Published on 20 July 2026
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 5125/24
Mikheil MSHVILDADZE
against Georgia
lodged on 10 January 2024
communicated on 30 June 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns an assault on the applicant, a well-known journalist and one of the founders of an opposition television channel in the country, and the alleged ineffectiveness of the ensuing criminal proceedings. The applicant sustained injuries to his head, face and knees. Later that date the perpetrator posted a statement on his social media account acknowledging that he had attacked the applicant on account of his criticism of the Church and his support for LGBT people.
The perpetrator was convicted of violence under Article 126 of the Criminal Code and sentenced to six months in prison. The applicant complained that the relevant authorities had disregarded the alleged discriminatory motive behind the attack and had failed to properly investigate his allegation that the assault had been orchestrated by the State security services.
The applicant complains under Articles 3, 10, and 14 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, were State agents involved in the assault on the applicant on 27 June 2023?
2. Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation into the applicant’s assault by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular,
(a) Did the authorities take all reasonable steps necessary to secure the relevant evidence concerning the incident, including evidence relating to the alleged involvement of State security officers in the assault?
(b) Did the authorities take all reasonable steps to unmask any possible discriminatory motive behind the assault on the applicant?
3. Was the assault on the applicant linked to his journalistic activity? If so, did it give rise to the State’s positive and/or procedural obligations under Article 10 of the Convention? If so, have those obligations been complied with in the present case (see Özgür Gündem v. Turkey no. 23144/93, §§ 42‑43, ECHR 2000‑III; Dink v. Turkey, nos. 2668/07 and 4 others, § 137, 14 September 2010; Huseynova v. Azerbaijan, no. 10653/10, §§ 119-24, 13 April 2017; and Khadija Ismayilova v. Azerbaijan, nos. 65286/13 and 57270/14, §§ 158-59, 10 January 2019);
4. Did the applicant suffer discrimination, on the ground of his political or other opinion, contrary to Article 14, read in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention?