CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 octobre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }   Published on 25 October 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 20592/21 Maia BAKRADZE against Georgia lodged on 24 January 2020 communicated on 6 October 2021   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged discrimination of the applicant, a former judge, in the course of a judicial competition on account of her criticism and publicly expressed views on the state of the judiciary in Georgia. In particular, having served her ten-year tenure at the Tbilisi Court of Appeal, in May 2016 the applicant submitted her application for a judicial position at the same appellate court, but unsuccessfully. She initiated administrative proceedings against the High Council of Justice, the authority responsible for the recruitment, promotion and dismissal of judges, challenging the results of the competition and alleging that she had been discriminated against on account of her being a founding member of “Unity of Judges”, an association critical of the High Council of Justice and of their policies. Her administrative complaint was dismissed at all three instances, with the domestic courts finding her discrimination claim unsubstantiated. The final decision on her case, delivered by the Supreme Court on 7 May 2019, was served on the applicant on 26 July 2019. The applicant complains under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 14, and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In view of the applicant’s allegation that she was not appointed having regard to the views she had publicly expressed in her capacity as a founding member of an association of “Unity of Judges”, has there been an interference with her freedom of expression and/or freedom of association, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 and/or 11 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2 and/or 11 § 2 of the Convention? (see, mutatis mutandis, Baka v.   Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, §§ 140-176, 23 June 2016; see also Panioglu v. Romania , no. 33794/14, § 114, 8 December 2020, and Cimperšek v.   Slovenia , no. 58512/16, §§ 55-70, 30 June 2020). 2.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of her Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 10 and/or 11 of the Convention? 3.     Has she suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of her rights protected by domestic law contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 12?