issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 334 (2018)
11.10.2018
Judgments and decisions of 11 October 2018
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing four judgments1 and 23 decisions2:
two Chamber judgments are summarised below; separate press releases have been issued for two
other Chamber judgments in the cases of Osmanyan and Amiraghyan v. Armenia (application
no. 71306/11) and S.V. v. Italy (no. 55216/08);
a separate press release has also been issued for one decision, in the case of Mazziotti v. France
(no. 65089/13);
The judgments in French below are indicated with an asterisk (*).
Tuskia and Others v. Georgia (application no. 14237/07)
The case concerned a protest by professors at their university which had been broken up by the
police.
The applicants, Vakhtang Tuskia, Jemal Mebonia, Maia Natadze, Tengiz Sanadze, Giorgi Gogolashvili,
Medea Sikharulidze, Avtandil Arabuli, Gela Dolidze, and Demur Bakhtadze, are Georgian nationals.
They were born in 1935, 1939, 1929, 1930, 1948, 1955, 1953, 1963, and 1939 respectively.
Over several months in 2006 the applicants, all professors at Tbilisi State University, held meetings
on university premises to protest about ongoing reform. The protests culminated on 3 July 2006 with
the applicants and 400 other protestors calling for the acting rector’s resignation. The applicants
submit that they went to his office but left without resistance when the police intervened.
They were subsequently found liable in administrative proceedings for violating public order at the
university by forcing their way into the acting rector’s office and insulting him. They were given
fines. The domestic courts found in particular that the police’s decision to remove the applicants
from the office was to prevent further disruption and was therefore justified. They relied on
statements by ten eyewitnesses, including the police and university staff. Furthermore, all but two of
the applicants had disobeyed a lawful police order, because it had taken the police about one hour
to negotiate with them to leave the office and to agree to continue their protest in a lecture hall.
Relying in particular on Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly and
association) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicants alleged that the police’s
dispersal of their protest on 3 July 2006 and the related administrative proceedings had been
unlawful and disproportionate. They also complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) (right to a fair
trial / right to obtain attendance and examination of witnesses) that the administrative proceedings
against them had been unfair because the courts’ decisions had been arbitrary and had been taken
without questioning either the acting rector or his deputy.
1
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber
judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a
panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and
deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the
Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution
2
Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.
