Communicated on 11 October 2019
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 70572/16
Gvantsa DZERKHORASHVILI and others
against Georgia
lodged on 17 November 2016
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns two separate incidents: firstly, the allegedly unlawful arrest and detention of the applicants for about twelve hours in connection with their attempt to draw graffiti on the walls of the residence of the Georgian Patriarch early in the morning on 17 May 2016 and their alleged assault and verbal abuse during their arrest and police detention; and secondly, the alleged refusal by the relevant national authorities to provide the applicants with security measures that would allow them to mark the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia (“IDAHOT”) on 17 May 2016. According to the application, having had regard to their past negative experience of failing to hold peacefully the IDAHOT event in the capital city (see, Identoba and Others v. Georgia, no. 73235/12, 12 May 2015; see also Communication Report of 15 April 2015 in Identoba and Other v. Georgia no. 74959/13), the applicants requested the relevant authorities to agree on the location and manner of organising the event already in April 2016. The negotiations, however, failed, prompting the applicants, in fear for their lives, to cancel it.
All applicants are LGBT activists with the exception of the seventh applicant.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Were the applicants (with the exception of the seventh applicant) subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 and/or 8 of the Convention during their administrative arrest on 17 May 2016 and subsequently, while in police detention? In this connection, did they suffer discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 3 and/or Article 8 of the Convention?
2. Has there been a violation of Article 3 and/or Article 8 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 14 on account of the alleged ineffective investigation into the applicants’ complaints (with the exception of the seventh applicant)?
3. Have the applicants exhausted domestic remedies as regards their complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention about their administrative arrest and subsequent detention? In particular, was the trial/appeal court competent to deal with the substance of the legal matters related to Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? Could any other course of action, including that provided for under Article 251 of the Code of Administrative Offences, afford adequate redress to the applicants?
4. Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was their arrest on 17 May 2016 at around 3.30 a.m. and their subsequent detention until about 4.00 p.m. carried out in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law (see Butkevich v. Russia, no. 5865/07, § 64, 13 February 2018; see also Lashmankin and Others v. Russia, nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, §§ 486-492, 7 February 2017, and Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, §§ 106-132, 10 April 2018)? Reference is being made, in particular, to Articles 244, 245, 246, and 247 of the Code on Administrative Offences?
5. Has there been an interference with the applicants’ (with the exception of the seventh applicant) freedom of peaceful assembly, within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention, on account of their being prevented, in the absence of the necessary security measures, to conduct the IDAHOT event on 17 May 2016? If there was such an interference, did it comply with the requirements set forth in Article 11 § 2 of the Convention (see Identoba and Others v. Georgia, no. 73235/12, § 95, 12 May 2015);
6. Have the applicants (with the exception of the seventh applicant) suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of freedom of assembly contrary to Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 11 of the Convention?
7. Did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies for their complaints under Article 3 and/or 8 of the Convention (with the exception of the seventh applicant), Article 5 and Article 14, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
APPENDIX
No.
Applicant’s Name
Birth date
Nationality
Place of residence
1.
Gvantsa DZERKHORASHVILI
07/03/1990
Georgian
Tbilisi
2.
Marine KURTANIDZE
10/10/1991
Georgian
Tbilisi
3.
Giorgi KIKONISHVILI
10/06/1988
Georgian
Tbilisi
4.
Shorena GABUNIA
17/03/1977
Georgian
Tbilisi
5.
Magda KALANDADZE
06/02/1986
Georgian
Tbilisi
6.
Tamar TARKHAN-MOURAVI
18/02/1982
Georgian
Tbilisi
7.
Levan JANEZASHVILI
20/05/1984
Georgian
Tbilisi
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy