CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 juillet 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 26 August 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 25784/23 Bakur KIGURADZE against Georgia lodged on 23 June 2023 communicated on 3 July 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the domestic courts’ refusal to adjudicate on the applicant’s defamation lawsuit against a Member of Parliament (MP), on the basis of a legal provision excluding the liability of Members of Parliament in respect of statements made as part of a political debate or while performing their official duties. The applicant had argued that the MP in question had breached his right to reputation by referring to him as a “Russian spy” despite the applicant’s having been acquitted of the charge of espionage. The final decision on the discontinuation of the defamation proceedings instituted by the applicant was served on the applicant’s representative on 23   February 2023. The applicant relied on Article   8 of the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Bearing in mind that the Court is the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and Others v.   Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 124, 20 March 2018) and having regard to the applicant’s submissions before the Court, has there been a violation of Article   8 of the Convention, taken alone or in conjunction with Article   13, on account of the applicant’s inability to have the merits of the defamation lawsuit adjudicated at domestic level?