FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 22318/10 STUDIO MAESTRO LTD and others against Georgia

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section ), sitting on 30 June 2015 as a Committee composed of:

Paul Mahoney , President, Nona Tsotsoria , Faris Vehabović , judges,

and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 April 2010 ,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 10 March 2015 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants ’ reply to that declaration,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They are all represented by Ms T. Abazadze, a lawyer practising in Tbilisi.

2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows.

3. The first applicant is a private television company, whilst the second and third applicants are journalists employed by it.

4. The fourth applicant is a press officer of an unrelated political party.

5. Between early April and late June 2009 , thousands of opposition supporters held demonstrations in various parts of Tbilisi , as well as in a few other major cities of the country, on a daily basis, demanding resignation of President M. Saakashvili and his Government. During that period there were several incidents where the police used allegedly excessive force against demonstrators. The present application concern ed one of such incidents, which occurred on 15 June 2009.

6. Notably, on that day approximately fifty members and supporters of a youth opposition group gathered outside the Tbilisi police headquarters to protest the arrest of opposition activists which had taken place a few days earlier.

7. The second, third and fourth applicant s were instructed by their respective employers, the television company and the political party to attend the demonstration and ensure media coverage of the event.

8. When the three applicant s arrived at the scene, in front of the Tbilisi police headquarters, t he y witnessed how , soon after the demonstration had started, a squad of police officers, some wearing uniforms and balaclavas and some dressed in civilian clothes, started chasing the demonstrators, beating them indiscriminately with rubber truncheons and baseball bats.

9. Having noticed that the second, third and fourth applicant started video recording and taking photographs of the dispersal of the demonstration, a number of police officers surrounded them in separate groups and forcibly took the cameras away.

10. As the third applicant ’ s injuries were not serious, he did not seek medical assistance afterwards. As to the fourth applicant, she applied to a hospital where she was diagnosed with contusion of her right hand which was put in plaster. It was further entered into a medical record that she had bruises on her spine.

11. On the following day, 16 June 2009, the Deputy Minister of the Interior made a public apology to all journalists who had received injuries during the dispersal of the demonstration on the preceding day. He pledged to launch an investigation into possible abuses committed by the riot police against journalists.

12. On 19 June 2009 the second, third and fourth applicants requested the Chief Public Prosecutor ’ s Office to initiate criminal proceedings against those police officers who had ill-treated and obstructed them in the exercise of their journalistic activities. However, none of the applicants was granted victim status in relation to those criminal proceedings and no information about a progress in the investigation , if any, has been given to them to date.

COMPLAINTS

13. The second, third and fourth applicants complain ed under Article 3 of the Convention that they had been subjected to ill-treatment during the dispersal of the demonstration on 15 June 2009 and that no effective investigation had been conducted.

14. Citing Article 10 of the Convention, all four applicants complained that the police had impeded them in the exercise of their media activities.

THE LAW

15. After the communication of the case to the respondent Government under Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention on 15 September 2014, by letter dated 10 March 2015 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a declaration with a view to resolving all the issues raised by the application.

16. To that end, the Government acknowledged a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the lack of an effective investigation of the physical injuries inflicted to the fourth applicant (Ms N. Inasaridze) as well as a violation of Article 10 of the Convention on account of the second, third and fourth applicants ’ (Ms T. Laliashvili, Mr Sh. Kapanadze and Ms N. Inasaridze) inability to exercise their journalistic activities during the demonstration of 15 June 2009.

17. To remedy the situation caused by the above-mentioned breaches of the Convention, the Government undertook to launch an effective investigation with respect to the complaints lodged by the above-mentioned three individual applicants (see paragraph 12 above) as well as to pay EUR 1,500 (one thousand and five hundred) to Ms T. Laliashvili and Mr Sh. Kapanadze each and EUR 4,500 (four thousand five hundred) to Ms N. Inasaridze to cover any and all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. These sums will be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable and payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. In the event of failure to pay th ese sum s within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

18. On the basis of the above-mentioned acknowledgements and undertakings, the Government invited the applicants to waive any further claims by agreeing to a final resolution of the case and suggested that the Court strike out the whole of the application.

19. On 15 May 2015 the Court received a letter from the applicants informing the Court that they accepted the terms of the settlement as proposed in the Government ’ s declaration, thus waiving the other claims, and did not object to the latter ’ s strik e -out. In that respect, they noted with satisfaction the Government ’ s acknowledgement of a violation of the procedural limb of Article 3 of the Convention in relation to the fourth applicant (Ms N. Inasaridze) and of a violation of Article 10 of the Convention with respect to all three individual applicants.

20. The Court finds that following the applicant ’ s unambiguous agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government, the case should be treated, in substance, as a friendly settlement between the parties. It therefore takes note of the terms of this friendly settlement. Reminding the applicant s that the supervision of the execution of the friendly settlement terms is the prerogative of the Committee of Ministers (Article 39 § 4 of the Convention), the Court is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application.

21. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases pursuant to Article 39 of the Convention.

Done in English and notified in writing on 23 July 2015 .

Fatoş Aracı Paul Mahoney Deputy Registrar President

Appendix