CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 2 mars 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79B8843C { margin-top:60pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s57F1263A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s88D564B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border:0.75pt solid #000000; padding:1pt 4pt } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6E417FF3 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3DEE9F14 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.65pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s7D224A0F { margin-left:-7.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s74825D0C { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s21DA5120 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3BF0B6C7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4B52A9A9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sFAD2C7CC { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial } .s7CAC83C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sC66C6FB1 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s90EB8675 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:53pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.2pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s35008A5F { width:18.55pt; display:inline-block } .sAD92BA88 { width:125.76pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s2E91A821 { width:115.76%; border-collapse:collapse } .sCCA4659C { width:6.7%; 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 } .s3DB7A033 { width:29.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2D067F67 { width:8.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s295CF038 { width:17.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s256F5E63 { width:13.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF15D7952 { width:24.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s14AC249C { width:6.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBFF6A048 { width:29.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7C595E68 { width:8.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7FEC32D4 { width:17.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBCD45BF3 { width:13.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFAF5B83E { width:24.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt }     FIFTH SECTION CASE OF DZERKORASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA (Application no. 70572/16)     JUDGMENT   Art 5 § 1 • Deprivation of liberty • Administrative arrest and detention of applicants for about twelve hours not free from arbitrariness • Lack of necessity assessment   STRASBOURG 2 March 2023     FINAL   02/06/2023     This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Dzerkorashvili and Others v. Georgia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Georges Ravarani , President ,   Mārtiņš Mits,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,   Lado Chanturia,   María Elósegui,   Kateřina Šimáčková,   Mykola Gnatovskyy , judges , and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   70572/16) against Georgia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by seven Georgian nationals (“the applicants”), whose details are listed in the appended table, on 17   November 2016; the decision to give notice to the Georgian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints under Articles   3, 5, 8,   11,   13 and 14 of the Convention and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible; the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants; the comments submitted by the Ordo Iuris Institute for Legal Culture, who were granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section; Having deliberated in private on 7 February 2023, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The present case principally concerns the applicants’ complaint under Article   5 of the Convention relating to their alleged unlawful detention for approximately twelve hours, and their complaint under Articles 3, 8 and 14 of the Convention regarding alleged ill-treatment. It also relates to negotiations by an “LGBT activists’ initiatives group” with the domestic authorities concerning the selection of a venue for a public event and the applicants’ complaint that they were negatively affected by the authorities’ conduct, in breach of Article   11 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants’ details are set out in the appended table. They were represented by Ms T. Mikeladze and Ms M. Begadze, lawyers practising in Tbilisi and by Ms R. Remezaite, Ms J. Gavron, Ms J. Sawyer, and Mr   P.   Leach, lawyers practising in London. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr B. Dzamashvili, of the Ministry of Justice. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. ARRANGEMENTS RELATING TO THE IDAHOT EVENT OF 2016 5 .     On 28   April 2016 an “LGBT activists’ initiatives group” (“the group of activists”) asked the authorities to ensure support and protection of the LGBT activists’ right to freedom of assembly. The relevant letter did not identify either the contact person for the group or its individual members. The officials were notified of the group’s plan to hold a silent gathering in order to commemorate the International Day against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia (IDAHOT) and raise the public’s awareness of the need to protect the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community. The letter noted that between 100 and 150 individuals would gather in front of the Parliament building on 17   May 2016 at noon. The event would last one hour. The group of activists referred to past instances of homophobic violence faced by individuals who had tried to commemorate IDAHOT (see Identoba and Others v.   Georgia , no.   73235/12, §§   68-81, 12   May 2015, and Women’s Initiatives Supporting Group and Others v.   Georgia , nos.   73204/13 and 74959/13, §§   60-78, 16   December 2021) and requested that the various authorities, including the police, create a working group to coordinate the measures to be taken in order to protect the rights and the life and health of the participants of the event planned for 17   May 2016. 6.     On 3 May 2016 the Tbilisi City Hall informed the group of activists that notice of various events relating to the “family sanctity day” (in May   2014 the Georgian Orthodox Church had declared 17   May a day to celebrate the strength and sanctity of the family and respect for one’s parents, to be celebrated by prayers and a procession in the streets) and other commemorations had already been given in respect of the area surrounding the Parliament building and Freedom Square. Those notifications had been made on various dates between 11   February and 14   April 2016. The Tbilisi City Hall proposed to the activists that they choose a different location. 7 .     As appears from the parties’ submissions and the case file material, on 4   May 2016 the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs and various other officials met some of the activists in order to discuss the request of 28   April 2016 (see paragraph   5 above). The meeting was also attended by a representative of the Office of the Public Defender. The identity of the activists who were present and the exact content of the discussions is unclear, but the MIA confirmed in a letter addressed to the applicants’ representative on 25   August 2016 that the activists present at the meeting had been warned about the “risks associated with holding the assembly.” In a letter addressed to the applicants’ representative by the Office of the Public Defender, it was noted that the activists had categorically insisted on holding the gathering in a central location such as Rustaveli Avenue and had rejected all proposals in respect of alternative venues despite having been warned that three parallel demonstrations had already been planned to take place in the Rustaveli avenue, constituting a security threat if the activists went ahead with their demonstration in their preferred location. 8 .     On 5   May 2016 the group of activists informed the authorities that they had selected an alternative location. The event would be held in Pushkin Square (a central space adjacent to Freedom Square). The letter indicated the address and a mobile telephone number of one individual – N.B. – who was designated as a contact person. 9 .     By a letter dated 16   May 2016, the Tbilisi City Hall informed the contact person for the activists, N.B., in response to N.B.’s letter of 5   May 2016, that notice of various events had been given earlier in respect of different central locations, and that the City Hall “[did not] consider it advisable to hold any type of additional events at the perimeter of the listed locations”. The activists were requested to “choose an alternative location for the planned gathering and to inform [the City Hall] accordingly”. 10.     The case file material contains internal correspondence of the different MIA entities, including the police, to which the activists’ letters were forwarded to ensure a “response in case of need”. 11 .     On 16   May 2016 an “independent group of LGBT activists” circulated a statement. The statement referred to the interactions and meetings with the authorities and explained that in the absence of security guarantees by the authorities in respect of a public event to be held at or around Rustaveli Avenue (those guarantees, according to the statement, had been “a categorical request”), the activists had decided not to hold the event as no alternative place or date suggested by the authorities would fit the purpose of their event. 12 .     None of the present applicants feature in the official correspondence or other documents relating to the planning of the event on 17   May 2016. The case file material contains a statement of N.B. (see paragraphs   8 and 9 above) obtained by the applicants’ representatives on 25   October 2016. According to that statement, N.B. was involved in the planning of “almost all” public events relating to the protection of LGBT rights, including the event of 17   May 2016 which could not be held. She stated that one of the meetings with the authorities (see paragraph   7 above) relating to that event had also been attended by some activists, including the first and fifth applicants. She also described the communication she had had with various authorities, and stated that she had received the letter dated 16   May 2016 (see paragraph   9 above) on 23   May 2016. APPLICANTS’ ARREST 13 .     In the early hours of 17   May 2016, the applicants went to the main building of the Patriarchate of the Georgian Orthodox Church. 14.     At 3.55 a.m. the first six applicants were arrested together with the seventh applicant. The official documents relating to their arrest indicated that all seven applicants had been drawing graffiti (stencilling the phrase “Fuck homophobia and transphobia”) on the walls of the building. According to the applicants’ account at the domestic level and before the Court, rather than drawing graffiti, the seventh applicant had been waiting for his wife – the fourth applicant – in the car when he was arrested. 15.     The administrative-offence reports of 17   May 2016 in respect of all seven applicants noted that they had been arrested under Articles   150 and 173 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”; see paragraphs   41-42 below), stating that none of the applicants had obeyed police orders to stop putting unauthorised writing on the building. As regards the grounds for the arrest, the administrative-arrest reports of the same date repeated that the applicants had been putting unauthorised writing on the building, had refused to comply with the order to stop doing so, and had resisted arrest. The relevant reports did not specify whether they had been drafted on the spot or at the police station. 16 .     The administrative-arrest reports contained notes that the first applicant had a “minor redness in the waist area”, the second applicant had “a greenish spot on her right thigh” and an old scar on the right arm, the fifth applicant had a “small injury (მცირე სახის დაზიანება) near the left ankle”, and the sixth applicant had an old scar on her right arm. No such notes were made in respect of the remaining applicants. It was also stated in respect of all but the seventh applicant that they had spray paint with them at the time of the arrest. The applicants refused to sign the relevant reports. 17.     Documents obtained from the MIA and the mayor’s office on 30   May and 1 June 2016 indicated that no video surveillance footage of the events was available, either because of the lack of cameras in certain areas or the malfunctioning of those which had been installed. 18.     On 10 and 20 June 2016, the Administrative Chamber of the Tbilisi City Court held hearings in the applicants’ cases. The applicants maintained that the police officers had not worn identifiable insignia, that there had been no disobedience on the applicants’ part, and that the drawing of the graffiti by the first six applicants was protected by their freedom of expression. The seventh applicant submitted that he had been in his car at the time of his arrest. The court acquitted all of the applicants of the charge of disobeying police orders, finding that there was insufficient evidence to prove the existence of such disobedience. As regards the charge of putting unauthorised writing on a building, the first six applicants were found guilty and sentenced to an administrative fine of 50 Georgian laris (GEL – approximately 20 euros (EUR)). The seventh applicant was acquitted with respect to both charges with the court noting, without further elaboration, that the evidence available before it did not demonstrate that the seventh applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged.   On an unspecified date the first six applicants appealed against their conviction. 19 .     On 19   July and 30   September 2016, the Tbilisi Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s findings. SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS Administrative complaints 20 .     On 30   May 2016 the applicants (with the exception of the first and third applicants) complained to the General Inspectorate of the MIA (the unit in charge of disciplinary supervision of those working for the Ministry), and requested that disciplinary proceedings be initiated against the police officers involved in their arrest and detention. They complained that they had not disobeyed any lawful orders, and the arresting officers had not worn police insignia, causing the applicants distress because the applicants had thought that they had been chased by ultraconservative, homophobic groups. The applicants stated that their administrative arrest had, in such circumstances, been unnecessary. They also argued that the police officers had not explained to them their procedural rights and had used homophobic and degrading language throughout the applicants’ administrative arrest and detention. The second applicant stated that she had been requested to use the bathroom in the presence of a female officer who, in reply to the second applicant’s objection, had cynically remarked “as if you have not done much worse.” The second applicant indicated the name of the officer in question. The sixth applicant stated that when brought for trial the following day, the applicants had witnessed a female police officer’s threat to another LGBT activist who had apparently been arrested in respect of another case. That individual had, according to the applicants, insulted the Patriarch, and the officer had threatened, with gestures, to strangle him, claiming that people like that “should rot and die.” She was then calmed down by another officer. 21 .     On 17   June 2016 the seven applicants sent a complaint to the MIA. They relied on section   56 of the Police Act, Article   208 of the Administrative Code and Article   251 of the CAO (see paragraphs   47-52 below) and complained that their administrative arrest had been unlawful. The applicants claimed that there had been no need to make the arrests, as the sole reason for the applicants’ running away from the officers had been the lack of police uniforms and insignia on the arresting officers, as well as the police officers’ failure to identify themselves prior to chasing the applicants and grabbing them. This had led the applicants to believe that they had been chased by religious extremists rather than law-enforcement officials, which was confirmed, according to the applicants, by the fact that the moment the officers arrested them and made their official status clear, no resistance was offered by any of the applicants. It was emphasised that their arrest and detention had thus been wholly unnecessary, as any perceived resistance had been the result of the police officers’ behaviour. The applicants also noted that the administrative-offence reports could have been filed on the spot, without the need to take them to the police station. They added that those documents did not contain sufficient information regarding the incident and the necessity of detaining the applicants. As regards the seventh applicant, he had not been involved in the events at all and had been sitting in his car. The applicants claimed that their detention for approximately twelve hours had not been lawful, necessary, or proportionate. Among other things, they emphasised that detention had to be used as a last resort, rather than an automatic measure. 22 .     On 22   September 2016 the deputy chief of the police station which employed the applicants’ arresting officers responded to the applicants’ complaint of 17   June 2016 (see the previous paragraph) and stated that the relevant officers had acted in full conformity with the law when arresting the applicants, and that the first-instance court had delivered its judgments concerning the incident. 23 .     On an unspecified date a disciplinary inquiry was launched by the General Inspectorate of the MIA. On 30   March and 4   April 2017 the Inspectorate interviewed the police officers involved in the applicants’ administrative arrest. The officers denied physical or verbal ill-treatment in respect of the applicants. The case file material contains no information as to whether the inquiry reached any conclusions. Judicial proceedings 24 .     On 4   November 2016 the applicants, represented by a lawyer of their choice, instituted proceedings against the MIA. They requested the “nullity of the administrative-arrest reports” and “compensation for moral damage.” The applicants briefly repeated the content of their earlier complaints (see paragraphs   20-21 above). They noted that their complaint with the superior authority under Article   251 of the CAO had been left without a meaningful reply, only the letter of 22   September 2016 which had been received on 3   October 2016 (see paragraph   22 above). The applicants provided a photograph allegedly depicting one of the arresting officers not wearing a police uniform. 25.     On 9   November 2016 the applicants’ request to have the administrative-arrest reports declared null and void was not accepted for consideration on the merits by the first-instance court. On 3   April 2017 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal remitted the matter to the first-instance court for reconsideration. The case file material does not contain copies of those decisions. 26 .     On 24   August 2017 the Tbilisi City Court, and subsequently on 30   November 2017 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal, found that the applicants had failed to abide by the special rules concerning the appeals relating to administrative arrests made by the police. Namely, rather than appealing against the outcome of a complaint under Article   251 of the CAO and section   56 of the Police Act (see   paragraphs   47 and 52 below), the applicants had, according to the court, requested a direct review by the domestic courts of the legality of their administrative-arrest reports, contrary to the established procedure and practice. What is more, rather than formulate the request with respect to the provisions of the CAO, the application had requested nullity of the arrest reports under the General Administrative Code, thereby rendering the core of the applicants’ claim incorrectly formulated. It was further emphasised by the courts that during the hearing on the matter the applicants’ representative had insisted on the nullity of the relevant documents under the General Administrative Code rather than formulating the request with a view to contesting the factual acts of the police under the Code of Administrative Offences. The applicants’ complaint was thus declared inadmissible in a final decision of 30   November 2017. 27 .     As regards compensation for damage relating to the applicants’ arrest, on 18   October 2018 the Tbilisi City Court found that the applicants’ failure to properly trigger the procedure under Article   251 of the CAO for complaining about the unlawfulness of their administrative arrest had led to the courts’ inability to make a ruling on whether such an arrest had entailed any damage entailing the award of compensation under Article   1005 §   1 of the Civil Code. The decision was upheld on appeal in a final decision of 8   December 2020. The case file material does not contain a copy of the applicants’ appeal and the final decision. Criminal complaints 28 .     On 6 September 2016 the first, second, third and fifth applicants applied to the Tbilisi Prosecutor’s Office requesting the opening of an investigation into unlawful deprivation of liberty and inhuman treatment. The content of the complaint was brief but similar to that made on 30   May 2016 (see paragraph   20 above). On 19   October 2016 the second, fourth, sixth and seventh applicants also applied to the Tbilisi Prosecutor’s Office. They complained of the unlawfulness of their administrative arrests and requested that an investigation be opened in that respect, but also stated, briefly, that the police had made mocking comments and used “hate speech” against the applicants. The letter of 19   October 2016 referred to the complaint made by the first, second, third and fifth applicants on 6   September 2016, and noted that all seven applicants had already given statements and detailed information regarding the possible criminal offences committed against them by the police officers. All of the applicants referred to themselves as LGBT activists. 29 .     Between 4   and 12   October 2016 a prosecutor interviewed all of the applicants in the presence of their lawyer. The applicants repeated the content of their earlier complaints, including the complaint that the absence of police insignia on the arresting officers and their cars had aroused in them a fear of being persecuted by ultraconservative groups. The majority of the applicants noted that they had initially resisted arrest because they had not realised that it was police officers who were arresting them. The first applicant stated that the police had forced her into the car because of such resistance. She also stated that she had felt unwell during detention because she had undergone surgery some days before the incident and that an ambulance had been called by the police. She expressed suspicion that another procedure she had to undergo at the end of May   2016 had been made necessary because of the events of 17   May 2016. The second applicant mentioned having taken a photograph of the arresting officer who had not been wearing a police uniform. The fifth applicant stated that she had been hit in the neck while running away from the officers (who she had not realised were the police) and that her right leg was injured as a result of the officer’s attempt to kick away a can of spray paint which was lying on the ground. The seventh applicant stated that he had been sitting in his car at the time of his arrest. All of the applicants stated that there had been no physical violence against them at the police station but complained that some officers had made cynical and condescending remarks (such as saying “go make children”, and calling them provocateurs) in their respect given their LGBT activism, and that no explanation had been given regarding any of their procedural rights. The majority of the applicants stated that the second applicant had been told to urinate in the presence of a female police officer (whom they identified by name). The third applicant stated that it had been the first applicant who had been told to do so, which he had personally protested against. The fifth applicant said that she had been hit in the neck while running away and that her “right shin” was injured because an officer had tried to kick a can of spray paint which she had dropped on the ground and his foot had hit her right shin instead. The can of spray paint had hit her. She also said that one of the officers had asked her, while at the police station, why people became “like her” (implying, according to the fifth applicant, her sexual orientation). The third applicant claimed that one officer, who he could not identify visually or by name, had told him that all “homos” should be burned. Some of the applicants mentioned that their photographs had been taken by police officers’ private mobile telephones. All of the applicants stated that while they had been waiting for their trial to commence, a detainee unrelated to them had made disapproving remarks regarding the Patriarch of Georgia which had irritated two female officers, one of whom (identified by name) had made threatening comments in respect of all LGBT activists while another had told them that her religious beliefs were her primary consideration and her official duties only secondary. The two were eventually calmed down by another officer. Some of the applicants stated that they could not give more details of the contested incidents because of the stress undergone as a result of that experience and owing to the passage of time. The first, fourth and sixth applicants attributed the delay in lodging their complaint to the stress experienced during the events complained of, their having been abroad, and their wish to wait for the outcome of the administrative-offence proceedings against them. 30 .     On 15   December 2016 a criminal investigation was opened by the Tbilisi Prosecutor’s Office into alleged excess of powers by the police during the applicants’ arrest. It was noted that the alleged offence related to the “activists of the working group on countering homophobia and transphobia”. 31 .     Between 17   and 27 January 2017 the applicants were interviewed as part of that investigation. They largely repeated their earlier account (see paragraph 29 above), noting that there had been no instances of physical ill ‑ treatment in respect of the incident complained of, but they had experienced intense anguish by thinking that they had been chased by homophobic groups, and later cynical and sometimes homophobic remarks were made which the applicants attributed to their activism. They also explained that the incident at the courthouse had involved another activist, unrelated to their arrest, who had uttered profanities in respect of the Patriarch which had caused the contested remarks by the police officer. 32.     Between 1 and 19   November 2019 the police officers involved in the applicants’ arrest and detention, including their transfer to the courthouse, were interviewed by the Tbilisi Prosecutor’s Office. All of the officers stated that they had been wearing police uniforms during the applicants’ arrest, and that the applicants had run away after police orders had been given to stop spray painting the walls, and had then shown resistance during their arrest. They further testified that they had explained the reason for the arrest and the content of the administrative offence to the applicants. While some of the officers could not recall all the details of the incident, they stated that none of the applicants had been subjected to any kind of verbal or physical abuse during or after the administrative arrest, and that the applicants had shown no signs of any physical injuries. The applicants had been allowed to contact their representatives, who had later come to the police station. 33.     The criminal investigation into alleged excess of powers by the police (see paragraph   30 above) appears to be ongoing. 34 .     The case file material contains reports made in respect of the first six applicants between 12   and 15   November 2016 by a non-governmental organisation specialising in the rehabilitation of victims of torture. The reports were written by two individuals who, according to the documents in question, were doctors employed by that organisation. The reports refer to the events as recounted by the applicants and conclude that they are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, among other ailments. The material also contains a medical certificate issued on 30   May 2016 in respect of the first applicant stating that on 27   May 2016 she was placed in a hospital with urinary tract issues. It does not appear that any of these documents was submitted to the investigating authorities. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE ASSEMBLIES AND DEMONSTRATIONS ACT 35.     Section 2(1) of the Assemblies and Demonstrations Act, as worded at the material time, provided for the “right of individuals, as recognised by the Constitution of Georgia, to gather publicly, unarmed, both indoors and outdoors, without [the need for] prior authorisation.”   Section   2(3) provided for restrictions on that right. It referred to the legitimate aims of an interference provided in the Constitution of Georgia, such as: protecting national security or public safety, territorial integrity, or the rights of others; preventing the disclosure of confidential information; and maintaining the independence and impartiality of a court. Any interference in the pursuance of such aims had, under the provision in question, to be based on the law, necessary in a democratic society, non-discriminatory, proportionate, and such that the interest protected by the restriction would outweigh the damage inflicted by it. 36 .     Section 5(1) of the Act provided that a local self-government authority was to be notified of an assembly in advance if such a gathering were to be held on a road used by transport.   Under section 8(1), such a notification was to be made five days in advance of the planned event, at the latest. 37.     Section 10 of the Act provided as follows: “1.     In order to ensure [the protection of] public order [and] the normal functioning of State and public bodies, enterprises, institutions, organisations and transport [services], an executive branch of a local self-government authority may, within three days from receiving a notification [of the holding of an assembly or a demonstration] discuss, in the presence of the persons responsible for the organising and holding of an assembly or demonstration, the question of whether it is appropriate to change the venue and the time of [the event.] [I]t shall give [the organisers] a written recommendation on the matter if: (a)     the [planned] assembly or demonstration poses a real threat to the normal functioning of enterprises, institutions [or] organisations; (b)     another [assembly or demonstration] (which had been notified to the executive body of a local self-government authority earlier) is planned to be held at the same venue and at the same time. 2.     An executive branch of a local self-government authority shall designate an authorised representative within the period referred to in the first paragraph of this section and shall inform accordingly the persons responsible for the organising and holding of an assembly or a demonstration in writing.” 38.     Section 14(1) stated that “the executive branch of the local self ‑ government authority may refuse to allow (არ დაუშვას) the holding of an assembly or a demonstration if there exists clear information (აშკარა მონაცემები), verified by the police, that the holding of such an assembly or a demonstration poses an immediate risk to the constitutional order [or] citizens’ life and health.” 39.     Section 14(2) of the Act provided that “the decision of the executive branch of the local self-government authority on the prohibition [of holding] an assembly or a demonstration may be appealed against before a court which shall give a final decision within two working days.” CIVIL CODE 40 .     Articles 992-1008 of the Civil Code contain the rules on liability for civil wrongs, or torts. In particular, while the general provision, Article   992, states that a civil wrong gives rise to a claim for compensation, Article   1005 §   1 of the Civil Code specifies that State agencies are jointly liable for damage caused to a private party by intentional or negligent actions on the part of their officials. CODE OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENCES 41 .     Article   150 §   1 of the CAO provided for a fine of GEL 50 for “putting unauthorised writing, drawings or symbols on buildings, shop windows, fences, columns, trees or plants...” 42 .     Article 173 of the CAO provided that “disobeying a lawful instruction or order [issued by] a law-enforcement officer on duty ... or insulting [the latter]” was punishable by a fine in the minimum amount of GEL 250 and the maximum amount of GEL 2,000, or up to fifteen days’ administrative detention. 43 .     Article 243 § 1 (“escorting of an offender”) authorised the relevant authorities to compel a person to follow an officer, for instance to a police station, for the purposes of compiling an administrative-offence report when it could not be done on the spot. Article   243 §   5 provided that a decision to escort an individual to a police station would result in the administrative arrest of an individual. The individual should be taken to the destination “in as little time as possible.” 44 .     Article   244 §   1 (“measures to secure the conduct of the administrative-offence proceedings”) of the CAO states as follows: “In order to put an end to the commission of administrative offences in instances explicitly provided for by the legislative instruments of Georgia, when all other measures (ზემოქმედების სხვა ზომები) have been exhausted, and in order to determine an individual’s identity, to draft an administrative-offence report (if that report is necessary but cannot be done on the spot), and to ensure the timely and due consideration of an administrative-offence case and the enforcement of [any] decisions (დადგენილება) taken [in that context], an individual may be placed under administrative arrest, subjected to a personal search or a search of their belongings, and have belongings and documents seized from them.” 45 .     Article 246(a) authorised the officials of the MIA, including police officers, to place an administrative offender under administrative arrest within the meaning of Article 244 § 1 of the Code (see the previous paragraph), in respect of a defined list of offences. The list included disobeying the lawful instructions or orders of a police officer (see paragraph   42 above). It did not refer to the conduct proscribed by Article   150 of the CAO (see paragraph   41 above). 46 .     Article   247 § 1 of the CAO provided that “administrative arrest of an individual who has committed an administrative offence shall not last longer than twelve   hours. In exceptional circumstances, for reasons of particular necessity, the legislative instruments of Georgia may provide for different [time-limits].” Article 247 §   3 provided that “an individual whose period of arrest coincides with non-working hours (არასამუშაო დროს) may be ... placed in the preliminary detention cell of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia until a final decision is taken by an authority charged with examining the case.” In such cases the length of administrative arrest could not exceed forty-eight hours. 47 .     Article   251 of the CAO provided that “interested parties may lodge an appeal against an administrative arrest, personal search, search of objects, [or] confiscation of objects or documents with a superior authority (holder of an office) or a prosecutor”. It did not define a time-limit for lodging the complaint. 48 .     Article 273 of the CAO provided that “a decision (დადგენილება) issued in an administrative case, and a decision issued after hearing an administrative case on site... can be appealed within 10   days after it is issued.” 49 .     A decision of the Tbilisi Court of Appeal (no.   3b/2426-18, 13   March 2019), submitted to the Court by the Government, revealed the apparent practice of the MIA to apply the time-limit of one month under Article   180 of the General Administrative Code (see paragraph 50 below) to complaints lodged under Article   251 of the CAO. GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 50.     Article 180 of the General Administrative Code provided for a statutory time-limit of one month for appealing against the legal and factual acts of the administrative authorities. Article   183 provided that unless otherwise specified, a one month time-limit was applicable to the procedure for reviewing administrative complaints. This time-limit could be extended by one month. 51.     Article 207 of the Code stated that an individual could sue a State agency for damage inflicted, under the rules on liability for civil wrongs contained in the Civil Code. Article   208 provided that the State was responsible for any damage inflicted by an official in the exercise of his or her functions. POLICE ACT 52 .     Section 56(1) specified that an individual could lodge an appeal against the actions of the police with a superior authority, a prosecutor, or a court. Section 56(2) of the Police Act provided that a preventive measure taken by the police – whether in the form of an administrative act ( ადმინისტრაციულ-სამართლებრივი აქტი ) or a factual act ( რეალაქტი ) – was to be subject to an appeal to a superior authority. Any outcome of such an appeal could then be made the subject of a judicial review. Section   56(3) of the Act provided that “a police measure ( საპოლიციო ღონისძიება ) taken on the basis of an administrative offence or of criminal law provisions shall be appealed on the basis of the procedure provided for in Georgian legislation.” Section 57 designated the General Inspectorate of the MIA as an independent body supervising the conduct of policemen and other employees of the Ministry. Section 57(5) provided that if signs of a criminal offence became apparent while a matter was being examined, the General Inspectorate was to send the case to the Chief Prosecutor’s Office “without delay.” DECREE OF THE MINISTER OF HEALTH 53 .     Decree no. 338/n of 9   August 2007 provided that a medical report was to be issued by medical establishments by filling in a specific form (no.   IV ‑ 100/a). PRACTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT 54 .     In a decision of 2   October 2018 (no.   bs-1143-1137(2k-17)),   the Supreme Court stated that any individual wishing to challenge the lawfulness of his or her administrative arrest had to use the remedy provided for this purpose under Article   251 of the CAO, taken together with section   56 of the Police Act, and “appeal against his or her administrative-arrest report” either by means of a hierarchical complaint or to a prosecutor. The Supreme Court further clarified that a claim for damages under Article   1005 §   1 of the Civil Code could not involve an assessment of the legality of the police actions with respect to administrative arrest and thus required the existence of a finding of a breach of duties by the police as part of the procedure envisaged under Article 251 of the CAO and section 56 of the Police Act. OTHER RELEVANT MATERIAL 55 .     A report of 22   May 2017 by the Public Defender of Georgia (საქართველოს სახალხო დამცველი) entitled “The Situation Regarding the Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms in Georgia in 2016” referred to the applicants’ arrest and noted that “although the making of unauthorised drawings on a façade ... of a building is an administrative offence ..., the legislation does not provide for a possibility of [applying] administrative arrest for [it].” THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 AND/OR ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION, TAKEN ALONE AND IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 14 56.     The first six applicants relied on Article   3 and Article   8 of the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article   14. On the one hand, they complained of physical ill-treatment, stress experienced during their arrest, and discriminatory verbal abuse directed at them during their detention at the police station and the courthouse; on the other hand, they complained that there had been no effective investigation into these allegations or their contention that the treatment complained of had had discriminatory overtones because of their sexual orientation and/or LGBT activism. The pro