003-8371863-11827202

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   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   summons him, and that in any event the proceedings should have been stayed owing to restrictions   on international travel during the COVID-19 pandemic.   No violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c)   Marko Tešić v. Serbia (no. 61891/19)   The applicant, Marko Tešić, is a Serbian national who was born in 1981 and lives in Belgrade.   In 2015 Mr Tešić, a lawyer, raised objections at a hearing when defending a client accused of   attempted murder. He subsequently submitted a five-page document to the court complaining that,   despite his repeated requests, his objections had not been entered verbatim in the written record. He   also complained about the presiding judge. The case concerns his ensuing fine for contempt of court.   Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention, Mr Tešić alleges that the decision of   the High Court to fine him for contempt of court violated his right to freedom of expression.   Violation of Article 10   Just satisfaction:   pecuniary damage: 680 euros (EUR)   costs and expenses: EUR 1,150   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.   2