CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 décembre 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 12 January 2026   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 28333/24 LTD TV MR GEORGIA against Georgia lodged on 27 September 2024 communicated on 16 December 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged non-enforcement of a final judgment rendered in favour of the applicant company against a private entity. On 15 June 2022 the first-instance court awarded the applicant company 618,400.35   Georgian Laris (approximately 200,129 euros) together with a penalty of 5,318.24 Georgian Laris (approximately 1,721 euros). The judgment was immediately enforceable. Based on the execution writ of 19   July 2022 the National Bureau of Enforcement initiated enforcement proceedings against the debtor on 22 July 2022. On 4 May 2023 the applicant company complained with the National Bureau of Enforcement, alleging that the bailiff had failed to take adequate enforcement measures, such as, for example, registering the debtor with the debtors’ register. On 25 May 2023 the National Bureau of Enforcement responded that the enforcement proceedings were ongoing. On 22 June 2023 the applicant company initiated administrative proceedings against the National Bureau of Enforcement, complaining of the bailiff’s inactivity and requesting, among others, the freezing of the debtor’s assets as envisaged under the Law on Enforcement Proceedings. It appears from the case file that those administrative proceedings have been pending before the first-instance court for more than two years. The applicant company complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement of the final judgment in its favour.         QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant company exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Were the applicant company’s rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 violated on account of the alleged non-enforcement of the judgment in its favour (see, for instance, Fuklev v.   Ukraine , no. 71186/01, §§ 83-84; 91-92, 7 June 2005, and Mužević v.   Croatia , no. 39299/02, §§ 83-84, 16 November 2006)?