CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 novembre 2023

.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 } Published on 11 December 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 27166/21 Mikheil KALANDIA against Georgia lodged on 15 May 2021 communicated on 20 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant, who was convicted of an aggravated murder and sentenced to eleven years and three months in prison. The applicant’s case attracted wide media coverage as it concerned a high-profile murder case of two minors following a school brawl in Tbilisi. His trial was preceded by a parliamentary inquiry, which recommended, among others, the initiation of criminal proceedings against the applicant. On 25 February 2020 the Tbilisi City Court convicted the applicant on the basis of, inter alia, the evidence of G.J. and G.B., who had been prosecuted and convicted in connection with the same incident in the context of a separate set of criminal proceedings. Before the first instance court the applicant requested the additional examination of G.J. and G.B., noting that within their separate criminal trial they had changed their statements and pleaded guilty to the respective murders. The above application of the applicant was rejected, and so was an identical application lodged before the Tbilisi Court of Appeal. On 21 July 2020 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal, without hearing any of the witnesses, upheld the applicant’s conviction in full. The applicant requested that the Supreme Court grant him leave to appeal against the appeal court’s judgment, arguing, among others, that his defence rights had been violated on account of the appeal court failing to examine G.J. and G.B. in court. The applicant’s appeal on points of law was rejected as inadmissible by the Supreme Court on 29 December 2020. The applicant complains, in particular, under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, that he was not afforded a fair trial in view of the fact that the Supreme Court, in upholding his conviction, relied on the conviction of G.J. and G.B, whom the applicant was not able to examine after they had changed their statements, and also because his trial was preceded by an investigation of the same facts by the special parliamentary commission of inquiry. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   2. Having regard to the circumstances in which the criminal proceedings against the applicant were carried out, in particular, to the parliamentary investigation which had preceded his trial, was the court which dealt with the applicant’s case independent and impartial, as required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see Čivinskaitė v. Lithuania , no. 21218/12, 15 September 2020)?   3.     Was the applicant able to examine witnesses against him, notably G.J. and G.B, as required by Article   6 §§ 1 and 3   (d) of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Bondar v. Ukraine , no. 18895/08, 16 April 2019)?