003-8415972-11908781

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 303 (2025)   18.12.2025   Judgments and decisions of 18 December 2025   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing four judgments1 and 11 decisions2:   two Chamber judgments are summarised below;   two Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, and   the 11 decisions, can be consulted on Hudoc and do not appear in this press release.   The judgments summarised below are available only in English.   Černý and Others v. the Czech Republic (application nos. 37514/20, 37525/20,   37533/20, 37546/20, and 37555/20)   The case concerns the confidentiality of lawyer-client communications.   The applicants are five Czech nationals who were all criminal defence lawyers representing a suspect,   Z., charged with, among other things, membership of a criminal group and tax evasion. In the context   of these criminal proceedings Z.’s home was searched in 2016 and the police seized his smartphone   and electronic tablet. 20,000 pages of material, including correspondence between Z. and his defence   lawyers, the applicants, were extracted and put on his case file. All attempts to have the privileged   information removed from Z.’s file were denied, ultimately by the Constitutional Court in 2019. In   parallel the applicants also brought compensation proceedings and some of them received an apology.   In April 2025 the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic ruled in the applicants’ client’s case that it had   been unlawful to put the material in the case file.   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private life and correspondence) and Article 13 (right to an   effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants complain about a   breach of lawyer-client confidentiality because of the correspondence with their client being put on   his case file and argue that the Czech legal system did not have sufficient guarantees to protect the   privacy of lawyer-client communications in the case of data seized from electronic devices. Also relying   on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention, the applicants complain that an   application for leave to intervene in their Constitutional Court case by the Czech Bar Association was   not communicated to them for comment.   Violation of Article 8   Violation of Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 8   Violation of Article 6   Just satisfaction:   non-pecuniary damage: 4,000 euros (EUR) to each of the applicants   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.   Latorre Atance v. Spain (no. 33818/22)   The applicant, Alejandro Latorre Atance, is a Spanish national who was born in 1952 and lives in   Guadalajara (Spain).   In 2016 he was held liable, alongside two other former insolvency administrators, for a construction   company’s tax debts after tax authorities found that they had improperly authorised payments from   the insolvency estate. This led to domestic proceedings in which the same court reached divergent   conclusions in respect of the same set of facts. The Supreme Court later recognised a miscarriage of   justice in his case and, in 2023, the applicant initiated proceedings, which are still ongoing, for State   liability for that miscarriage of justice.   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention, the applicant complains   that the courts delivered contradictory judgments in identical circumstances and failed to address his   decisive submissions about the legality of payments.   Violation of Article 6 § 1   Just satisfaction: The Court held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction)   was not ready for decision in so far as pecuniary damage was concerned and reserved it for   examination at a later date. The Court further held that the Respondent State was to pay the applicant   EUR 9,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 8,000 in respect of costs and expenses.   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.   2