CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 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 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s5322DE18 { width:102%; border-collapse:collapse } .s50B925E6 { width:5.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s36AE8B8E { width:16.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s91DACFFF { width:14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEC0F4CD9 { width:12.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC677650A { width:13.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7D29008 { width:18.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s63CB6D7 { width:18.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9E3B0124 { width:5.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7C9D7CA0 { width:16.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s948849BD { width:14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s68739EDA { width:12.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7FF1B79C { width:13.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sDA54C31F { width:18.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD7ECC7F1 { width:18.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 28 July 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 9635/22 Niniko DEKANOSIDZE against Georgia and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 9 July 2025 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applications concern the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicants on account of the manner in which the principal evidence was obtained and used against them. Namely, the applicants in all three applications alleged that the police searches carried out in their respect were not accompanied by any procedural safeguards, the evidence obtained (drugs and/or weapons) as a result of those search operations had in reality been planted by the relevant officers, and that the domestic courts had failed to adequately address their arguments regarding the quality of such evidence as a basis for their respective convictions. The respective proceedings ended on the dates indicated in the appended table. The applicants relied on Article   6 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   In this respect, did the national courts afford the applicants a reasonable opportunity to examine the quality of the evidence found during the relevant search operations and to oppose its use, including as regards the question of whether the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained cast doubt on its reliability or accuracy (see Kobiashvili v.   Georgia , no.   36416/06, §§   56-73, 14 March 2019, with further references therein)?     APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Domestic proceedings ended on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 9635/22 Dekanosidze v. Georgia 11/02/2022 19/11/2021 Niniko DEKANOSIDZE 1981 Zestaponi Georgian Zurab DGEBUADZE 2. 12574/23 Shengelia v. Georgia 07/03/2023 22/11/2022 Besiki SHENGELIA 1984 Zugdidi Georgian Suliko KHIZANISHVILI 3. 4390/24 Rapava v. Georgia 26/01/2024 18/10/2023 Lekso RAPAVA 1980 Khobi Georgian Davit AKHALAIA