CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 janvier 2025

.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 10 February 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 33053/22 Londa TOLORAIA against Georgia lodged on 30 June 2022 communicated on 22 January 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s dismissal from the position of the head of the State Inspectorate’s Service. On 21 July 2018 the Parliament of Georgia passed a law creating the State Inspector’s Service. The key functions of the service included conducting investigations into the alleged crimes of law enforcement agencies, monitoring the lawfulness of personal data processing in the country, and overseeing the use of covert investigative measures. On 11 June 2019 the Parliament of Georgia appointed the applicant as the head of the State Inspectorate’s Service for a period of six years, in accordance with Article   6   (1) of the Act on State Inspectorate’s Service. On 30 December 2021 the Parliament of Georgia adopted amendments to the Act, abolishing the State Inspectorate’s Service and creating two separate institutions instead – the Personal Data Protection Service and the Special Investigative Service. The amendments provided for the premature termination of the applicant’s and her deputies’ mandate. The applicant lodged an administrative complaint against the Parliament requesting the annulment of the relevant part of the amendments to the Act that provided for the termination of her mandate. On 16 February 2022 the Tbilisi City Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to examine the alleged unlawfulness of the Act adopted by Parliament. The applicant appealed claiming that her right of access to a court, as provided for by the Constitution of Georgia and Article 6 of the Convention, was violated due to her inability to challenge the unlawfulness of her mandate’s termination before the national courts. The applicant’s appeal was rejected by the Tbilisi Court of Appeal on 31 May 2022. In parallel, on 28 January 2022 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court alleging that the amended provisions of the Act, which resulted in the early termination of her mandate, were incompatible with Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to hold a position in public service. She argued, inter alia, that notwithstanding her legitimate expectation of holding the position of head of the State Inspector’s Service for a fixed term of six years, that is, until 3   July 2025, her mandate was prematurely terminated on 1 March 2022. On 17   November 2022 the Constitutional Court granted in part the above ‑ mentioned constitutional complaint, concluding that the newly introduced amendments to the Act on State Inspector’s Service were in breach of Article 25 of the Constitution, insofar as they had allowed for the early termination of the applicant’s mandate without offering her an adequate and equivalent position or fair compensation. Under Article 6 of the Convention the applicant alleges a violation of her right of access to court on account of her inability to seek judicial review of the Parliament’s decision to prematurely terminate her mandate. She also complains, under Article 8 of the Convention, about the manner of her dismissal from office and the negative impact this had on her private life. She claims that she was simply punished for the work she did in her role as the independent State Inspector. In this connection she also alleges a breach of Article   13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable in the present case (see Baka v. Hungary   (GC), no. 20261/12, 23 June 2016, and Sözen v. Türkiye , no. 73532/16, 9 April 2024)?   2.     If so, did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of her civil rights and obligations in relation to her dismissal from the position of head of the State Inspectorate’s Office in accordance with Article 6 §   1 of the Convention?   3.     Is Article 8 of the Convention applicable to the facts of the present case in view of the reasons for the applicant’s dismissal and the consequences of that dismissal for her private life (see Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no.   76639/11, 25   September 2018, and Pişkin v. Turkey, no. 33399/18, 15 December 2020)?   4.     If so, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life under Article 8 of the Convention in connection with her dismissal (see Erményi v. Hungary , no. 22254/14, 22 November 2016)?   5.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the convention?