CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 février 2024

.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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sE0CCF380 { width:111.82%; border-collapse:collapse } .sAEEB25D2 { width:6.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s421BF6AD { width:37.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s186F677F { width:13.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB6BD3DA7 { width:17.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE6B15E7F { width:24.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s906D09D5 { width:6.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s74732B71 { width:37.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD5900F39 { width:13.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA0BDD10A { width:17.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s50176368 { width:24.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } Published on 11 March 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 16764/23 N.M. and Others against Georgia lodged on 13 April 2023 communicated on 20 February 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns various complaints raised under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention relating to the applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment and abuse in a closed-type boarding school run by the Georgian Orthodox Church in Ninotsminda (“Ninotsminda Boarding School”). On various dates between 2016 and 2021 four separate sets of criminal proceedings were initiated into the allegations of child abuse including sexual violence in the Ninotsminda Boarding School. The applicants’ allegations have been investigated under Article 263 of the Criminal Code (the criminal offence of violence) as a part of a third criminal case opened on 11 December 2020. According to the case file, the applicants were refused victim status in the above proceedings and their various procedural requests concerning, among others, the requalification of the alleged criminal offence from Article 126 (violence) to Article 144 1 (torture) and 144 3 (inhuman or degrading treatment) were also dismissed. The applicants, who were all minors at the material time, allege under Article 3 of the Convention that they were repeatedly subjected to various forms of inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment, including corporal punishment, sleep and food deprivation, and verbal and psychological abuse, in the Ninotsminda Boarding School; that the State failed to put in place and apply an effective and adequate legal framework to protect their rights; and that the relevant authorities have failed to conduct an effective investigation into their allegations. They also allege a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the conditions in which they were living and studying in the school. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a breach of Article 3 and/or 8 of the Convention in the present case? In particular:   (a) Were the applicants subjected to treatment in violation of Article 3 and/or 8 of the Convention?   (b) Was there a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention on account of their living and learning conditions in the Ninotsminda Boarding School?   (c) Can the respondent State be held responsible under Article 3 and/or 8 of the Convention for the applicants’ treatment and living conditions in the Ninotsminda Boarding School (Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, 25   March 1993, Series A no. 247 ‑ C)?   (d) Did the respondent State in the present case comply with its positive obligations under Article 3 and/or Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, did it put in place and apply an adequate legal framework to ensure the applicants’ effective protection in compliance with its obligations under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention?   (e) In the latter respect, did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic mechanism for establishing any liability of the State as well as for obtaining compensation in that respect (see O’Keeffe v. Ireland [GC], no.   35810/09, § 177, ECHR 2014 (extracts))?   (f) Has there been a violation of Article 3 and/or Article 8 on account of the alleged ineffective investigation into the applicants’ complaints?       APPENDIX (anonymity has been granted) Application no. 16764/23 No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. N. M. 2001 Georgian Batumi 2. M. G. 2005 Georgian Batumi 3. M. G. 2003 Georgian Tbilisi 4. I. M. 2002 Georgian Zestaponi 5. M. R. 2003 Georgian Tbilisi