CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 mars 2026

.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 } Published on 30 March 2026   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 31652/24 Irine DADIANI against Georgia lodged on 31 October 2024 communicated on 9 March 2026 STATEMENT OF FACTS The application concerns the immediate enforcement of a judgment issued against the applicant by a first-instance court in the context of civil proceedings initiated by a private bank. On 13 December 2023 the Tbilisi City Court ruled in favour of the bank, granting its request for the forced sale of the applicant’s encumbered property in relation to a defaulted loan. It ordered immediate enforcement of the judgment and dismissed the applicant’s argument that the relevant provision of the Civil Code of Procedure had in the meantime been declared unconstitutional and abolished. On 17 January 2024 the Tbilisi City Court issued a writ of execution. The applicant filed an interlocutory appeal maintaining that the immediate enforcement of the first-instance court’s judgment was unlawful and unconstitutional. Her appeal was rejected by the Tbilisi Court of Appeal on 28   January 2024. The applicant complains, relying on Article 6 § 1 and Article 13 of the Convention, that the domestic courts did not provide sufficient reasons for ordering the immediate forced sale of her property. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the reasoning provided by the domestic courts regarding the immediate forced sale of the applicant’s encumbered property both relevant and sufficient? What were the effects of the Constitutional Court’s judgment no.   2/3/1421,1448,1451 of 11 April 2023 in the applicant’s case?   2.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaint under Article 6, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?