CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 23 novembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s4200B979 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s2A91C753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .sA79CBE53 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sBD1BE8CC { width:33.89pt; display:inline-block } .s9A597DC0 { width:115.42pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }     FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 29836/19 Ketevan KHMALADZE against Georgia   The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 23   November 2023 as a Committee composed of:   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström , President ,   Lado Chanturia,   Mykola Gnatovskyy , judges , and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   29836/19) against Georgia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 27 May 2019 by a Georgian national, Ms Ketevan Khmaladze (“the applicant”), who was born in 1979, and was represented by Ms E. Kobesashvili and Mr M. Zakareishvili, lawyers practising in Tbilisi; the decision to give notice of the complaints under Article 3 of the Convention to the Georgian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr B. Dzamashvili of the Ministry of Justice, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The case concerns, under Article 3 of the Convention, the alleged ill ‑ treatment of the applicant during the arrest and subsequently at the police station. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 2 .     On 10 July 2019 the Court gave notice of the application to the Government. Draft declarations setting out a friendly-settlement proposal were sent to the parties by the Court’s Registry on 17 July 2019 and the applicant was informed, with reference to Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court, that there was a requirement of strict confidentiality in respect of friendly settlement negotiations. 3 .     As the attempt to reach a friendly settlement between the parties failed, the Court invited the Government to submit their written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. A corresponding letter, referring to the information note on the proceedings after communication of an application, was sent to the applicant’s representative on 4 October 2019. 4.     On 7 July 2020 the Government, in reply to the applicant’s additional observations, raised a new inadmissibility objection. In particular, they informed the Court that the applicant’s representative had disclosed the details of the friendly-settlement negotiations, including the amount of compensation proposed by the Court’s Registry, to the media. The Government raised an objection of abuse of the right of individual petition and invited the Court to reject the application. 5.     The applicant did not make any submissions regarding the Government’s new inadmissibility plea. 6.     Pursuant to Rule 55 of the Rules of Court, any plea of inadmissibility, in so far as its character and the circumstances permit, must be raised by the respondent Contracting Party in its observations on the admissibility of the application. In the present case, the Government raised their inadmissibility objection in their additional observations. However, it is not necessary to examine the question whether there were exceptional circumstances that dispensed the Government from the obligation to raise this objection in due time, because in any event the Court may raise and examine this issue on its own initiative (see   Dimo Damo and Others v.   Bulgaria , no.   30044/10, § 41, 7 July 2020, with further references). 7 .     The Court notes that, according to Article 39 § 2 of the Convention, friendly-settlement negotiations are confidential. This rule is repeated in Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court. The rule that friendly-settlement negotiations are confidential is absolute and does not allow for individual assessment of how much detail has been disclosed (see, among many others,   Lesnina Veletrgovina d.o.o. v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia   (dec.), no.   37619/04, 2 March 2010; Abbasov and Others v. Azerbaijan   (dec.), no.   36609/08, § 28, 28 May 2013, and   Gorgadze v. Georgia   (dec.), no.   57990/10, § 18, 2   September 2014, and the case-law cited therein). It prohibits the parties from making information concerning the friendly ‑ settlement negotiations public, either through the media, or by a letter likely to be read by a significant number of people, or by any other means (see   Abbasov and Others , cited above, § 30; see also Tsonev v.   Bulgaria   (dec.), no. 44885/10, § 26, 8 December 2015). 8 .     Furthermore, the general purpose of the principle of confidentiality is to protect the parties and the Court against possible pressure. Consequently, an intentional breach of the duty of confidentiality of friendly-settlement negotiations may be considered as an abuse of the right of application and result in the application being rejected (see   Hadrabová v. the Czech Republic   (dec.), no. 42165/02, 25 September 2007;   Miroļubovs and Others v.   Latvia , no. 798/05, § 66, 15 September 2009; Benjocki and Others v.   Serbia   (dec.), nos. 5958/07, 6561/07, 8093/07   and 9162/07, 15 December 2009; Baucal-Đorđević and Đorđević v.   Serbia   (dec.), no. 38540/07, 2   July 2013;   Abbasov and Others, § 29, Gorgadze, §§ 19 and 21, Tsonev, § 26, all cited above; Ausad Valimised Mtü   v.   Estonia   (dec.), no. 40631/14, 27   September 2016; and   Y and others v. Bulgaria , no. 1666/19, § 25, 8   October 2020). 9.     Turning to the present case, the Court finds that the applicant’s representative intentionally disclosed details of the friendly-settlement negotiations, including the amount of compensation proposed. Article 39 of the Convention and Rule 62 § 2 of the Rules of Court were explicitly cited in the Court’s letter of 17 July 2019 when the procedure of friendly settlement was launched (see paragraph 2 above). Furthermore, the information note referred to in the Court’s letter of 4 October 2019 had made it clear that friendly-settlement negotiations were strictly confidential (see paragraph 3 above). Hence, the applicant and her representatives ought to have been aware of that requirement and should have complied with it at all stages of the proceedings. They did not do so and failed to provide any justification for this. 10.     In view of the above, the Court considers that such conduct of the applicant’s representative amounts to a breach of the rule of confidentiality, which must also be considered, in view of the Court’s relevant case-law (see paragraphs 7-8 above), to constitute an abuse of the right of individual application. 11.     It follows that the application is inadmissible and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 14 December 2023.     Martina Keller   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström   Deputy Registrar   President