issued by the Registrar of the Court

ECHR 282 (2025)

04.12.2025

Judgments and decisions of 4 December 2025

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

four Chamber judgments are summarised below;

a separate press release has been issued for another Chamber judgment in the case of Ortega Ortega

v. Spain (application no. 36325/22;

a separate press release has also been issued for a decision in the case of Văscăuţanu v. Romania

(no. 10120/23)

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

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

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

Khaghaghutyan Yerkkhosutyun v. Armenia (application no. 5497/17)

The applicant is an Armenian non-governmental organisation, Khaghaghutyan Yerkkhosutyun

(«Խաղաղության երկխոսություն» հասարակական կազմակերպություն; which translates as “Peace Dialogue”).

The applicant NGO was founded in 2009. It was set up to support the peaceful resolution of conflicts

in the South Caucasus and to help victims.

The case concerns the authorities’ refusal to provide the applicant NGO with information concerning

non-combat deaths in the Armenian armed forces between 1994 and 2014. It had made a request for

such information in 2014 in the context of a project it was running called “Safe soldier for a safe

Armenia”. The project involved an online database with information about fatalities and crimes in the

armed forces. Faced with refusals to respond to its request, the applicant NGO brought claims in the

administrative courts, which were ultimately dismissed with the courts refusing to allow the applicant

NGO access to the information sought on grounds of national security.

Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the

applicant NGO complains about the refusal to allow it access to information on non-combat deaths,

an issue of great concern to the public.

Violation of Article 10

Just satisfaction: The applicant NGO made no claim in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary

damage.

Costs and expenses: 2,287 euros (EUR)

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.

Jaklová and Others v. the Czech Republic (no. 38342/23)

The case concerns the death of a 29-year-old man, B.J., after he disappeared from the hospital where

he had been admitted following a suspected epileptic seizure.

The applicants are B.J.’s family, namely his mother, wife, brother and daughter. They are all Czech

nationals.

B.J. was admitted to the Bulovka University Hospital in Prague on 29 November 2009. He disappeared

on 1 December 2009 and, after several searches, his body was found on 12 December 2009 close to

the hospital complex but in a place which was difficult to access. The post-mortem revealed that he

had died from hypothermia. The applicants’ civil claim against the hospital claiming damages for failing

to prevent B.J. from leaving the hospital was ultimately unsuccessful in 2021. In particular, the courts

dismissed the claim because they, found that B.J. had been provided with proper medical care, and

that staff could not monitor patients’ movements on open wards.

Relying on Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention, the applicants complain that the courts

failed to properly address all the relevant issues and evidence in the case, in breach of the obligation

under the Convention to protect the right to life.

Violation of Article 2 (investigation)

Just satisfaction:

non-pecuniary damage: EUR 10,000 to the first, second and fourth applicant, each and 7,000 to the

third applicant

costs and expenses: EUR 5,272 jointly to the four applicants

Fernandez Iradi v. France (no. 23421/21)*

The applicant, Juan Fernandez Iradi, is a Spanish national who was born in 1971 and is currently

detained in San Sebastián, Spain. He was initially placed in detention in France in December 2003.

Between 2008 and 2009 the Special Assize Court of the Paris Court of Appeal sentenced him to three

prison terms of 30, 15 and 30 years and to a permanent exclusion from France, for terrorist acts. In

2012 his sentences were reduced to the statutory maximum of 30 years’ imprisonment and the

minimum term was limited to 20 years.

The case concerns whether, under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the

Convention, the continued detention of the applicant, who has multiple sclerosis, is compatible with

his state of health.

Relying on Article 3, the applicant complains about the arrangements for his escorted leave and

hospital consultations, and more specifically those for his first medical consultation at Toulouse

University Hospital in October 2012. He further complains about his continued detention despite his

state of health.

Violation of Article 3

Just satisfaction:

non-pecuniary damage: EUR 10,000

costs and expenses: EUR 11,840

Kosmatska v. Ukraine (no. 9953/16)

The applicant, Natalya Valeriyivna Kosmatska, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1977 and lives

in Hatne (Kyiv Region).

In October 2008 Ms Kosmatska bought, from private persons, several plots of land measuring 28 ha in

total near the village of Maidanivka, which had initially belonged to the State. The case concerns

subsequent decisions by the courts returning the land to the State after a prosecutor brought a claim

to invalidate the original owners’ titles. The courts ultimately, in 2015, found that the land had left the

possession of the State unlawfully because of deficiencies, including possible fraud, during the initial

privatisation procedure.

Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention, Ms Kosmatska

complains that the deprivation of her property, without compensation, was unlawful and

disproportionate. She also alleges that the courts failed to apply the statutory limitation period in

respect of the prosecutor’s action against her.

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Just satisfaction: the Court held that the respondent State shall ensure, by appropriate means and

within a reasonable time, full restitution of the applicant’s title to the reclaimed land, or provision of

monetary compensation or of comparable property to the applicant.

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)

Claire Windsor (tel.: + 33 3 88 41 24 01)

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.