CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 mars 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 8 April 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 51229/22 Giorgi KALANDADZE against Georgia lodged on 15 October 2022 communicated on 18 March 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a former Chief of Joint Staff of the Georgian Armed Forces. The application concerns civil defamation proceedings brought against him by T.T., a former official of the Ministry of Defence, whom the applicant had implicated in passing on classified military information to the Russian security services. After unsuccessful service of a civil claim on the applicant, the court proceeded with serving notice by means of public announcement. On 2 October 2019 the Tbilisi City Court examined the defamation claim in the applicant’s absence and granted it by way of a default judgment. The applicant was ordered, among others, to pay the claimant non ‑ pecuniary damages in the amount of 20,000 Georgian Laris (about 7,000 euros). The applicant’s subsequent attempts to set aside the default judgment and obtain the re-examination of the case on the merits, were unsuccessful. In the context of unrelated set of criminal proceedings against the applicant, the German authorities refused the Georgian authorities’ request for his extradition. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that a default judgment was wrongly issued against him in violation of the principle of equality of arms, and that he was subsequently deprived of an opportunity to obtain a fresh examination of the case with his participation. He also alleges that the reasoning of the Tbilisi City Court was arbitrary and relies in this respect on Article 6 and Article 18 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Were the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings, as well as the right to be present at the hearing, respected as regards the examination of the case by the Tbilisi City Court without the applicant’s participation (see Dilipak and Karakaya v. Turkey , nos. 7942/05 and   24838/05, 4 March 2014; Aždajić v. Slovenia , no. 71872/12, 8 October 2015; and Gankin and Others v. Russia , nos. 2430/06 and 3 others, 31 May 2016)?   3.     Was the applicant’s right of access to court breached on account of his inability to challenge the decision taken by default (see, for example, Gakharia v. Georgia , no. 30459/13, 17   January 2017, and Bartaia v. Georgia , no. 10978/06, 26 July 2018)?   4.     Having regard to the nature of Article 6 of the Convention, in particular the question of the existence of either explicit or implied restrictions within the provision, does Article 18 apply in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention (see Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan   (no. 2) , no. 919/15, §   261, 16   November 2017)?   5.     If so, has there been a breach of Article 18 taken in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention in the present case?