issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 257 (2025)
04.11.2025
Judgments of 4 November 2025
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing five judgments1:
three Chamber judgments are summarised below;
one separate press release has been issued for a Chamber judgment in the case of Vainik and Others
v. Estonia (applications nos. 3184/21, 17982/21, 43852/21, and 44600/21);
one Committee judgment, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, can be
consulted on Hudoc and does not appear in this press release.
The judgments below are only available in English.
Zakaidze v. Georgia (application no. 42199/22)
The applicant, Besik Zakaidze, is a Georgian national who was born in 1973 and lives in the village of
Tvalivi (Dusheti municipality).
The case concerns criminal proceedings brought against three of Mr Zakaidze’s neighbours after they
assaulted him on 9 February 2021 during an altercation over some borrowed money. He was taken to
hospital with a fractured jaw and concussion. The three neighbours were ultimately convicted and
given suspended prison sentences.
Mr Zakaidze complains that the authorities’ investigation into the assault was inadequate, resulting in
lenient charges against his neighbours and a suspended prison sentence. He also alleges that he was
prevented from participating effectively in the criminal proceedings. The Court will examine the
complaints under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European
Convention on Human Rights.
No violation of Article 3 (investigation)
Vasile Rusu v. Romania (no. 53021/20)
The applicant, Vasile Rusu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Bucharest.
In April 2019 Mr Rusu, the director of a company, was found guilty of complicity in tax evasion and
participation in money laundering. He was given a total prison sentence of nine years. The case
concerns his complaint that the proceedings against him were unfair because he had not been able to
present his defence before the Court of Appeal, having in the meantime moved to the United
Kingdom.
Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) (right to a fair trial/right to defend oneself in person or through legal
assistance of own choosing) of the European Convention, Mr Rusu alleges in particular that he had
never received any summon at his home in the UK, meaning the Court of Appeal had failed to properly
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
