Published on 11 July 2022
FIFTH SECTION
Applications nos. 602/22 and 13073/22
‘TBILISI PRAIDI’ and Others against Georgia
and Salome NIKOLEISHVILI and Others against Georgia
lodged on 22 December 2021 and 23 February 2022 respectively
communicated on 20 June 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern alleged homophobic violence on 1 and 5 July 2021 and the applicants’ inability to hold an LGBT pride event.
The individual applicants complain, among other incidents, about violent attacks and threats against the LGBT community and individual applicants by ultraconservative groups which held anti-LGBT rallies; violent storming by the latter groups of different offices of non-governmental organisations where the applicants had been sheltering; the authorities’ inability and/or unwillingness to prevent and provide appropriate redress for such violence (among other elements, the applicants complain of ineffective planning by the Ministry of Internal Affairs; inaction by the police during the events complained of; ineffective investigation and prosecution in respect of homophobic violence, especially in respect of the instigators of the anti‑LGBT violence and the storming of the relevant offices); and the official statements made by various high-ranking public officials claiming, among other things, that the majority of the population did not support the holding of the pride event which had been aimed at sowing chaos and discord in the community. All applicants complain that because of the anti-LGBT violence and threats they had been compelled to cancel the planned event. In this regard, the applicants submit that they could not obtain an enforceable judicial decision against the Ministry of Internal Affairs prior to the event. The applicants also claim that no effective domestic remedy existed in respect of any of their other complaints.
The applicants in application no. 602/22 rely on Articles 3, 11, 13 and 14 of the Convention. In addition to those provisions, the applicants in application no. 13073/22 also rely on Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Have the applicants exhausted effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
2. During the events of 1 and 5 July 2021, did the relevant State authorities comply with their positive obligations under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention to undertake preventive measures aimed at protection of the applicants from attacks by private individuals (see, among other authorities, Identoba and Others v. Georgia, no. 73235/12, §§ 72-74, 12 May 2015 and Women’s Initiatives Supporting Group and Others v. Georgia, nos. 73204/13 and 74959/13, §§ 70-78, 16 December 2021)? Did the authorities’ statements made in respect of the pride march exacerbate the violence which erupted on 5 July 2021?
The Government are invited to provide copies of the relevant internal documents concerning the planning of the security arrangements undertaken by the Ministry of Internal Affairs in advance of the impugned events.
3. Have the competent domestic authorities conducted an adequate investigation into the individual applicants’ allegations of ill-treatment and lack of police protection, in compliance with the procedural obligations under Article 3 of the Convention?
4. Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression and/or freedom of peaceful assembly, within the meaning of Articles 10 and/or 11 of the Convention on account of their having been prevented from holding the pride event on 5 July 2021?
If there was such an interference, did it comply with the requirements under the provisions in question (see, among other authorities, Ouranio Toxo and Others v. Greece, no. 74989/01, § 42, ECHR 2005‑X (extracts); Identoba and Others, cited above, §§ 95 and 99; and Berkman v. Russia, no. 46712/15, § 47, 1 December 2020)?
5. Have the relevant applicants suffered discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation and gender identity contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, this provision being read in conjunction with Articles 3, 8, 10 and 11 of the Convention?
6. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy in respect of their complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
1.
602/22
‘Tbilisi praidi’ and Others v. Georgia
22/12/2021
‘TBILISI PRAIDI’
Giorgi TABAGARI
1985
Tbilisi
Georgian
Tamazi SOZASHVILI
1995
Gothenburg
Georgian
Ana SUBELIANI
1989
Tbilisi
Georgian
Davit SUBELIANI
1976
Tbilisi
Georgian
Eteri BUZIASHVILI
1989
Tbilisi
Georgian
E. MARIKASHVILI, M. KAPANADZE,
G. TABATADZE
2.
13073/22
Nikoleishvili and Others v. Georgia
23/02/2022
Salome NIKOLEISHVILI
1989
Tbilisi
Georgian
Mariam DOLIDZE
1986
Tbilisi
Georgian
Zurab BERDZENISHVILI
1991
Tbilisi
Georgian
Giorgi MAKARASHVILI
1985
Tbilisi
Georgian
M. JIMSHELEISHVILI, T. KAKHIDZE,
I. CHITASHVILI