CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 juin 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } 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