CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 avril 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } Published on 17 May 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 22431/20 Giorgi UGULAVA against Georgia lodged on 29 May 2020 communicated on 28 April 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the conviction of the applicant, a former Mayor of Tbilisi, of embezzlement. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his case was examined by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, which did not constitute an “independent and impartial tribunal established by law” as it had in its composition the former Chief Prosecutor of Georgia. He alleges, among other things, that the appointment of the former Chief Prosecutor to the Supreme Court was unlawful as he did not fulfil the qualifications for the judicial post; and that in view of the internal organisation of the prosecutor’s office, and given the political importance and sensitivity of his case, the criminal investigation against him had to be conducted under the supervision and/or direction of the Chief Prosecutor. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the composition of the Supreme Court of Georgia which dealt with the applicant’s case   a “tribunal established by law” as required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Was the composition of the Supreme Court which dealt with the applicant’s case independent and   impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   Reference is made to the fact that the applicant’s case was examined by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, which, in particular, included in its composition the former Chief Prosecutor of Georgia. In their replies to the above questions the parties are asked to refer to the Court’s judgment in Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland [GC], no. 26374/18 , §§ 205 ‑ 290, 1   December 2020.