CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 mars 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s18FE22E4 { width:62.32%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s936538EA { width:14.38%; 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 } .s39BE21A6 { width:48.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6E32AE1 { width:37.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sFB8DA417 { width:14.38%; 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 } .s7D664F34 { width:48.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD7067C98 { width:37.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s67DA4538 { margin-left:18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt }   Communicated on 14 March 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 37276/05 Vakhtang GABUNIA and others against Georgia lodged on 11 September 2005 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They are all represented before the Court by Ms Inga Geliashvili and Mr A. Carbonneau, lawyers practising in Tbilisi. A.     The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Violent incident of 28 September 2001 3.     This part of the application concerns applicants Gabunia, Khutsishvili, Papiashvili, and Chkhikvadze (listed in the appendix as nos. 1-4). On August 7 2001 representatives of two major organisations of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Georgia wrote to the governor of Marneuli informing him about the annual convention of Jehovah’s Witnesses that was to be held in the city in September 2001. They asked him to ensure that adequate security measures were taken to provide for the safety and security of the participants. On 26 September they also wrote to the head of Marneuli police, informing him about threats they had received in connection with the planned gathering. They asked that the necessary measures be put in place to prevent any violence. 4.     On 28 September 2001 the gathering of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Marneuli was attacked by a religious mob. According to the applicants, the convention was disrupted by followers of Mr Basil Mkalavishvili (see Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Others v.   Georgia , no. 71156/01, § 11, 3 May 2007) and members of the Jvari religious organisation (see Tsartsidze and Others v. Georgia , no. 18766/04, §   44, 17 January 2017), with the support of the police. They attacked the property where the meeting was to be held, destroying religious objects, removing benches and other items belonging to the organisers of the convention. Many Jehovah’s Witnesses were beaten, including the applicants. In addition, checkpoints were set up along the route, blocking the roads and preventing convention participants from arriving at their destination. Jehovah’s Witnesses were similarly attacked at the roadblocks. 5.     On 2 May 2002, the applicants and other Jehovah’s Witnesses filed a complaint against the Ministry of the Interior with the Tbilisi Mtatsminda-Krtanisi District Court. They provided detailed information about the attack of 28 September 2001 and also described the general context of violence which prevailed in Georgia at the material time. They requested that the Ministry of the Interior make a public apology, in accordance with the Police Act, and bring disciplinary proceedings against its staff. The applicants also asked that they be paid compensation in respect of non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage and that a directive be sent to all police stations in the country, saying that the rights of Jehovah’s Witnesses were to be respected. 6.     After several adjournments, the first-instance court dismissed the applicants’ claim as manifestly ill-founded on 8 April 2003. The decision stated that it could not be established that either action or inaction by the public officials involved, including the governor of Marneuli, the Marneuli chief of police and his deputy, had damaged the interests of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and violated their rights. The decision was upheld on appeal by the Tbilisi Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Georgia on 12   October 2004 and 11 March 2005 respectively. 7.     Several private individuals were convicted in parallel criminal proceedings in connection with the events of 28 September 2001. 2.     Violent incident of 27 February 2001 8.     This part of the application concerns applicants Shalamberidze and Marikyan (listed in the appendix as nos. 5-6). On 27 February 2001 a religious meeting of several hundred Jehovah’s Witnesses held in Tbilisi was disrupted by followers of Basil Mkalavishvili. The applicants alleged that police had been present during the attack but had done nothing to prevent or stop the violence. Around 100 witness statements and a video recording of the attack were submitted in support of the applicants’ version of events. 9.     On 29 March 2001 participants of the above gathering, including the applicants, filed a complaint against the Ministry of the Interior, the chief of Isani-Samgori district police and two police officers, J.J. and T.A. They asked, inter alia , for a public apology and compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained. On 30 March 2004 the Tbilisi Mtatsminda-Krtanisi District Court dismissed the claim, concluding that none of the police officers had participated in the attack or otherwise failed to act. The decision was upheld on appeal by the Tbilisi Court of Appeal on 31 January 2005. On 18 November 2005 the Supreme Court of Georgia referred the case back to the appeal court for fresh examination. The court concluded that the evidence submitted by the applicants in support of their claim had not been examined in its entirety. 10.     Three and a half years after, following reiterated complaints by the applicants about inactivity on the part of the judges, on 7 May 2009 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ claim. The court again ruled that none of the police officers in question had been present during the attack. 11.     By a decision of 5 October 2009 the Supreme Court of Georgia rejected an appeal on points of law by the applicants as inadmissible. 3.     Violent incident of 5-6 March 2001 12.     This part of the application concerns applicants Ichkitidze and Mumladze (listed in the appendix as nos. 7-8), who were living in Sachkhere at the material time. On 5 March 2001 a group of about twenty Orthodox religious extremists, led by several priests, tried to break into property owned by Mr Ichkitidze, where Jehovah’s Witnesses were starting a religious meeting. The participants, including Mr Mumladze, were threatened and verbally assaulted, while the owner of the property, Mr   Ichkitidze, was also physically assaulted. He went to a nearby police station to ask for help, but in vain. Shortly afterwards, he went to the police again, this time accompanied by Mr Mumladze. The police, however, threatened both of them and told them to stop conducting Jehovah’s Witness religious gatherings in Sachkhere. The next day, Mr Ichkitidze’s property was attacked by a mob of about one hundred Orthodox believers. The house was badly damaged and several Jehovah’s Witnesses were beaten. The police, according to the applicants, refused to intervene. 13.     On 5 April 2001 a complaint was filed in connection with the above incident. Jehovah’s Witnesses, among them the applicants, requested, inter alia , a public apology from the Ministry of the Interior for the failure of the local police to prevent and stop the attack. They also sought disciplinary proceedings against the police officers involved and compensation. More than forty witness statements and a video recording of the attack were filed in support of their request. 14.     On 15 December 2003 the first-instance court dealing with the case dismissed the applicants’ complaint. While finding established the fact of the attack as such, the court concluded that no police officers had been involved in the incident. The first-instance court’s reasoning was upheld by the Tbilisi Court of Appeal almost six years later, on 7 May 2009. By a decision of 7 October 2009 the Supreme Court of Georgia rejected an appeal by the applicants on points of law as inadmissible. 4.     Violent incident of 22 January 2001 15.     This part of the application concerns applicants Dzadzamia and Barnabishvili (listed in the appendix as nos. 9-10). On 6 January 2001 a religious meeting that they were taking part in in Tbilisi was disrupted by a police officer, O.G., and his assistant. The police officer asked the organisers of the gathering to show legal documents allowing Jehovah’s Witnesses to hold religious meetings on private property. He also praised the violence against Jehovah’s Witnesses initiated by Mkalavishvili and his followers and threatened the participants with a “raid.” Two weeks later, on 22 January 2001, Mkalavishvili and his followers attacked a meeting being held by a group of Jehovah’s Witnesses, including the two applicants, at the same property. The Orthodox believers were equipped with big wooden crosses, which they used as weapons. Participants of the meeting, including the applicants, were physically assaulted. The police, including Officer O.G., arrived some thirty minutes after the attack. However, instead of assisting the victims they allegedly further insulted the participants 16.     On 6 February 2001 the applicants and several other Jehovah’s Witnesses filed an administrative complaint. They asked, inter alia , for a public apology from the Ministry of the Interior, disciplinary proceedings against the relevant police officers and compensation. On 26 February 2004 the Tbilisi Mtatsminda-Krsanisi Court dismissed their complaint in its entirety. The court concluded that neither of the police officers had been personally involved in the alleged violent incident. 17.     Almost four years later, by a decision of 24 July 2008, the Tbilisi Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court decision, accepting its reasoning in full. The court concluded that the police had neither engaged in any unlawful activity against the Jehovah’s Witnesses, nor acted in breach of their “positive obligations.” On 18 February 2009 the Supreme Court of Georgia rejected an appeal by the applicants on points of law as inadmissible. B.     Relevant domestic law 18.     For the relevant domestic law see Tsartsidze and Others (cited above, §§ 58 ‑ 59). COMPLAINTS 19.     The applicants complain under Article 9 of the Convention taken separately and in conjunction with Article 14 of a breach of their right to freely practise their religion via, inter alia, meetings. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ freedom of religion, contrary to Article 9 of the Convention?   2.     Was there a breach of Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 9 in any of the cases?   Appendix     N o . First name LAST NAME Place of residence   Vakhtang GABUNIA Bolnisi   Tamaz KHUTSISHVILI Tbilisi   Vakhtang PAPIASHVILI Tbilisi   David CHKHIKVADZE Tbilisi   John SHALAMBERIDZE Tbilisi   Valeri MARIKYAN Tbilisi   Alexi ICHKITIDZE Sachkhere   Roman MUMLADZE Sachkhere   Zviad DZADZAMIA Tbilisi   Aleksandre BARNABISHVILI Tbilisi