CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 décembre 2024

.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 } Published on 6 January 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 20012/24 Lazare GRIGORIADISI against Georgia lodged on 27 June 2024 communicated on 12 December 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the domestic courts’ refusal to adjudicate on the applicant’s lawsuits against the then Prime Minister and the Chairperson of the ruling party. In particular, on 29   March 2023 the applicant was arrested on an accusation that he had thrown a Molotov cocktail at a police officer and set a police car on fire during a public demonstration of 8-9   March 2023. Several statements were made by politicians before and after his arrest, including by the persons noted above. The applicant instituted civil-law proceedings alleging that these officials had insulted his dignity and reputation by making homophobic remarks and breached his right to presumption of innocence when commenting on his arrest. The application referred to four statements made on 12   and 29   March, 3   April and 3   July 2023, respectively. The domestic courts did not accept the lawsuit for consideration. As regards the Prime Minister, the courts held that the applicant’s request had not been formulated with sufficient precision, in accordance with the procedural rules. As for the Chairperson of the ruling party, it was noted that Members of Parliament, including him, had enjoyed constitutional immunity with respect to statements made as part of a political debate or while performing their official duties. The final decision on the matter was adopted on 11   April 2024. Invoking Article   6 of the Convention the applicant complained about the lack of an effective access to a court. The applicant also relied on Article 13 of the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of Articles   6 §   1 of the Convention, taken alone or in conjunction with Article   13, on account of the applicant’s inability to have the merits of his lawsuit adjudicated at domestic level?