CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 août 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 25 August 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 4641/23 Irakli GURGENIDZE against Georgia lodged on 18 January 2023 communicated on 4 August 2025 STATEMENT OF FACTS The application concerns criminal proceedings against the applicant, who was charged with drug possession and sale in respect of two separate episodes. As regards the first episode, he was convicted at first instance of drug possession on the basis of a search of the car that he had been driving and of his person. The police officers who implemented the search gave witness statements against the applicant. As regards the second episode, the applicant was acquitted of selling drugs in relation to substances found in the home of his co-accused. The latter’s case was severed from that of the applicant and appears to have resulted in a plea-bargain agreement with the prosecution. The trial court found that the sole evidence against him – the statement of the individual in whose flat the drugs had been discovered – was insufficient under domestic law and practice to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. On appeal, the Tbilisi Court of Appeal reviewed a video recording of the search and, upon comparing it with the witness statements available in the file, acquitted the applicant of the charge of drug possession due to the procedural irregularities surrounding the search. The appellate court reversed, however, the lower court’s acquittal in respect of the second episode and convicted the applicant of selling drugs to the individual in question (see above). The applicant’s arguments that the sole witness against him had a vested interest in the outcome of the proceedings, seeking exculpation for the drugs found in his flat, that the reliability of that witness statement was undermined by the video recording of the search, and that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt were all dismissed by the appellate court as unsubstantiated. Noting, without elaboration, that the appellate court’s judgment contained exhaustive reasons, the Supreme Court declared the applicant’s appeal on points of law inadmissible on 29 September 2022. The applicant complained that the criminal proceedings against him were unfair on account of his having been convicted on the basis of the statement of the individual who had a vested interest in those proceedings, and that the domestic courts had failed to provide sufficient reasons in the relevant judgments. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES 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, given that he was apparently convicted solely on the basis of a statement given by an individual who appears to have entered into a plea-bargain agreement with the prosecution (see Habran and Dalem v.   Belgium , nos.   43000/11 and   49380/11, §   100, 17   January 2017, with further references therein; Adamčo v.   Slovakia , no.   45084/14, §   59, 12   November 2019; and Erik Adamčo v.   Slovakia , no. 19990/20, §§ 59 and 62, 1 June 2023; compare and contrast, Pirtskhalava and Tsaadze v.   Georgia , no. 29714/18, §§ 59-61, 23   March 2023)?