CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 16 octobre 2025

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Legal summary October 2025 Basyuk and Others v. Ukraine - 55156/19, 55683/19, 57548/19 et al. Judgment 16.10.2025 [Section V] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Refusal, particularly on force majeure grounds, to grant salary claims and related amounts after the applicants’ former employer, a State entity, ceased to operate on account of the military activity in the territories where they had been employed: no violation Facts – The applicants were employed by the State Enterprise "Donetsk Railways", particularly its local branches situated in the Donetsk and Luhansk Regions. In 2014, the government of Ukraine lost control over the relevant territories. In 2014-2015 "Donetsk Railways" was merged with Ukrzaliznytsya (Ukrainian Railways). In 2017 Ukrzaliznytsya could no longer operate in the above-mentioned regions on account of hostilities and the applicants were dismissed. The applicants instituted civil proceedings seeking unpaid salary for various periods and various types of compensations related to the delay in payment of salary and dismissal as such. In the majority of cases the courts granted, in full or in part, the applicants’ claims for salary debts and rejected their claims for compensations referring to force majeure . During the proceedings the applicants consistently argued that, under domestic legislation, the only document certifying force majeure as a ground for exemption from liability for breach of obligations was a “certificate” from the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (“UCCI”) and not a “conclusion”. However, the domestic courts found that a “scientific and legal conclusion” from the UCCI had confirmed the existence of force   majeure as regards Ukrzaliznytsya’s activities during the relevant period and, therefore, it had not been at fault and it could not be held liable for non‑fulfilment of its obligations before its employees. Law – Article   1 of Protocol No.   1: The applicants had been entitled, under the provisions of labour legislation, to obtain salary and various other payments to be paid by their employer, a State entity, upon dismissal. That legislation did not contain any exceptions or special provisions regarding the employers’ liability in the event of any exceptional circumstances preventing such employer to ensure full settlement upon dismissal. The applicants’ entitlement under the general labour legislation, as it would have stood in normal times, to the payments in question was sufficiently clear to generate, at least, a proprietary interest falling within the ambit of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. The refusal to grant their respective claims had been an interference with their property rights. In the present case the domestic courts had faced a new situation which had not been directly foreseen in the legislation and had had to provide their interpretation of the way existing legal provisions applied to legal relations that had been drastically affected by the outbreak of the armed conflict. It had been important to do so in order not to leave questions in such an important sphere of legal relations as employment disputes without an answer. The domestic courts had delivered judgments in cases involving non-payment of salary and other dismissal-related amounts on account of military operations and occupation at least as early as 2015, including in cases concerning Ukrzaliznytsya. It also appeared that their position, although it changed over time on the issue of whether the employer could be exempted, on the basis of force majeure , from the payment of the salary itself, had remained largely unchanged in respect of the acceptance of UCCI’s “scientific and legal conclusions” as evidence to confirm force majeure . That position had been confirmed in a judgment of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. Thus, the Court considered that that was a strong indication that there had existed a body of settled practice on that particular matter, including regarding the very fact that civil law concepts such as force majeure applied in respect of labour relations. While it might be considered that the reasoning provided by the domestic courts in the applicants’ cases had been somewhat unclear, it had been in line with the above-mentioned practice. The Court did not discern any manifest unreasonableness or arbitrariness in the finding that circumstances of force majeure could be proved by various evidence, apart from the UCCI “certificates” as the only document confirming it, but also by expert and witness evidence as well as other means of proof. That finding appeared to have had special importance in situations, such as the present case, involving active military activity and occupation, which necessarily limited the possibility of accessing and gathering evidence. In those circumstances, the Court found that the domestic courts’ reliance on the UCCI “conclusion” could not be seen as a breach of the lawfulness requirement of Article   1 Protocol No.   1. There was also no doubt that the interference had pursued an aim in the public interest. In respect of proportionality, the rejection of part of the applicants’ claims on grounds of force majeure had not concerned unpaid salary but only various types of compensations, principally for late salary payment upon dismissal. Although the amounts of those compensations had been rather high, in the circumstances of an armed conflict and the drastic consequences for the country’s economy, the authorities had to be allowed a wide margin of appreciation in what concerned adaptation to the new realities, particularly regarding consequences affecting labour relations. It was not the Court’s task to give its own interpretation of the domestic law or certain legal concepts. Being bound by its subsidiary role, it accepted that the refusal to grant part of the applicants’ claims on the basis of force majeure had not been disproportionate in the circumstances. Conclusion : no violation (five votes to two).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. To access legal summaries in English or French click here . For non-official translations into other languages click here .