CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 mai 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sD6E2332A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sA56BACAB { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .s13783063 { width:6.24pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3537C2D6 { font-weight:normal } THIRD SECTION Application no. 32220/07 Gocha APRASIDZE and others against Georgia lodged on 23 July 2007     The facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Court’s decision, which is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Were the second applicant’s   complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the   Convention about the excessive use force during the police operation of 24   March 2004 in the village of Etseri lodged with the Court with the expedition required by the six-month rule laid down in Article 35 § 1 (see Bulut and Yavuz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 73065/01, 28 May 2002, and Aydin   and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46231/99, 26 May 2005)?   In this respect, and having regard to the fact that the second applicant’s complaint of 15 March 2005 against the discontinuation of the investigation into the police operation of 24 March 2004 was incorporated into the case file concerning the criminal proceedings pending against her sons (see paragraph 14), can she be said to have had a legitimate expectation that her complaint of 15 March 2005 would be to be addressed by the domestic courts in the course of the latter criminal proceedings and thus wait for their final outcome?   2.     Has right to life of the second applicant and her late husband and son, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case? In particular, was the use of force during the police operation of 24 March 2004 in the village of Etseri absolutely necessary for the purposes of paragraph 2 (b) of this Article?   3. Did the police operation of 24 March 2004 constitute a violation of the second applicant’s rights under Article 3 of the Convention as well?   4.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life and from ill-treatment (see paragraph 104 of Salman v. Turkey [GC], no.   21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII; and paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), were the criminal investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the   Convention?   Appendix       Mr Gocha APRASIDZE born on 17/07/1967.     Mrs Dodo SIDIANI-APRASIDZE born on 14/08/1946.     Mr Shmagi APRASIDZE born on 25/07/1964.