CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 octobre 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 } Published on 6 November 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 34790/23 Zurab KARCHAVA against Georgia lodged on 15 September 2023 communicated on 17 October 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s inability to stage a solo protest by installing a tent in a public square. He intended to declare a hunger strike to draw attention to the necessity of introducing free lunches in public schools. Minutes after the applicant installed the tent he was told to vacate the grounds. The applicant was eventually arrested and convicted of an administrative offence of failing to comply with a lawful order of the police. He was released of administrative responsibility and given a verbal reprimand. The applicant relies on Article   10 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Do the circumstances of the present case (the order to stop the protest, taking the applicant to the police station, his detention, and prosecution under Article   173 of the Code of Administrative Offences), taken separately or cumulatively, disclose an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression under Article 10 § 1 of the Convention, including the freedom to receive and impart information and ideas?   If so, was this interference prescribed by law, in pursuance of a legitimate aim, and “necessary in a democratic society”?   Were the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify the interference “relevant and sufficient”? Did the national authorities apply standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article   10 of the Convention, where appropriate, considered in the light of its Article   11?