At its last meeting on 23 September 2024, a panel of five judges of the European Court of Human Rights decided to refer the case of Tsaava and Others v. Georgia to the Grand Chamber.
Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17-judges Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final.
Should you have further questions, please, address them directly to the press service of the European Court: echrpress@echr.coe.int
See the description of the case Tsaava and Others v. Georgia below and in the ECHR press release in the bottom of the message. The applicants are 26 Georgian nationals.
The case concerns the dispersal of a protest on 20-21 June 2019 from the front of the Parliament building in Tbilisi. The protest was sparked by a prominent member of the Russian Duma’s sitting in the Speaker’s chair in the Georgian Parliament and delivering a speech in Russian as part of a session of the Interparliamentary Assembly on Orthodoxy. The applicants were either participants in the demonstration, or journalists reporting on the protests. They allege, in particular, excessive use of force by the authorities resulting in their injury. They rely on Articles 3 (prohibition on inhuman and degrading treatment), 10 (freedom of expression), 11 (freedom of assembly) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.
The applications were lodged between 29 February 2020 and 4 August 2021.
In its judgment of 7 May 2024, the Court found, unanimously, a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 3 in respect of the 24 of the applicants; refrained, by 6 votes to 1, from taking a decision regarding the merits of the substantive aspect of Article 3, and, by 6 votes to 1, from taking a decision regarding the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Article 10 and Article 11; held, unanimously, that Georgia had complied with the obligations under Article 38 (obligation to
furnish all necessary facilities during an examination of the case); and held, unanimously, that there was no need to examine the complaint under Article 13.
On 23 September 2024 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the request of the applicants.
Image source: France24
