003-8317337-11727833

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 judgments1 and 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   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.   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