CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 décembre 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 8 January 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 37567/23 Giorgi MEKVABISHVILI against Georgia lodged on 10 October 2023 communicated on 4 December 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the dispersal of a demonstration of 7-8   March 2023, the applicant’s arrest during that process, and the administrative-offence proceedings against him for having disobeyed lawful orders of the police. The demonstration was a large-scale protest against the Parliament’s hearing of two draft Acts aimed at introducing various regulations for non ‑ governmental organisations in receipt of foreign funding. The draft Acts were eventually withdrawn. The applicant complained that the authorities’ dispersal of the demonstration, his arrest, and the eventual conviction (final judgment of 9   June 2023, adopted by means of written proceedings, allegedly served on the applicant on 15   June 2023) had constituted an unjustified interference with his rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. He also stated that he had been convicted of having disobeyed the order of the police to free the road in proceedings which placed an excessive evidentiary burden on him and by judgments which lacked sufficient reasoning as regards, among other elements, the question of whether the police order to disperse and free the road had at all been “lawful”. The applicant also stated that the courts paid no attention to the evidence submitted by him and his related arguments, including that his arrest had been triggered by his filming of police ill-treatment of another demonstrator. The applicant relied on Articles   6, 10 and 11 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the administrative-offence charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Among other elements, was his conviction based exclusively on the submissions of police officers who had been actively involved in the contested events? Did the applicant receive a specific and explicit reply to the arguments which were decisive for the outcome of the proceedings against him?   2.     Has the applicant exhausted domestic remedies in respect of his complaints under Article 10 and/or Article 11 of the Convention, in so far as they relate to the authorities’ decision to disperse the demonstration and his arrest having allegedly been triggered by his filming of ill ‑ treatment of another demonstrator? In this regard, did the administrative-offence proceedings against the applicant constitute an effective remedy for these complaints, within the meaning of Article   35 §   1 of the Convention?   If so,   (a)     what were the grounds for dispersing the demonstration? Was the authorities’ decision in this respect lawful and necessary in a democratic society? (b)     was the applicant’s arrest triggered by his filming of alleged ill ‑ treatment of another demonstrator, as he had suggested during the administrative-offence proceedings against him?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s rights under Article   10 and/or Article   11 of the Convention in so far as the administrative-offence proceedings against him are concerned? In particular,   (a)     Among other things, and considering the number of demonstrators gathered on the ground, were the police instructions to free the road, including in respect of the present applicant, lawful and necessary in a democratic society? (b)     Did the domestic courts address the arguments raised by the applicant and apply standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article   10 and/or Article   11 of the Convention?