CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 20 janvier 2026

.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 } .sD9DA4929 { margin-top:72pt; 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s28F0D84C { 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; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .sB90D45C { 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 } .sCBF2D345 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .sECB6A556 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; 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 } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; 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 } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B7C2278 { width:122.41pt; display:inline-block } .sA3D40E95 { width:52.56pt; display:inline-block } .sA8847899 { width:93.07pt; display:inline-block }       FOURTH SECTION CASE OF MEKVABISHVILI v. GEORGIA (Application no. 37567/23)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 20 January 2026         This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Mekvabishvili v. Georgia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Anne Louise Bormann , President ,   Sebastian Răduleţu,   András Jakab , judges , and Giorgi Badashvili, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   37567/23) against Georgia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 10 October 2023 by a Georgian national, Mr Giorgi Mekvabishvili (“the applicant”), who was born in 1999, lives in Tbilisi, and was represented by Mr D. Javakhishvili, Mr   A.   Pataraia and Ms S. Tsiklauri, lawyers practising in Tbilisi; the decision to give notice of the complaints under Articles 6,   10 and 11 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; the decision to reject the Government’s objection to the examination of the case by a Committee; Having deliberated in private on 16 December 2025, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The application concerns the applicant’s participation in a demonstration and his conviction of the administrative offence of disobeying lawful police orders. He relied on Articles 6, 10 and 11 of the Convention. BACKGROUND 2.     On 7 March 2023 several thousand demonstrators, including the applicant, gathered at the Parliament building to protest a controversial draft law perceived as potentially undermining the civil society sector (withdrawn on 9   March).   By 8.43 p.m. the Ministry of Internal Affairs (“the MIA”) declared the protest non-peaceful and dispersed the crowd by pepper spray and water cannon. Many demonstrators stayed, and clashes continued overnight. 3 .     On 13   March 2023 the Public Defender of Georgia reported that escalation began when some demonstrators attempted to block a Parliament entrance. Although isolated violence against the police occurred, he stressed that the demonstration had been peaceful at the time of dispersal, criticised the lack of justification for using force, and warned that excessive measures risked provoking further unrest. PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE APPLICANT 4 .     According to the administrative arrest report, the applicant was arrested at 2 a.m. on 8   March 2023 for repeatedly disobeying lawful police orders, under Article   173 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“the CAO”). 5 .     During the trial before the Tbilisi City Court, the police argued that the demonstration of 7   March 2023 had become violent, prompting a decision to disperse it. The applicant maintained that he had not engaged in any violent conduct but that he had witnessed violent behaviour by a police officer against a demonstrator. He claimed that he had been on the pavement rather than the road at the time of his arrest and stated that the area where he had been arrested must have been equipped with surveillance cameras and the MIA must have been able to show how events had unfolded. 6.     The City Court rejected the applicant’s application to obtain the video-recordings from the police body-worn cameras as they had not been turned on because of the high risk they would get damaged. However, it granted his application to review the case-file and announced a five-hour break to give the defence time to prepare. 7 .     Witness V.J., the police officer who had arrested the applicant, stated during the trial that the demonstrators had been given repeated warnings to clear the road for vehicles to get through. The applicant had been standing on the road and he had resisted the instruction to move away. 8 .     The video-recording made by the applicant and assessed, upon the applicant’s request, during the trial shows policemen dragging a plain-clothed individual, and a voice, apparently the applicant’s, is heard condemning their actions. The event, as filmed, took place on the upper tier of a pavement. The filming applicant appears to have been standing on the lower tier of the pavement. 9 .     On 10 March 2023 the City Court found the applicant guilty of disobeying lawful police orders under Article   173 of the CAO. He was ordered to pay an administrative offence fine of 2,000 Georgian laris (GEL) (approximately 665   euros (EUR)). The judgment was based on the administrative arrest and offence reports, statements given by V.J. and the applicant, and the video submitted by the applicant. 10 .     The court found that the applicant had disobeyed the lawful orders to clear the road, stating that “no proof which would have given the court a basis to find otherwise had been presented”. As for the applicant’s video recording, the court did not consider that it excluded the commission of the said offence as it did not show the moment of his arrest. 11 .     The applicant appealed, claiming his arrest was in retaliation for filming police violence and that the only evidence against him was the police account, which was biased. He argued it was not his duty to prove his innocence and criticised the judgment for failing to address whether the road was already blocked by the demonstration, what the police orders were and whether they were lawful, or whether he had actually disobeyed them. He also alleged that officers had deliberately not activated their body cameras to avoid creating objective evidence of his arrest. No complaint regarding insufficient time or facilities to prepare his defence was raised by the applicant in his appeal. 12 .     By a decision of 9   June 2023, the Tbilisi Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s judgment. The appellate court emphasised that the right to freedom of assembly and demonstration was not of an absolute character and noted that it was a proportionate measure to arrest and detain the applicant with the aim of “avoiding public disorder” as he had ignored a police call to respect order during a demonstration. Noting the explanation given by the police that the demonstration had taken on an unlawful character and cars should have been able to move on the road, the appellate court found it established that the applicant had refused to leave the road, resulting in his arrest. 13.     The appellate court stated that the quality of witness evidence depended on the circumstances. It took into account the explanation that the police had not activated body-warn cameras due to the risk of damage. As for officer V.J., the court stated that the witness observed the events in his professional capacity and that his statements were therefore an important source of evidence directly linked to the facts of a case. In the absence of direct video evidence, the police officer’s eyewitness account should not be given “less weight” than that of the accused and must be assessed according to the judge’s conviction. The appellate court further stated that the applicant had provided no evidence disproving the commission of the offence or showing any “inaccuracy, partiality, or skewed assessment” by the relevant officer. 14.     The final decision of 9 June 2023 was served on the applicant on 15   June 2023. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION 15.     The applicant complained that the domestic courts had failed to provide sufficient reasoning for his conviction and improperly shifted the burden of proof onto him in breach of Article 6 § 1, and that he had not had adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence, in breach of Article   6 §   3   (b) of the Convention. 16.     The Government disagreed. 17.     The Court notes, as pointed out by the Government, that the applicant did not raise his complaint regarding the lack of adequate time and facilities at the domestic level. Accordingly, the complaint under Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention is inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   1 and 4 of the Convention. 18.     As for the remaining complaint under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention, it is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article   35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible. 19.     The relevant general principles have been summarised in   Makarashvili and Others v. Georgi a (nos. 23158/20 and 2 others, §   57, 1   September 2022). 20 .     The Court notes the undisputed fact that there was no direct and independent evidence against the applicant other than the police account of the events in proceedings characterised as “criminal” within the meaning of Article   6 of the Convention (see Makarashvili and Others , cited above, §   51). In the absence of any police body-worn camera footage or public surveillance recordings (see paragraph 5 above), the applicant was effectively required to prove his innocence against uncorroborated police accusations, with no evidence other than the account of the accusing party, which undermined the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings (ibid., § 64; see also Mzhavanadze and Rukhadze v. Georgia , nos. 29760/21 and 33931/21, §   56, 15   July 2025). 21 .     Importantly, the applicant had consistently challenged the lawfulness of the order he was alleged to have disobeyed, arguing that his arrest on the pavement and the road clearance during the demonstration lacked legal basis, as did his subsequent conviction (see paragraphs 5 and 11 above). That had been central to the argument the applicant had made in his defence, because the “lawfulness” of the police order was one of the constitutive elements of the offence ascribed to him under Article   173 of the CAO. However, the domestic courts accepted the lawfulness of the police orders only in generic terms, with reference to some violent conduct on the ground without assessing whether the decision to disperse the entire demonstration and clear the road had been necessary ( contrast – albeit in a somewhat different legal context – with the reasoning provided by the domestic courts in response to similar “lawfulness” arguments in Matchavariani v. Georgia , no.   46852/21, §§   27-28, 31, 89 and 90, 20   May 2025). The applicant therefore did not receive a specific and explicit response to the argument which was decisive for the outcome of the administrative-offence proceedings against him (see, for instance, Gafgaz Mammadov v.   Azerbaijan , no.   60259/11, §§   83-87, 15   October 2015). 22 .     The foregoing considerations are sufficient for the Court to conclude that there has been a violation of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention. ALLEGED VIOLATION of Article   11 of the Convention 23.     The applicant complained, under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, that there had been no grounds for either the dispersal of the demonstration or his arrest and subsequent conviction for an administrative offence. 24.     The Court considers that the complaint falls to be examined solely under Article   11 of the Convention which is a lex specialis in such circumstances (see   Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no.   37553/05, §   85, ECHR 2015). 25.     The Government submitted objections to admissibility and arguments on the merits, similar to those raised in the Makarashvili and Others case (cited above, §§ 66-67 and 75-77). 26.   For the detailed reasons set out in Makarashvili and Others (ibid., §§   70-72), the Court finds that this part of the application is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds under Article 35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible. 27.     Whilst acknowledging the need to ensure the effective functioning of Parliament – a key value in a democratic society (see Tsaava and Others v.   Georgia [GC], nos.   13186/20 and 4 others, §   434, 11 December 2025, and Karácsony and Others v.   Hungary [GC], nos.   42461/13 and 44357/13, §   141, 17   May 2016) – the Court notes that nothing in the case file suggests that the demonstration as a whole was intended to obstruct parliamentary activity, or that the applicant participated in any such attempt or was shown to have engaged in otherwise violent conduct. Furthermore, there is no dispute that the demonstration of 7   March 2023 concerned a matter of public interest (see paragraph   5 above). Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to invoke the guarantees of Article   11 (compare Makarashvili and Others , cited above, §§   89-94, with further references therein). 28 .     In the present case, while the interference with the applicant’s right under Article 11 was prescribed by law and may have pursued a legitimate aim of preventing disorder, the Court cannot overlook the domestic courts’ failure to provide sufficient reasons as to why the dispersal of the entire demonstration and the clearing the road had been necessary (see paragraph   21 above, and compare Makarashvili and Others , cited above, § 105). The Court therefore considers that the authorities failed to demonstrate relevant and sufficient grounds to regard the interference in the present case as necessary and proportionate. 29 .     There has thus been a violation of Article   11 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 30.     The applicant claimed GEL 2,000 Georgian laris (EUR 665) in respect of pecuniary damage (see paragraph   9 above) and EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 31.     The Government contested the claims as excessive. 32.     Given the clear link between the amount claimed and its findings of violations (see paragraphs   9, 20-22 and 28-29) and considerations of equity, the Court awards the applicant EUR 665 in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR   1,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Declares the complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 11 of the Convention admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible; Holds that there have been violations of Article 6 § 1 and Article 11 of the Convention; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i)   EUR 665 (six hundred and sixty-five euros) in respect of pecuniary damage; (ii)   EUR 1,600 (one thousand six hundred euros) in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage; and (iii)   any tax that may be chargeable on the above sums; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points; Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 January 2026, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.     Giorgi Badashvili   Anne Louise Bormann   Acting Deputy Registrar   President