CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 juillet 2023

.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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 28 August 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 12075/22 Ketevan JASHI against Georgia lodged on 22 February 2022 communicated on 11 July 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s dismissal from a position of professor and her continuing inability to have the final judgment of 16   June 2016 – which had ordered her reinstatement – enforced at domestic level. She complained that the enforcement proceedings instituted by her resulted in an indirect review, by the domestic courts, of the original final judgment, leaving it unenforced. The applicant relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article 8 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s continued inability to have a final judgment fully enforced in her favour? In this regard,   (a) was the conduct of the applicant’s employer attributable to the State (see Fomenko and Others v.   Russia (dec.), nos. 42140/05 and 4 others, §   172, 24   September 2019)? (b) have the domestic authorities acted diligently and taken sufficient steps to enforce the final judgment of 16 June 2016?   2.     Have the enforcement proceedings instituted by the applicant on 30   May 2019 resulted in the alteration and/or quashing of the enforceable judgment, allegedly in breach of the principle of res judicata ?   If yes, was that made necessary by circumstances of a substantial and compelling character, and have the courts struck, to the maximum extent possible, a fair balance between the interests of an individual and the need to ensure the effectiveness of the system of justice (see, among other authorities, Şamat v.   Turkey , no.   29115/07, §§   53-55, 21   January 2020, with further references)?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2?