Communicated on 15 September 2014

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 22318/10 STUDIO MAESTRO Ltd and others against Georgia lodged on 12 April 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

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

2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, 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 a political party.

A. The incident of 15 June 2009

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 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 a trauma 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. Later that day, the second and third applicants received back their video cameras. However, the equipment was badly damaged, and all the recordings of the incident of the previous day had been thoroughly deleted from its memory. It is not clear from the case file whether that video equipment was the property of the television company, the first applicant, or of the individual applicants. As to the fourth applicant, she never received back her photo camera.

B. Legal steps made by the applicants

1. The second and third applicants

12. On 19 June 2009 the second and third 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. That complaint was assigned on 23 June 2009 to the Tbilisi City prosecutor ’ s office.

13. On 20 July and 2 September 2009 the second and third applicant enquired with the Tbilisi City prosecutor ’ s office about a progress in the investigation, if any.

14. On 17 August and 12 October 2009 the prosecution authority replied that a criminal investigation had been launched into a possible police abuse during the incident of 15 June 2009. However, given that none of the applicants had been given any procedural standing in relation to those criminal proceedings, no information about the investigation could be disclosed to them .

2. The fourth applicant

15. The fourth applicant similarly requested on 19 June 2009 the Chief Public Prosecutor ’ s Office to initiate criminal proceedings into her ill ‑ treatment by police officers. In the same complaint, she requested that her photo camera, confiscated by a police officer during the incident of 15 June 2009, be returned to her. The complaint was assigned on the same day to the Tbilisi City prosecutor ’ s office.

16. On 29 March 2010 the fourth applicant enquired whether her previous criminal complaint had given rise to any investigative or other procedural measures. No reply followed.

COMPLAINTS

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

18. Citing Article 10 of the Convention, all four applicants, including the television company, complain that the police impeded them in the exercise of their media activities.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Were the second, third and fourth applicants subjected to ill-treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, during the dispersal of the demonstration on 15 June 2009? In particular, did their alleged ill-treatment attain a minimum level of severity to fall within the scope of the above ‑ mentioned provision?

1.1 Have the competent domestic authorities conducted an adequate investigation into the applicants ’ above-mentioned allegations of ill ‑ treatment, as required by the procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention?

2. Has the first applicant , the television company, exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention , for its complaint under Article 10 of the Convention ?

2.1 Have the applicants been impeded in their journalistic activities/freedom to impart information, in breach of A rticle 10 of the Convention?

Appendix