.S.L., TOV, is a limited liability company based in Ukraine. It is a major operator of
State lotteries in Ukraine.
Since 2014 Ukraine has faced unprecedented threats to its national security and territorial integrity.
Notably, in the spring of 2014 Russia’s armed forces occupied and assumed effective control over
Crimea (see judgment Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) of 2024), and in parallel a conflict began in eastern
Ukraine with the arrival in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of pro-Russian armed groups (see Ukraine
and the Netherlands v. Russia of 2025). Against this background, the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament)
adopted the Sanctions Act which was specifically designed to address urgent security needs.
The case concerns the economic sanctions imposed on the applicant company between 2015 and
2018 under this legislation and its unsuccessful attempts to challenge them.
Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property), the applicant company complains that
the sanctions, in particular the freezing of its assets, were unlawful and disproportionate, and that the
decisions to impose them lacked proper judicial review. In particular, it complains that the grounds
2
for imposing the sanctions, alleged money laundering, tax evasion, illegal gambling and affiliation with
the Russian Federation, were speculative and never established in any judicial proceedings.
It also relies on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and Article 13 (right to an
effective remedy) to complain that the proceedings in two of the sets of administrative proceedings
in its case were too long and that there was no effective remedy at national level to complain about
the breach of its property rights.
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Violation of Article 13
Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of violations constituted in itself sufficient just
satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant company
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)
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