Lexploria - Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Lexploria beta Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Menu
Browsing history:

BAGHASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

Doc ref: 20129/21 • ECHR ID: 001-210996

Document date: June 7, 2021

  • Inbound citations: 0
  • Cited paragraphs: 0
  • Outbound citations: 4

BAGHASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

Doc ref: 20129/21 • ECHR ID: 001-210996

Document date: June 7, 2021

Cited paragraphs only

Published on 28 June 2021

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 20129/21 Tamar BAGHASHVILI and Others against Georgia lodged on 7 April 2021 communicated on 7 June 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the dispersal of a public demonstration held in Tbilisi in front of the Parliament of Georgia on 20-21 June 2019 (see also applications nos. 8684/20, 13186/20, 16757/20, and 20175/21). Initially peaceful, it escalated into violent clashes between police and protesters. Tear gas, rubber bullets and water cannons were used against the protesters, including allegedly from a short distance, as a result of which many were injured. All eleven applicants were journalists who were reporting the events. They allege that they were specifically targeted by the police with rubber bullets during the dispersal of the demonstration. The eleventh applicant was allegedly beaten by the police. As a result, all applicants sustained various injuries, such as a fracture (the first applicant) multiple bruises and hematomas (the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh applicants), and open wounds (the sixth and seventh applicants).

Criminal proceedings were initiated into abuse of power by the police; however, the applicants were refused victim status. They complain under Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention that the police violence resulted in their injury and that by employing unnecessary and disproportionate force and deliberately targeting journalists, they were prevented from performing their professional duties. They further allege a breach of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the lack of effective domestic remedies as the ongoing investigation has been inadequate.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Regard being had to the medical certificates submitted by the applicants and all other evidence, were they subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, by the police during the dispersal of the demonstration on 20-21 June 2019? In this connection,

Was the use of rubber bullets in accordance with the applicable legislation? Was the manner of application of the relevant provisions of domestic law in the current case compatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see Kılıcı v. Turkey , no. 32738/11 , §§ 32-35, 27 November 2018; see, mutatis mutandis, Abdullah Yaşa and Others v. Turkey , no. 44827/08, §§ 43 and 49-50, 16 July 2013, and Ataykaya v. Turkey , no. 50275/08, § 57, 22 July 2014)? The Government are invited to submit a copy of the applicable domestic statutory and regulatory provisions.

2. Did the authorities carry out an effective official investigation into the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment during the dispersal of the demonstration, as required by Article 3 of the Convention (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000 ‑ IV)? What is the current state of the proceedings? Were the applicants given the opportunity to participate effectively in the investigation?

The Government are invited to submit a copy of the file of the prosecuting authorities ’ investigation into the circumstances of the dispersal of the demonstration on 20-21 June 2019.

3. Having regard to the applicants ’ allegation that the police used force against them while they were reporting the events as journalists, has there been an interference with their right to freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and “necessary in a democratic society” in terms of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention?

4. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy or a combination of remedies for their complaints under Articles 3 and 10 of the Convention, as required by Article 13?

APPENDIX

No.

Applicant ’ s Name

Date of birth

Nationality

Place of residence

1.Tamar BAGHASHVILI

25/10/1975

Georgian

Tbilisi

2.Ekaterine ABASHIDZE

10/02/1996

Georgian

Tbilisi

3.Ioseb BOCHIKASHVILI

15/10/1947

Georgian

Tbilisi

4.Giorgi DIASAMIDZE

05/02/1993

Georgian

Tbilisi

5.Kote GRIGALASHVILI

23/06/1990

Georgian

Tbilisi

6.Nino KHOZREVANIDZE

02/04/1987

Georgian

Tbilisi

7.Tornike KOSHKADZE

23/07/1987

Georgian

Tbilisi

8.Guram MURADOV

27/04/1986

Georgian

Tbilisi

9.Gvantsa NEMSADZE

07/12/1990

Georgian

Tbilisi

10.Giorgi TCHUMBURIDZE

30/10/1972

Georgian

Tbilisi

11.Ana VAKHTANGADZE

01/09/1991

Georgian

Tbilisi

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2024
Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 398107 • Paragraphs parsed: 43931842 • Citations processed 3409255