CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 mai 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 26 May 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 28077/23 Mikheil NOZADZE against Georgia lodged on 4 July 2023 communicated on 6 May 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the freezing of the applicant’s immovable property in the context of ongoing fraud and abuse of power proceedings, with the freezing order having been in effect since 27 April 2017. On 25   February 2022 the Constitutional Court of Georgia granted the applicant’s constitutional complaint, finding certain parts of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provided for the assets freezing procedure, unconstitutional. On 26 January 2023, following legislative amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure (in light of the aforementioned judgment of the Constitutional Court), the Akhaltsikhe District Court, acting at the request of the prosecutor’s office, issued a new freezing order in respect of the applicant’s property for a period of twelve months. The Tbilisi Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal on 2 March 2023. The applicant complains under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1, alleging that the interference with his possessions was unlawful and lacked justification. In this regard, he also alleges a violation of Article   13 of the Convention on account of the absence of effective remedies. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1, on account of the freezing of his immovable property?   2.     If so, was that interference lawful? In particular, was the applicable legislation sufficiently precise regarding the legal grounds and conditions for freezing, and was the freezing order compliant with the latter? The parties are invited to respond to this question with reference, among other things, to the Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 25 February 2022 in the case of Otar Marshava and Mikheil Nozadze v.   The Parliament of Georgia, No.   2/1/1434, 1466.   3.     Was the interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest? Did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see, for general principles, Karahasanoğlu v.   Turkey , nos. 21392/08 and 2 others, §§   142-52, 16   March 2021; see also Filkin v. Portugal , no. 69729/12, 3 March 2020)?   4.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective remedy for his Convention complaints under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?