CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 mars 2025

.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 24 March 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 19499/23 Tengizi ERGEMLIDZE against Georgia lodged on 10 May 2023 communicated on 4 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged ill-treatment of the applicant by private individuals, the lack of an effective investigation into his complaints of ill-treatment, and the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings conducted against him in relation to the same violent incident. In particular, on 13 June 2018 the applicant filed a criminal complaint alleging that the previous day he had been subjected to physical and psychological abuse, including electroshocks, by three private individuals. The investigation commenced under Article 181 of the Criminal Code (extorsion) and is still ongoing. In parallel, another investigation was initiated in connection with the same violent incident, based on a criminal complaint lodged by I.M. who was implicated by the applicant in his ill-treatment. On 1   November 2021 the applicant was convicted of violence (Article 126 of the Criminal Code) and sentenced to 150 hours of community service. The Tbilisi City Court fully accepted the version of events presented by I.M. In reply to the applicant’s arguments, including those regarding the various injuries on his body and face following the incident, the trial court noted that the investigation into his allegations of physical and psychological abuse was unrelated to the circumstances of the trial against him. The decision was upheld on appeal by the Tbilisi Court of Appeal on 5   July 2022, which concluded that the applicant’s allegations of physical and psychological abuse fell outside the scope of the criminal case examined by that court. The applicant’s sentence of community service was replaced with a fine of 1,000 Georgian Lari (about 350 euros). On 21 December 2022 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law as inadmissible. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was physically and verbally assaulted and subjected to electroshocks by three private individuals, and that the domestic authorities have failed to conduct an effective criminal investigation in that regard. He also complains under Article   6 of the Convention about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings conducted against him, alleging that the investigation was one-sided and that the reasoning of the courts, which entirely disregarded his allegations of ill ‑ treatment and the evidence from the ongoing investigation, was manifestly arbitrary. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman and degrading treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v.   Italy   [GC], no.   26772/95, ECHR   2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   3 of the Convention?   3.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts duly examine the applicant’s version of events concerning the incident of 12 June 2018? Was the refusal of the domestic courts to consider the applicant’s allegations of ill ‑ treatment manifestly unreasonable for the purposes of Article 6 of the Convention (see, generally,   Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2)   [GC], no.   19867/12, §§ 83-84, 11 July 2017)?