CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 11 octobre 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s76929361 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s72F8249F { font-family:Arial; display:none } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDE1FCA9C { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB206C230 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:68.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.75pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s31E56244 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9955AD3A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD2F5C9FD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-after:avoid } .sBF964C40 { width:8.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E304268 { width:190.42pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .sC9B04F9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-before:always } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sA7F570B3 { width:73.88%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s2EF5680A { width:12.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sD35D798C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sB55A0269 { width:42.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s39D7A642 { width:45.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s644BCF83 { width:12.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s55D4A530 { margin-left:15.01pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s3110CD79 { width:42.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9BD00D0D { width:45.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }     FIFTH SECTION         CASE OF TUSKIA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA   (Application no. 14237/07)                 JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG     11 October 2018     FINAL   11/01/2019   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Tuskia and Others v. Georgia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Angelika Nußberger, President,   Yonko Grozev,   André Potocki,   Síofra O’Leary,   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,   Lәtif Hüseynov,   Lado Chanturia, judges, and Milan Blaško, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 18 September 2018, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 14237/07) against Georgia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by nine Georgian nationals, (“the applicants”) on 16 March 2007. 2.     The applicants were represented successively by Ms N. Tuskia, Mr   A.   Baramidze, and Mr I. Baratashvili, lawyers practising in Tbilisi. The Georgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their successive Agents, most recently Mr B. Dzamashvili, of the Ministry of Justice. 3.     The applicants complained, in particular, that the dispersal of their protest at Tbilisi State University on 3 July 2006 and the related administrative proceedings had amounted to an unlawful and disproportionate interference with their freedom of expression and freedom of assembly under Article 10 and Article 11 of the Convention. They furthermore alleged that they had not been given a fair trial, in violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention. 4.     On 17 October 2011 the application was communicated to the Government. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A.     Background 5.     The applicants, listed in the appendix, were all professors who at the material time were working at Tbilisi State University (“the University”). They opposed reforms initiated by the new University administration as a part of the nation-wide higher education reform in 2004-2005 and had initiated several court proceedings against the University in that regard. As part of their activities, they also held numerous public meetings at the University, made public statements and wrote to various public officials, denouncing what they called the “destruction” of the University. The applicants, with the exception of Mr Tuskia, Ms Sikharulidze, and Mr   D.   Bakhtadze (the first, sixth and ninth applicants respectively), were at the material time members of the Grand Academic Council, the highest representative body of the University (composed of seventy-eight members), which operated under the University charter (approved by the President of Georgia on 13 July 2001) and which led the protests against the changes at the University. 6 .     On 8 June 2005 the President of Georgia issued Presidential Decree no. 473, which, among other measures, repealed the University charter, thus abolishing the Grand Academic Council. The representatives of the Council challenged before the Constitutional Court of Georgia the constitutionality and legality of Presidential Decree no. 473 and several newly amended provisions of the Law on Higher Education. On 25 July 2005 the Constitutional Court rejected the above-mentioned challenge as inadmissible. 7.     On 5 April 2006 the President of Georgia appointed Mr G.Kh. as acting Rector („რექტორი“) of the University. B.     The events of 19-20 June 2006 8.     On 19 June 2006 the already-dissolved Grand Academic Council organised a meeting of University staff. After the meeting, several former members of the Council met the new acting Rector of the University, Mr   G.Kh., for the purpose of expressing their concerns to him regarding the changes at the University. The meeting ended without any results and the University employees – among them all of the applicants – decided to stay at the University in one of the lecture halls and to hold a further meeting themselves. 9.     According to the applicants, at around 1 a.m. the police arrived at the University. Without giving any explanations or any prior warning, they forced everyone out of the University building. Despite the applicants’ repeated requests, the police officers did not show them any order authorising the removal of the people gathered. 10.     The next day, the applicants, along with other employees of the University, gathered again in one of the lecture halls of the University. Towards the evening the police allegedly again dispersed their meeting. C.     The events of 3-4 July 2006 11 .     On 3 July 2006, in response to the request of Mr Sanadze (the fourth applicant), the acting Rector of the University authorised a meeting of University employees in the Grand Hall of the main University building between 3.30 p.m. and 7 p.m. of the same day. In the letter authorising the gathering G.Kh. stressed that the participants of the planned gathering were asked to maintain order and to conclude the meeting before 7 p.m. 12.     At the meeting, which started as planned, the already-dissolved Grand Academic Council “elected” the second applicant as the new Rector of the University. Thereafter, a group of about twenty people, including all of the applicants, headed to the office of the acting Rector in order to inform the latter of the Council’s decision and to demand his resignation. 13 .     According to the applicants, they entered the acting Rector’s office without using any force and informed him of the Grand Council’s decision. They asked G.Kh. to leave the office; the latter, however, refused to do so. While the meeting at the Rector’s office continued, the police entered the University grounds. The police officers went straight to the office of the acting Rector, who upon their entrance immediately left the room. Afterwards, the police asked the applicants, along with the other people present, to leave. They left the Rector’s office without any resistance and moved to a lecture hall. 14.     The Government disputed the applicants’ version of events. According to the official version of events, at least twenty people forced their way into G.Kh.’s office, while dozens of others stayed in the reception area and the corridor chanting slogans against G.Kh. The second applicant informed the acting Rector of the former Grand Academic Council’s decision and demanded that he leave his office within ten minutes. The University security service was no longer in control of the situation and the functioning of the University administration was disrupted. Given that the applicants and other protesters were refusing to leave, the police were called to restore order. G.Kh. left his office as soon as the police arrived. Then it took more than one hour for the police to negotiate the applicants’ removal from the Rector’s office. 15.     According to the case file, after their removal from the Rector’s office, the applicants – together with other protesters (in total, some 400 people) – gathered in one of the lecture halls of the main University building, where they continued their protest. The applicants alleged that at around 11   p.m. the police had closed the doors of the lecture hall and prevented the people inside from leaving it. They had been locked in the lecture hall without access to water, food or toilet facilities until approximately 8-10 a.m. the next day. D.     Subsequent developments 1.     Criminal proceedings 16 .     On 3 July 2006 criminal proceedings were initiated under Article   226 of the Criminal Code of Georgia against unidentified perpetrators in respect of the organisation and participation in group actions violating public order. 17.     According to the applicants on 4 July 2006 the Minister of Education held a press briefing denouncing the events that had taken place at the University on the preceding day. He referred to those involved in the 3 July 2006 events as “hooligans” and gave an assurance that they would all bear responsibility for their actions. 18 .     Over the following several days, twenty witnesses were questioned in connection with the events of 3 July 2006 – among them six police patrol officers, three members of the University security service, and eleven administrative staff members (including the acting Rector, G.Kh., and his deputy). The staff members (eyewitnesses to the events) all identified the applicants as being among those who had forced their way into the Rector’s office, insulted him and demanded his resignation. They noted that while there had been no physical confrontation, the group of so-called “protesting professors” had been acting in a highly disrespectful manner, chanting insulting expressions against Mr G.Kh. They also claimed that the University had remained paralysed during the incident with several meetings being disrupted and the Rector and several members of the University administration being prevented from carrying out their duties. 19 .     The acting Rector testified that around twenty people, among them all the applicants, in disregard of the orders of the security staff, had burst into his office. The second applicant had informed him of the former Grand Academic Council’s decision and had “categorically” (კატეგორიულად) demanded that he leave his office, “bag and baggage”, ( ბარგი-ბარხანა ) within ten minutes. G.Kh. explained that their meeting had continued against a background of noise and chanting, with the protestors chanting “leave, leave”. He had not been personally insulted, although his colleagues had told him that protesters in the corridor adjacent to his office had been chanting insulting slogans. In reply to a direct question, he explained that no foul language had been used by protesters in his office, either in respect of him or of his colleagues. He remembered, however, Mr Dolidze inciting via cell phone other protesters to join them in the acting Rector’s office. Lastly, G.Kh. noted that the incident in his office had lasted for about an hour and a half, paralysing not only his work but the functioning of the whole administration of the University. 20.     The security service members, who were also questioned during the pre-trial investigation, claimed that they had been unable to identify the professors involved in the events by name. They confirmed, however, that a large group of about fifty people – in disobedience of the orders given by the security service – had entered the reception area of the office of the Rector by force. Then around fifteen or twenty people had forced their way into the Rector’s office, where they had stayed for about two hours and until the police secured their removal from the office. 21.     On 5 July 2006 the second, fourth, fifth, seventh and eighth applicants were also questioned as witnesses in the course of the above ‑ mentioned criminal proceedings. 22 .     On 24 July 2006 several members of the former Grand Academic Council, among them the second, third, fourth, fifth and seventh applicants, sent a letter to the President of Georgia complaining about the events of 19 ‑ 20 June and 3-4 July 2006. With reference to the events of 3-4 July 2006, they made a particular complaint that they, along with several hundred other people, had been locked in the University lecture hall for the whole night. They alleged that this had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, as they had been denied access to drinking water and a toilet and had been left without fresh air. They requested the initiation of criminal proceedings in this regard. 23.     A copy of the above-mentioned letter was sent to the Prosecutor General of Georgia. In support of their request, the applicants submitted statements given by fifteen people accounting in detail for the events of 19 ‑ 20 June and 3-4 July 2006. 24 .     On 29 July 2006 the relevant prosecutor issued a ruling terminating the criminal proceedings concerning the alleged organisation and participation in group actions violating public order. The prosecutor concluded that the actions of the applicants had not comprised elements of a crime. The ruling read further as follows: “They committed offences – namely arbitrary behaviour, a minor violation of public order, and disobeying the lawful instructions of law-enforcement personnel – which constitute administrative offences under Articles 174, 166 and 173 of the Code of Administrative Offences.” 25.     In the operative part of the prosecutor’s ruling, the prosecutor stated that the ruling, along with the case file, was to be sent to the Tbilisi City Court in order for administrative proceedings to be conducted against the applicants. 26 .     In the same ruling the prosecutor also decided on the termination of the proceedings that apparently had been opened against the police officers in respect of their alleged unlawful use of force on 3-4 July 2006, finding the complaint lodged by the applicants in that connection unsubstantiated. The decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings provided in its operative part a fifteen-day time-limit for an appeal. The prosecutor’s ruling did not mention the applicants’ complaint concerning the events of 19 ‑ 20   June 2006. 27.     The applicants were served with a copy of the above-mentioned ruling late in the evening of 29 July 2006. They were told at the same time that a hearing in the administrative proceedings initiated against them had been scheduled for the next day. 2.     Administrative proceedings against the applicants 28.     On 30 July 2006 a hearing took place at the Tbilisi City Court. The applicants objected that owing to the initiation of the administrative proceedings they could not avail themselves of the opportunity to challenge the prosecutorial ruling of 29 July 2006. They furthermore complained that they had not had sufficient time to acquaint themselves with the relevant material in the case file and to hire a lawyer. The applicants also requested that the acting Rector of the University and the security staff of the University be questioned. The prosecutor, for his part, requested the questioning of three of the police officers involved in the events that had developed in the Rector’s office on 3 July 2006. The judge allowed a request lodged by the prosecutor for the three police officers to be examined in court and postponed the hearing until 3 August 2006. 29 .     At the hearing on 3 August 2006 the applicants reiterated their request for the acting Rector to be examined in court. They furthermore requested that the court hear the deputy Rector of the University and four other eyewitnesses to the events of 3 July 2006, including two journalists who had not been questioned at the pre-trial stage of the discontinued criminal proceedings. The judge granted the applicants leave to question the four new witnesses, while refusing their request for the questioning of the acting Rector and his deputy. In that connection, the court reasoned that those two individuals had already been questioned at the pre-trial stage and observed that their statements had been included in the case file. 30.     According to the minutes of the 3 August 2006 hearing, the applicants challenged the factual circumstances of the events of 3 July 2006, as presented by the prosecutor. They maintained that they had not broken into the Rector’s office, but rather that they had entered the office and had sat there calmly without using any force; that they had not insulted or threatened the acting Rector, but had simply presented him with the decision of the Grand Academic Council; and that they had not disobeyed the instructions of the police, but had left the Rector’s office within ten or fifteen minutes of being ordered to do so by the police. The second applicant stated that he had been taken out of the office sitting on a chair because he had apparently looked very tired. The applicants’ lawyers also argued that the Rector’s office did not constitute a public space for the purposes of Article 166 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“CAO”) (see paragraph 47 below) and that in any event the applicants had simply been exercising their right to freedom of assembly and freedom of expression, as provided for in the Constitution of Georgia. Lastly, they alleged that the prosecutor had presented the case in a manner suggesting the collective administrative liability of the applicants, as the individual role of each applicant in the events of 3 July 2006 had not been identified. 31 .     The applicants also reiterated their complaint that they had been locked in the University lecture hall for the night of 3-4 July 2006 without their having access to water or toilets. They tried to put to the prosecutor several questions in this regard but the presiding judge dismissed the questions as irrelevant, having no bearing on the case. 32.     During the hearing of 3 August 2006 the following witnesses were questioned. V.J., a member of the University security service, claimed that about fifty people – disregarding his orders and pushing him away – had forced their way to the reception area of the Rector’s office. In reply to the judge’s question, he said that he could not recall exactly who had pushed him. He furthermore stated that various protesters had been making insulting statements and noise and that as a result the work in the main building of the University had been disrupted. 33.     According to the statement given in court by G.Ch., a police patrol officer, at the moment of his arrival at the University there had been around 200 people protesting outside. He had entered the building and had tried to enter the Rector’s office, which had been blocked by protestors. After making his way through protesters and entering the office of G.Kh, he had seen around twenty people inside. It had taken him and the other officers about one hour to persuade the protesters to leave the office. In reply to a question he clarified that no one had physically resisted the police, but that the protesters had simply refused to leave the office. He also specified that insulting statements had been made by protestors in the corridor and not in the acting Rector’s office. 34.     Z.S., another police officer, confirmed that while no force had been used, they had spent an hour persuading a group of about twenty people to leave the Rector’s office. He said that Mr Mebonia (the second applicant) had been taken out of the office still sitting on a chair as he had refused to stand up and leave by himself. He added that he recalled all of the applicants, except for Ms Sikharulidze (the sixth applicant), being inside the Rector’s office. The third police officer, K.B., who was also questioned in court, similarly maintained that there had been no physical confrontation inside the office, but that it had taken a while before those inside had agreed to leave. 35.     On the same date the Court examined two members of the University staff, who gave evidence similar to their pre-trial statements (see paragraph 18 above). In addition, the court questioned two journalists and two professors, all of whom had been among the group of protesters on 3   July 2006. All four claimed that there had been no confrontation (either physical or verbal) in the office of the Rector, that the group had been simply demanding the resignation of G.Kh., and that they had left the office at the request of the police. 36.     By a decision of 4 August 2006 the Tbilisi City Court found the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, seventh and eight applicants guilty of the above ‑ mentioned administrative offences under Articles 166, 173 and 174 of the CAO and imposed a fine of 100 Georgian laris (GEL – approximately 45 euros) on each of them. The court terminated the proceedings concerning the alleged disobeying of a lawful order given by the police (Article 173) with respect to the sixth and ninth applicants, finding that they had left the office of the Rector before the arrival of the police and held them guilty of the administrative offences under Articles 166 and 174 of the CAO only, imposing a fine of GEL 100 on each of them (see paragraph 39 below). 37 .     In reaching its decision, the Tbilisi City Court concluded that the Grand Academic Council had begun acting unlawfully starting from 8 June 2005, when the old University charter had been repealed by Presidential Decree no. 473. Consequently, the court found that the restoration of the dissolved body, the impugned election of the new University Rector on 3   July 2006, and the subsequent demand for the resignation of G.Kh. in view of the election had been unlawful and constituted the administrative offence arbitrary behaviour within the meaning of Article 174 of the CAO (see paragraph 47 below). 38 .     In connection with the charge of a minor breach of public order (minor hooliganism), the court established that the applicants had burst into the office of G.Kh., calling for his resignation. They had demanded, in an insulting manner, that he immediately leave his office and take all his belongings with him. The court concluded that given that the applicants had occupied the office of the acting Rector against his will for about two hours and had disregarded his repeated requests for them to leave it in order to allow everyone to resume their work, their behaviour had amounted to insulting harassment ( შეურაცხმყოფელი გადაკიდება ) with respect to G.Kh. as well as the other staff present, and to “other similar action” that had violated public order and peace. The Tbilisi City Court dismissed the applicants’ argument that the Rector’s office was merely a private working space, reasoning that the presence of the public rendered it a public space for the purposes of the CAO. As to the submission by the defence that the applicants had simply been exercising their right to freedom of assembly and freedom of expression, as provided in the Constitution of Georgia, the court concluded as follows: “The court notes that although a person is entitled to exercise the rights and freedoms enshrined in Articles 19, 24 and 25 of the Constitution, he or she is at the same time obliged, in the process of exercising his or her rights, to abstain from violating others’ rights and interests, from encroaching upon [others’] honour and dignity, [and] from violating ... public order ... . [He or she] should not, in exercising his or her constitutional rights, commit acts prohibited by law, which, in the court’s view, in fact happened on 3 July 2006 in the office of the Rector ...” 39 .     As for the charge of disobeying a lawful order given by the police, the court concluded that the sixth and ninth applicants had left the office of G.Kh. before the arrival of the police. They were thus acquitted of the above-mentioned charge. As for the remainder of the applicants, the court established that despite the repeated requests of the police, they had refused to leave the office of the acting Rector. In the court’s view, notwithstanding the fact that no physical force had been used, the applicants’ refusal for more than an hour to obey the orders of the police had amounted to a breach of Article 173 of the CAO (see paragraph 47 below). 40 .     The applicants appealed against the first-instance court’s decision to the chairwoman of the Tbilisi Court of Appeal. They complained that there had been no record of an administrative offence having been made individually in respect of each of them, that their individual roles in the commission of the impugned administrative offences had not been established, and that the proceedings had been brought in a manner suggesting their collective liability. In that connection, they referred to the statements of witnesses who had noted that there had been two hundred people outside and twenty people inside the acting Rector’s office during the events of 3 July 2006 and that it was impossible to identify the individuals who had allegedly insulted the acting Rector and forced their way into his office. The applicants also complained of the failure of the Tbilisi City Court to examine the acting Rector and his deputy in the course of the trial. Lastly, they challenged the categorisation of their actions as administrative offences by the first-instance court, submitting that they had simply been exercising their freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. 41.     On 4 September 2006, the chairwoman of the Tbilisi Court of Appeal, sitting privately in her office and without holding an oral hearing, dismissed the applicants’ appeal as unsubstantiated. She concluded that the decision of the first-instance court had been lawful and properly reasoned. The operative part of the decision of 4 September 2006 indicated that no further appeal was possible. E.     Television report by the Imedi broadcasting company about the events of 3 July 2006 42 .     The case file contains a copy of a television report by the Imedi broadcasting company about the events of 3 July 2006. As was shown in Imedi’s recording of the events of 3 July 2006, at least twenty people had entered the reception area of the acting Rector’s office by force, in disregard of the protests of the security staff and reception staff. Then some of them had walked into the office itself, notifying G.Kh. of the decision of the Grand Academic Council and demanding his resignation. According to the video, dozens of protesters had simultaneously gathered in the corridor adjacent to the acting Rector’s office and had chanted “step down!” 43.     Imedi also ran an extract from the press briefing held by the Minister of Education on 4 July 2006. While commenting on the events in the University the preceding day, the Minister said the following: “Those people, who went beyond all the limits of academia and ethics yesterday, will of course, face responsibility for that.” II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 44 .     The relevant Articles of the Constitution of Georgia provide: Article 24 “1.   Everyone shall be free to receive and impart information, to express and disseminate his/her opinion orally, in writing, or otherwise. ... 4.   The exercise of the rights listed in the first and second paragraphs of this article may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of state security, territorial integrity or public safety, to prevent crime, to safeguard rights and dignity of others, to prevent disclosure of information acknowledged as confidential, or to ensure the independence and impartiality of justice.” Article 25 “1.   Everyone, except those serving in the military forces and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, shall have the right to gather publicly, unarmed, both indoors and outdoors, without prior permission. ... 3.   Authorities may terminate a public assembly or a manifestation only if it assumes unlawful character.” 45 .     The relevant Articles of the Law of Georgia on Assembly and Demonstrations, as worded at the material time, read as follows: Article 1 “1.     The current law regulates the exercise of the right guaranteed by the Constitution of Georgia to gather publicly, unarmed, both indoors and outdoors, without prior permission. ... 3.     This law provides the requirement that the authorities be notified if an assembly or a demonstration is due to be held in a public place [or a place through which] transport passes.” Article 9 § 1 “It is prohibited to hold an assembly or a demonstration inside the building of the Parliament of Georgia, the residency of the President of Georgia, the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Georgia, on the premises of courts, prosecutor’s offices or of police, penitentiary or military units and sites, [in] railway stations, airports, hospitals or diplomatic missions ([or] within a 20-metre radius thereof), on the premises of governmental institutions [or] local self-government bodies, [or] in the buildings of companies, institutions and organisations [that operate under] special labour security rules or are under armed guard. It is prohibited to fully block the entrance to those sites.” 46 .     Under Article 9 of the Law on the Police, as in force at the material time (it was replaced by a new Act in 2013), the police were responsible, inter alia, for dispersing unlawful rallies, demonstrations, pickets and other assemblies that posed a threat to public safety, the lives and health of people, property, and other rights guaranteed by law. 47 .     The CAO was adopted on 15 December 1984, when Georgia was part of the Soviet Union. Subsequently, numerous amendments were introduced. At the material time the relevant provisions of this Code read as follows: Article: 166: Minor hooliganism (a minor breach of public order) “Minor hooliganism, e.g. swearing and cursing in a public place, [causing] insulting harassment to a person, or other similar actions which disturb public order and peace, shall be punishable by a fine in the amount of GEL 100, or – if, in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the offender’s personality, this measure is not deemed to be sufficient – with up to thirty days’ administrative detention.” Article 173: Disobeying a lawful instruction or order [issued by] law-enforcement or military service personnel “Maliciously disobeying a lawful instruction or order [issued by] a law enforcement officer ... shall be punishable by a fine amounting to ten times the minimum [monthly] wage, or by one to six months’ correctional labour compounded by the withholding of 20% of [the offender’s] wages, or – if, in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the offender’s personality these measures are not deemed to be sufficient – by up to thirty days’ administrative detention.” Article 174: Arbitrary behaviour (თვითნებობა) “Arbitrary behaviour, i.e. the exercise of a right in violation of a law, which does not cause any significant damage to people, the State or to public bodies, shall be punishable by a warning or a fine of half the minimum [monthly] wage [of the offenders concerned], or – in the case of public officials – with a warning or a fine of one minimum [monthly] wage.” THE LAW I.     LOCUS STANDI OF THE FOURTH APPLICANT’S WIFE 48.     On 15 December 2011 the fourth applicant passed away. On 10 May 2012 his wife, Ms A. Davituliani, expressed her wish to pursue the case before the Court. The Government submitted no comments on the locus standi of Ms A. Davituliani. 49.     The Court notes that, where the original applicant has died after lodging the application, the Court normally permits the next-of-kin to pursue an application, provided he or she has a legitimate interest (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000 XII; see also Murray v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 10511/10, § 79, ECHR 2016, with further references, and Paposhvili v. Belgium [GC], no. 41738/10, §   126, ECHR 2016). Having regard to the subject matter of the application and all the elements in its possession, and without prejudice to its decision on the objection relating to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Court considers that the fourth applicant’s wife has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application and that she thus has the requisite locus standi under Article 34 of the Convention (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no.   28114/95, §§ 38-39, ECHR 1999 ‑ VI; Çakar v. Turkey , no. 42741/98, §§   18-21, 23 October 2003; and Ahmet Sadık v. Greece , 15 November 1996, §§ 24-26, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 ‑ V). 50.     For practical reasons, Mr T. Sanadze will continue to be called “the fourth applicant” in this judgment, even though Ms A. Davituliani should now be regarded as such. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3, 5, 10 AND 11 OF THE CONVENTION 51.     The applicants complained that their peaceful protests at the University over the period of 19-20 June and 3-4 July 2006 had been violently dispersed and that the prosecuting authorities had failed to initiate an investigation against the responsible authorities. They also denounced the imposition of administrative fines on them in connection with the events of 3 July 2006. They relied on Article 3, Article 5, Article 10 and Article 11 of the Convention, which in their relevant parts read as follows: Article 3 “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Article 5 “1.   Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law ...” Article 10 “1.   Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. ... 2.   The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of ... public safety, for the prevention of disorder ..., for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others....” Article 11 “ 1.   Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly ... 2.     No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of ... public safety, for the prevention of disorder ..., for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. ...” A.     Admissibility 1.     The parties’ submissions 52.     The Government submitted that the applicants’ various complaints with respect to both of the alleged instances of the dispersal of the protest at the University were inadmissible owing to their having been lodged out of time. They claimed in this connection that an inquiry initiated on the basis of the applicants’ complaint of 24 July 2006 had been discontinued on 29   July 2006. This had been the final domestic decision for the purposes of the calculation of the six-month time-limit, given that the subsequent administrative proceedings had been limited to the examination of the applicants’ “guilt” only. There had been no basis for the applicants, in the Government’s view, to expect their allegations of violence against police to be addressed within the scope of the administrative proceedings conducted exclusively against them. Therefore, the applicants’ complaints with respect to the events of 19-20 June and 3-4 July 2006 should be declared inadmissible, in accordance with Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. 53.     The Government, in addition, claimed that the first, fifth, sixth, eighth and ninth applicants had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies, as they had not been part of the group of professors who had written and sent the criminal complaint of 24 July 2006 to the Prosecutor General (see in this respect paragraph 22 above). 54.     The applicants disagreed with the Government’s objection. They maintained that they had expected their allegations to be addressed within the scope of the administrative proceedings conducted against them. Accordingly, the point of departure for the calculation of the six-month time-limit should have been 21 September 2006, the date on which the decision of the Tbilisi Court of Appeal had been served on one of the applicants. As regards the non-exhaustion argument, they submitted (following the same line of reasoning) that the complaints of all the applicants, notwithstanding whether they had personally signed the criminal complaint of 24 July 2006 or not, had been dealt with by the national courts in the course of the relevant administrative proceedings. 2.     The Court’s assessment 55.     The Court finds it appropriate to consider separately the objections raised by the Government in connection with the events of 19-20 June 2006 and of 3-4 July 2006 at the University. (a)     The events of 19-20 June 2006 56.     As regards the events of 19-20 June 2006, the Court notes the following: the prosecutor’s ruling on the termination of the criminal proceedings into the applicants’ allegations of violence on the part of the police made no reference to the events of 19-20 June 2006 at all (see paragraphs 24 and 26 above); and the domestic courts in the course of the subsequent administrative proceedings only examined the events of 3 July 2006, disregarding the events of 19-20 June 2006 (see paragraphs 37-39 above). The applicants themselves in their appeal to the chairwoman of the Tbilisi Court of Appeal made no reference to the events of 19 ‑ 20 June 2006 (see paragraph 40 above). 57.     In such circumstances the Court finds unconvincing the applicants’ argument that they had been expecting the domestic courts to address their allegations concerning the events of 19 ‑ 20 June 2006 in the course of the administrative proceedings conducted against them. There was neither legal nor factual foundation for such an expectation. It follows accordingly that as regards the alleged events of 19 ‑ 20 June 2006, the last domestic decision for the purposes of the calculation of the six-month time-limit was the prosecutorial ruling of 29 July 2006 in which the applicants’ complaints regarding the events of 19-20 June 2006 had been disregarded. The applicants failed to appeal against that ruling. Therefore, without even addressing the Government’s non-exhaustion plea, and in view of the fact that the current application was lodged on 16 March 2007 – that is to say almost eight months after the above-mentioned triggering date – the Court concludes that the applicants’ various complaints concerning the events of 19-20 June 2006 are inadmissible, in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. (b)     The events of 3-4 July 2006 58.     As to the events of 3-4 July 2006, the Court notes the following: the alleged violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 10 and Article 11 of the Convention was at the centre of the administrative proceedings conducted against them. Notably, the national courts were to assess two sides of the same coin – on the one hand, the alleged breach of public order; on the other hand, the applicants’ exercise of their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. 59.     By contrast, the applicants’ grievances vis-à-vis the police concerning their alleged ill-treatment and the unlawful restriction of their liberty over the night of 3-4 July 2006 fell beyond the scope of the impugned administrative proceedings (see paragraphs 24 and 26 above). According to the relevant court minutes, the domestic courts did not examine the applicants’ allegation that they had been locked into a lecture hall during the night of 3 ‑ 4 July 2006 (see paragraph 31 above). Had the applicants been willing to pursue this aspect of their grievances under Article 3 and Article 5 of the Convention they should have followed up and appealed against the prosecutorial ruling of 29 July 2006 dismissing their allegations as unsubstantiated (see Identoba and Others v. Georgia , no.   73235/12, §§ 104 ‑ 15, 12 May 2015; see also, Smirnova v. Russia (dec.) [Committee], no. 37267/04, §§ 45-49, 8 July 2014). 60.     In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the applicants’ complaints under Article 10 and Article 11 of the Convention concerning the events of 3 July 2006 are admissible, while their complaints under Article 3 and Article 5 of the Convention must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. B.     Merits 1.     The parties’ observations (a)     The applicants 61.     The applicants claimed that the University was not “private property”, which the Respondent State had a duty to protect. Rather, it was their workplace, which they had the right to enter freely any time they wanted. They dismissed in this connection the Government’s argument about the exclusive role of the University in the field of educational services and submitted that they had a right to discuss various issues concerning the University not only outside its premises but also inside them (see the Government’s argument in paragraph 63 below). 62.     The applicants furthermore maintained that physical force had been used against them by police, and that that force had not been necessary in a democratic society and had in any event been disproportionate to whatever legitimate aim the Government had claimed to be pursuing. While reiterating the Court’s reasoning in the case of Bukta and Others v. Hungary (no. 25691/04, § 37, ECHR 2007 ‑ III) , they submitted that the public authorities should have shown a certain degree of tolerance towards their peaceful gatherings at the University. Lastly, in their view, the imposition of administrative fines had only served to punish them for their having exercised their rights under Article 10 and Article 11 of the Convention and had been intended to have a “chilling effect” upon anyone who might have been willing to protest against the Government’s reforms in the educational sphere. (b)     The Government 63 .     The Government submitted that the right to hold demonstrations inside the premises of public institutions was not unlimited (see Appleby and Others v. the United Kingdom , no. 44306/98, § 47, ECHR 2003 ‑ VI). They referred in this connection to Article 9 § 1 of the Law on Assembly and Demonstrations, which provided that no assembly or demonstration could be held, inter alia, in a building of a governmental institution (see paragraph 45 above). They stated that there had been alternative venues at the disposal of the applicants and their supporters, such as the courtyard of the University, where they could have organised their protest. They stressed in this connection the idea that a university, being an educational establishment, was exclusively devoted to providing educational services; therefore, if the Government were to allow unrestricted demonstrations on its premises it would put a disproportionate burden on the educational establishment, jeopardising its proper functioning. They thus maintained that in the instant case, no interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly had taken place at all. 64 .     In the alternative, the Government submitted that the interference had been justified under the second paragraphs of Article 10 and Article 11 of the Convention. In particular, the interference had been based on the internal regulations of the University, which explicitly provided that, prior to the organising of an assembly on the premises of the University, authorisation from its Rector was required. The applicants had been well aware of the requirement of prior notification and authorisation, as they had obtained it for a meeting scheduled to take place in the Grand Hall between 3.30 p.m. and 7 p.m. of 3 July 2006 (see paragraph 11 above). The interference had also been based on Article 9 § 1 of the Law on Assembly and Demonstrations, which prohibited gatherings on the premises of certain institutions (see paragraph 45 above). The Government maintained in this connection that the University was a legal entity of public law that functioned under the umbrella of the Ministry of Education, which meant that it was a public institution for the purposes of the above-mentioned regulations. Lastly, the Government also relied on Article 9 § 1 (e) of the Law on the Police. The latter authorised the police to interfere with a demonstration that violated public order and the rights of others. 65 .     As to the aim pursued, the Government submitted that the dispersal of the protest had served the purpose of protecting the interests of others. The decision to engage the police had been taken only after it had become obvious from the statements and actions of the applicants that they would not leave the office of G.Kh. until the latter res