issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 290 (2025)
09.12.2025
Judgments of 9 December 2025
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing ten judgments1:
three Chamber judgments are summarised below;
seven Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, can
be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.
The judgments summarised below are only available in English.
Stephan Kucera v. Austria (application no. 13810/22)
The applicant, Stephan Kucera, is an Austrian national who was born in 1981 and lives in Vienna.
The case concerns administrative criminal court proceedings which took place via videolink. On
20 April 2020 the municipality of Vienna issued Mr Kucera a penalty notice for breaching the Vienna
Betting Act. It was alleged that there had been no appropriate system controlling entry into the
premises of a betting shop for which he had been responsible. Mr Kucera lodged an appeal against
that notice and requested a public oral hearing. On 22 October 2020 an oral hearing took place via
videolink on account of the COVID-19 pandemic. The parties to the proceedings, including Mr Kucera,
all joined separately via a live audio and videolink.
Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair trial; right to legal assistance of own choosing) of the European
Convention on Human Rights the applicant complains that he was not permitted to participate in
person at the hearing, that the public had been excluded from the hearing and that there had been
an infringement of his right to be effectively defended by a lawyer.
No violation of Article 6 as regards the right to an oral hearing
No violation of Article 6 as regards the right to a public hearing
H.H. v. Finland (no. 19035/21)
The applicant, H.H. is a Finnish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Turku (Finland).
The case concerns H.H.’s detention under the Mental Health Act and the compulsory administration
of medication. By decisions of June and October 2020, the Administrative Court dismissed appeals
brought by H.H. against three orders made in 2019 and 2020 for her compulsory detention and refused
to examine her requests for the discontinuation of the administration of medication against her will
and for an oral hearing to be held. The Administrative Court held that, as a rule, proceedings before
administrative courts took place in writing and was in any event, unnecessary in her case. In February
2024 the national courts held that the applicant’s rights under the European Convention had been
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
