The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held that Georgia violated journalists’ freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and demonstrators’ freedom of peaceful assembly under Article 11 due to the disproportionate use of force during the 2019 protest outside the Georgian Parliament. The case arose after mass demonstrations erupted following Russian politician Sergei Gavrilov’s address to the Georgian Parliament. The situation escalated when a group of demonstrators attempted to break into the Parliament courtyard. The police began dispersing the crowd using tear gas and water cannons. They also fired kinetic impact projectiles (commonly referred to as rubber bullets), often doing so indiscriminately and without prior warning, inflicting severe injuries on peaceful protesters and journalists. Based on previous judgments of the Court, the Grand Chamber reiterated that the physical ill-treatment of journalists, their arrest for covering a protest, their restriction from reporting on protests, and their denial of access to certain places to prevent them from gathering information violated their right to freedom of expression under Article 10. The Court found no indication that the journalists had engaged in any conduct justifying the specific use of kinetic impact projectiles against them. In assessing the violation of Article 11, the Court observed that although the authorities were justified in deciding to disperse the assembly due to the violent conduct of some of the demonstrators, the indiscriminate use of kinetic impact projectiles was not considered “necessary in a democratic society,” irrespective of the wide margin of appreciation given to States. The ECtHR reasoned that no clear audible warning was given before resorting to “special means” and “no proper justification” was given for the force used against the applicants. The Court ordered Georgia to pay a total of over EUR 680,000 in damages, costs, and expenses to the applicants.

In June 2019, a large-scale political demonstration took place outside the Georgian Parliament Building following the appearance of Sergei Gavrilov, a member of the Russian parliament. Gavrilov sat in the speaker’s seat at the Interparliamentary Assembly on Orthodoxy, an institution established by the Greek Parliament in 1994 to unite Orthodox Christian lawmakers around the globe. The seat is reserved for the Head of Georgian Parliament. This was widely considered unacceptable because of the long-standing political tensions between Georgia and Russia. Many Georgians viewed a Russian official speaking from the presiding seat as a symbolic insult to the country’s sovereignty and dignity.

Tensions escalated when a group of demonstrators attempted to break into the Parliament courtyard. The police began dispersing the crowd using tear gas and water cannons. They also fired kinetic impact projectiles (commonly referred to as rubber bullets), often doing so indiscriminately and without prior warning. This resulted in over 200 injured individuals, including approximately 40 journalists and 80 police officers.

Five complaints were filed before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) relating to this demonstration, which were heard together.

Tsaava and Kmuzov v. Georgia 

Merabi Tsaava and Beslan Kmuzov were present at the demonstration in their capacity as journalists covering the events and were hit by a kinetic impact projectile. They submitted that their right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was violated.

Svanadze v. Georgia

Zaza Svanadze was also acting as a journalist reporting on the protest and was hit by a kinetic impact projectile. It was submitted that his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 was violated.

Baghashvili and Others v. Georgia 

All eleven applicants in this case were journalists, camera operators, or photographers. They were identifiable as media professionals because they carried professional cameras and microphones with media logos, wore “Press” T-shirts, or displayed visible press badges. Ten of the applicants complained that they were struck by kinetic impact projectiles while peacefully carrying out their journalistic duties. Giorgi Diasamidze specifically complained that police officers physically removed him from the inner courtyard of the Parliament building and physically abused him. They submitted that their right to freedom of expression under Article 10 was violated. 

Kurdovanidze and Others v. Georgia 

Ten of the eleven applicants in this case were demonstrators participating in the protest. They complained that their right to freedom of peaceful assembly under Article 11 of the ECHR was violated. Three applicants, Dimitri Pochkhidze, Irakli Khvadagiani, and Nikoloz Sharvashidze, complained that they were arrested and subjected to physical abuse by the police. One applicant, Teimuraz Didberashvili, was merely a bystander searching for a relative. They all suffered injuries after being hit by kinetic impact projectiles. 

Berikashvili v. Georgia

Vakhtangi Berikashvili was a demonstrator who was struck in the arm by a kinetic impact projectile and claimed that his right to freedom of peaceful assembly under Article 11 was violated.

Arguing that a criminal investigation was ongoing regarding the aforementioned events, the Fifth Section of the ECtHR, by six votes to one, refrained from deciding on the admissibility and merits of the complaints under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention.

On 1 August 2024, the applicants in four of the applications requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the European Court on Human Rights.

Judge Arnfinn Bårdsen presided over the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, which issued a decision on 11 December 2025. The main issue before the Court was whether the use of force during the dispersal of the demonstration violated the applicants’ rights under Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of peaceful assembly) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The applicants in Tsaava and Kmuzov, Svanadze, Baghashvili, and Berikashvili argued that the government of Georgia violated their freedom of expression under Article 10. They submitted that the actions of the authorities during the demonstration deterred them from carrying out their journalistic activities and had a chilling effect on journalists covering demonstrations. They submitted that the authorities targeted them despite being identifiable as journalists, which deterred them from covering the protest “safely and freely” and led to several physical injuries. [para. 359] The applicants argued that the authorities’ actions were neither “prescribed by law” nor pursued any “legitimate aim.” [para. 362] They further held  that the interference with their Article 10 rights was not “necessary in a democratic society.” [para. 363] Diasamidze, one of the applicants in the Baghashvili case, maintained that he was removed from the courtyard of the Parliament by use of unnecessary force despite identifying himself as a journalist, which violated his freedom of expression.

The applicants in the Kurdovanidze case, excluding Didberashvili and the applicant in the Berikashvili case, submitted that their rights under Article 11 ECHR were violated. They highlighted that freedom of assembly was fundamental to democracy and that the government had been trying to suppress it by using disproportionate force. They argued that they acted peacefully throughout the event and that only a small proportion of the demonstrators actually engaged in violence. In their view, the police’s use of force was an unjustified interference that was neither “prescribed by law” nor pursued a “legitimate aim.” These applicants claimed the authorities’ actions were not necessary and that they failed to differentiate between peaceful participants and violent ones, choosing instead to disperse the rally indiscriminately, which included the use of kinetic impact projectiles without any prior warning.

The Government of Georgia asserted that there had been no interference with Article 10, claiming that police measures were not specifically directed at the applicants or their journalistic activities. It maintained that journalists were not prevented from reporting and that special areas had been designated to ensure their safety while “special means” were being deployed. [para. 366] Alternatively, the Government argued that any interference was justified under domestic law and pursued legitimate aims, such as restoring public order and preventing disorder after the demonstration turned violent. They also submitted that it was premature to assess the necessity and proportionality of these measures before the conclusion of the ongoing criminal investigation.

The Government contended that Article 11 did not apply at all because the assembly was not “peaceful,” arguing that it had devolved into an incitement to violence and an active attempt to break into the Parliament building. It said that law enforcement showed sufficient tolerance, issued repeated warnings, and that the deployment of “special means” was done with proper notice. In the alternative, the Government argued that any interference was legally justified and pursued the legitimate aims of restoring public order and preventing further violence. Additionally, Georgia asserted that the authorities enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation when responding to the obstruction of Parliament, and that the proportionality of their actions could not be fully assessed until the criminal investigation was complete.

PEN International, PEN Georgia, and English PEN, third-party intervenors, submitted that such interferences with freedom of expression were subject to strict scrutiny.

Regarding the complaint in the Berikashvili case, the Court noted that the applicant participated in the demonstration and was not employed as a reporter; therefore, this case was considered under Article 11 of the ECHR. The Chamber examined whether the force used by police authorities interfered with the Article 10 rights of the other applicants.

The Court relied on cases such as Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v. Finland, Butkevich v. Russia, and Szurovecz v. Hungary to reiterate that information gathering is an “essential preparatory step in journalism, and therefore an inherent part of media freedom.” [para. 374] It underlined that reporting on public demonstrations, particularly those directed at State institutions, lies at the heart of Article 10 protections. The ECtHR reinforced that physical ill-treatment of journalists, arresting them for covering a protest, restricting them from reporting on protests, and depriving them from accessing certain places to prevent them from gathering information, violated their right to freedom of expression under Article 10. It noted that even if journalists are not specifically targeted during protests, it does not mean that no interference was caused to their rights (Gsell v. Switzerland). 

The Court applied these principles to the present case, and observed that the firing of kinetic impact projectiles at the applicants and the removal of Diasamidze, in the Baghashvili case, from the Parliament premises, constituted an interference with their rights under Article 10 ECHR. The ECtHR’s Grand Chamber observed that the Fifth Section dismissed Grigalashvili and Bochikashvili’s complaints in the Baghashvili case, due to their failure to present medical evidence of injury. The Court disagreed with the Fifth Section and held that even in the absence of serious injury, the fact that the applicants were hit by projectiles constituted an interference. The ECtHR deemed it unnecessary to determine whether the journalists were deliberately targeted and held that “any use of force by the authorities which affected their information gathering, and by implication their ability to report on the demonstration, amounted to an interference with the exercise of their right to freedom of expression.” [para. 366]

The Court left open the questions of whether the measures were “prescribed by law” and pursued “legitimate aims,” analyzing instead whether they were “necessary in a democratic society” as the central issue.

Regarding Diasamidze, one of the applicants in the Baghashvili case, the Court noted that the Government failed to provide submissions; consequently, his removal was deemed neither justified nor proportionate. For the remaining thirteen applicants, the ECtHR found no indication that they engaged in any conduct justifying the specific use of kinetic impact projectiles against them. According to the Court, the use of force, therefore, fell outside the margin of appreciation afforded to the Georgian authorities. It rejected the Government’s argument that the journalists’ injuries were an inevitable consequence of their reporting on “chaotic and violent events.” [para. 398] The ECtHR emphasized that the government has a duty under Article 10 to introduce measures for the protection of journalists.

Accordingly, the Court held that the interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression was neither justified nor proportionate. It also held that it was not “necessary in a democratic society” and led to a breach of Article 10 of the Convention.

Subsequently, the ECtHR examined whether the applicants’ right under Article 11 ECHR had been violated. The Court reiterated that Article 11 protects only “peaceful assembly.” Yet, it explained that the burden of proving the violent intentions of organizers of a demonstration lies with the authorities. The ECtHR reaffirmed that individuals do not lose their right to peaceful assembly in light of events of sporadic violence committed by others, and that the possibility of extremists joining the assembly does not remove protection under Article 11. On this point, the Court cited Makarashvili and Others v. Georgia, and reiterated that even when some of the participants of the demonstration blockaded the Georgian Parliament with a view to obstructing its work, their demonstration was still protected under Article 11.

Applying these principles, the Court examined whether there had been an interference with the applicants’ rights under Article 11. Consistent with established case-law, the Court held that the use of force to disperse an assembly constituted an interference and that the applicants, who were struck by kinetic impact projectiles or subjected to physical ill-treatment, had therefore suffered an interference with their rights under Article 11.

The ECtHR applied its established three-part test to determine whether the interference was justified, i.e., whether it was “prescribed by law”, pursued a legitimate aim, and was “necessary in a democratic society.” The Court left open the questions of whether the measures were “prescribed by law” and pursued “legitimate aims,” focusing on whether they were “necessary in a democratic society” as the central issue.

In assessing this, the Court observed that the authorities were justified in deciding to disperse the assembly due to the violent conduct of the people in the front rows of the demonstration; however, the way this was implemented was not justified, irrespective of the wide margin of appreciation given to States. The ECtHR reasoned that no clear audible warning was given before resorting to “special means” and “no proper justification” was given for the force used against the applicants. [para. 440] The Court found no evidence to prove that Pochkhidze, Khvadagiani, and Sharvashidze, the three applicants in the Kurdovanidze case, engaged in violence.

The ECtHR reached the same conclusion regarding Chikviladze, despite evidence that he had engaged in violent conduct. It held that the authorities did not show that the use of kinetic impact projectiles against him was necessary to contain his actions. The Court rejected the Government’s argument that the force was “necessary in a democratic society.” Broad-brush explanations by the authorities that injuries were an inevitable consequence of containing violent demonstrations were rejected by the Court. According to it, the projectiles were used as a “general crowd-control weapon rather than a targeted one.” [para. 441]

Hence, the ECtHR said that the use of force fell outside any margin of appreciation. It specified that the finding of an Article 11 violation did not extend to Didberashvili, who was a bystander rather than a demonstrator and had not raised a complaint under that provision. Accordingly, the Court held that the State authorities violated Article 11 of the applicants in the Kurdovanidze case, excluding Didberashvili, and the applicant in the Berikashvili case.

To conclude, the ECtHR unanimously held that there was a violation of Article 10 with respect to the applicants in the cases of Tsaava and Kmuzov, Svanadze, and Baghashvili. It was unanimously held that there had been a violation of Article 11 with respect to the applicants in the cases of Kurdovanidze (excluding Didberashvili) and Berikashvili.

The Court ordered Georgia to pay a total of over EUR 680,000 in damages, costs, and expenses to the applicants. Specifically, the Court awarded a total of EUR 320,000 in pecuniary damages, ranging from EUR 75,000 to EUR 85,000 per person. Furthermore, the Court awarded a total of EUR 326,000 in non-pecuniary damages across twenty-six applicants. These individual non-pecuniary awards ranged from EUR 5,000 to EUR 30,000.  Finally, the Court ordered the State to pay EUR 38,414.99 to cover the applicants’ joint legal costs and expenses.