CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 avril 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 12 May 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 30622/24 Ketevan KILADZE against Georgia lodged on 11 October 2024 communicated on 22 April 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 18 February 2022 the president of a private university that the applicant attended (“the university”) terminated her student status, leading to the applicant’s dismissal. The decision was based on alleged repeated violations of the university’s code of ethics. It stated that the applicant “could appeal to the university’s Appeals Commission within a week and/or the Tbilisi City Court, as provided by law”. On 31 March 2022 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the university, requesting annulment of her dismissal and reinstatement of her student status. On 11 October 2022 a civil court referred the applicant’s case to an administrative court. On 14 September 2023 the administrative court dismissed the applicant’s claim on procedural grounds, ruling that she had failed to avail herself, in accordance with Article 2 § 5 of the General Administrative Code, of the mandatory hierarchical remedy by appealing to a superior disciplinary body at the university – the Appeals Commission. The applicant appealed, arguing, among other arguments, that the administrative law should not apply since the university was a private entity established under Georgian corporate law. On 19 April 2024 the Tbilisi Court of Appeals dismissed the applicant’s appeal, ruling that the dispute fell under administrative law since it involved the application of ethical norms, an area deemed part of the State-regulated legal domain, and thus upheld the lower court’s decision as correct. The final decision was served on the applicant on 12 June 2024. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about alleged violation of her right of access to court due to the domestic courts’ refusal to examine her claim on the merits. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s right of access to court for the determination of her civil rights and obligations, as guaranteed by Article   6 § 1 of the Convention, regarding her dismissal from the university?   2.     Specifically, what was the established domestic legal practice at the material time regarding the examination of disputes of a similar nature – namely, student dismissal from privately run universities? Were such disputes normally adjudicated under civil or administrative law? In this regard, please consider, for comparison, the decision of 1 July 2008 by the Administrative Affairs Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia (case reference ბს ‑ 463 ‑ 442(გ-08)) and the decision of 22 June 2023 by the same Chamber (case reference ბს-275(გ-23)).   2.1   Aside from the aforementioned decision of 22 June 2023 of the Supreme Court (case reference ბს-275(გ-23)), has there been any earlier case-law establishing that disputes between students and universities arising from the application of ethical norms are to be governed by administrative rather than civil law?