CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 28 July 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 12806/23 Irakli OKRUASHVILI against Georgia lodged on 14 March 2023 communicated on 7 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is an opposition politician. He was convicted of participating in a violent attempt to storm the Parliament building during a public demonstration on 20-21 June 2019. The Supreme Court’s final decision was served on him on 18   November 2022. While the criminal proceedings against the applicant were pending, he was granted a Presidential pardon. The criminal proceedings continued, but he was released from pre-trial detention and subsequently from having to serve the sentence of five years’ imprisonment. It is unclear whether the applicant has any criminal record in respect of the proceedings in question. In September 2021 the Parliament passed an Amnesty Act in respect of the events of 20-21   June 2019 (see Melia v.   Georgia , no.   13668/21, §§   67-68, 7   September 2023). The Amnesty Act was not applied in respect of the applicant’s case. The applicant complained that the criminal proceedings instituted against him had been unfair and the judgments convicting him had lacked sufficient reasons, being based primarily on the police officers’ account. He also claimed that the criminal proceedings were aimed solely at removing him from the political scene. He relied on Articles   6   § 1 and 18 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Can the applicant claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article   34 (see Sakhnovskiy v.   Russia [GC], no.   21272/03, §   71, 2   November 2010)?   2.     Can the applicant be said to have suffered a significant disadvantage within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention?   3.     Should the answer to the above questions be in the affirmative, 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? Was the applicant’s right to a reasoned decision respected (see Moreira Ferreira v.   Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 84, 11 July 2017)?   4.     Has there been a breach of Article 18 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article   6 in the present case?   4.1.     In particular, what purpose did the authorities pursue, within the framework of the criminal proceedings against the applicant, with respect to the restrictions allegedly imposed by the State under Article 6 of the Convention? Were any of the purposes of the restrictions different from those permitted under Article   6?   4.2.     If the authorities pursued more than one purpose, which one was dominant (see Merabishvili v.   Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, §§   292-308, 28   November 2017)?