issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 205 (2025)

11.09.2025

Judgments and decisions of 11 September 2025

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing ten judgments¹and 12 decisions²:

three Chamber judgments are summarised below;

seven Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, and

the 12 decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.

The judgment in French below is indicated with an asterisk (*).

Suverénní řád Maltézských rytířů - České velkopřevorství v. the Czech Republic

(application no. 15440/22)

The applicant, Suverénní řád Maltézských rytířů - České velkopřevorství, is an ecclesiastical unit of the

Roman Catholic Church with legal personality. In 1945, some of its immovable property and land was

the subject of several confiscation notices (konfiskační vyhlášky) issued under Presidential Decree

no. 12/1945, which provided for immediate confiscation, without compensation, of agricultural

property owned by people or companies/corporations who had intentionally served the German war

machine for fascist or Nazi purposes. In April 1948 the applicant’s property was further subjected to

the expropriation procedure under Law no. 142/1947.

From 1 January 2013 the Church Property Settlement Act (Law no. 428/2012) enabled restitution of

property or parts of property that had originally belonged to certain churches, which had been

unlawfully confiscated by the communist regime. The law applied to property owned by the State but

not to property owned by persons governed by private law. Churches also had standing under the Act

to bring court proceedings for the restitution of property it had originally owned that had been

transferred to private persons in breach of a blocking provision in section 29 of the Land Ownership

Act. However, property confiscated from churches on the basis of Presidential Decrees nos. 12/1945

and 108/1945 were excluded from restitution under the Act.

The case concerns restitution proceedings lodged by the applicant in 2013 and instituted under the

Church Property Settlement Act for 506,784 sq. m of land. The applicant argued that the land had

been confiscated under Law no. 142/1947 and that a private farmer had acquired it in breach of the

blocking provision, meaning that the applicant, as the original owner of the church property, could

seek restitution under the Church Property Settlement Act.

Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article

1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) thereto, the ecclesiastical unit complains that the national

courts interpreted domestic law in a way that was contrary to the principle of fairness and did not

take into account previous judgments of the Constitutional Court in analogous cases.

Violation of Article 6 § 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

Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.

Just satisfaction: The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction.

Charki v. France (no. 28473/22)*

The applicant, Marie-Sophie Charki, is a French national who was born in 1971 and lives in Uccle

(Belgium). She is the daughter of Claude Guéant, a French politician who served successively as Chief

of Staff to the French President and as Minister of the Interior from 2007 to 2012, during Nicolas

Sarkozy’s term of office as President. In May 2013 Mr Guéant’s phone lines were tapped in the context

of a judicial investigation into the suspected financing of Mr Sarkozy’s presidential election campaign

by the Libyan regime.

The case concerns the alleged infringement of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life under

Article 8 of the European Convention as a result of the publication, in the newspaper Le Monde, of

transcripts of telephone conversations between her and her father recorded in the course of the

judicial proceedings brought against him.

No violation of Article 8

Yakymchuk v. Ukraine (no. 26519/16)

The applicant, Olga Mykolayivna Yakymchuk, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1962 and lives

in Korets (Ukraine). She is a former judge.

The case mainly concerns the allegedly unlawful covert video-recording of Ms Yakymchuk in her

judge’s office and the lawfulness of subsequent criminal proceedings against her for bribe-taking.

Relying on Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing), 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 13 (right

to an effective remedy) of the Convention, the former judge complains that the covert audio- and

video- recording of her conversations held in her office was unlawful and disproportionate and

interfered with her right to respect for private life. She complains that the assignment of one of the

judges to her case was unlawful as not assigned via the automated random case-allocation system,

that the first-instance court lacked independence and impartiality, that the length of the criminal

proceedings was excessive and that the national courts’ decisions lacked adequate reasoning. She also

complains that she had no effective remedies in respect of her complaints regarding the length of

criminal proceedings and the alleged unlawful interference with her right to respect for private life

Violation of Article 8 in respect of the lack of sufficient safeguards regarding the lawfulness of the

secret video surveillance in the applicant’s office

Violation of Article 8 in respect of the recording of the applicant’s conversation by I.P.

Violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of the applicant’s right to be tried by a tribunal established by law;

Violation of Article 6 § 1 in respect of the excessive length of the proceedings

Violation of Article 13 in respect of the lack of effective remedies concerning the excessive length of

proceedings

Just satisfaction:

non-pecuniary damage: 1,600 euros (EUR)

costs and expenses: EUR 1,500

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.