CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 7 April 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 13277/23 Tamar MTCHEDLISHVILI against Georgia lodged on 21 March 2023 communicated on 17 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged non-enforcement of a decision awarding the applicant costs and expenses in relation to the civil-law proceedings initiated by her. The Supreme Court’s final decision, which upheld the award, was adopted on 4 June 2021. The applicant claimed that, to date, the domestic courts have not issued a writ of enforcement necessary to initiate the enforcement proceedings. The applicant relied on Articles   6 and 13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention because the decision on the award of costs and expenses has not been enforced (see Hornsby v.   Greece , 19 March 1997, §   40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II; Scordino v.   Italy (no.   1) [GC], no.   36813/97, § 196, ECHR 2006-V; and Burdov v. Russia , no.   59498/00, §§   34 and 37, ECHR   2002-III)?   2.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaint under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention, as required by Article   13?