ALAVIDZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA and 2 other applications

Published on 2 February 2026   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 34522/24 Besarion ALAVIDZE and Others against Georgia and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 15 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The three applications concern the regulatory framework governing the parliamentary elections held in Georgia on 24 October 2024. Some of the individual applicants (nos. 1-6 and 12) as well as the applicant organisation (no. 11) submit, first, that their right to a secret ballot was compromised owing to a faulty system of electronic counting in polling stations, which allegedly made their voting choices visible to election staff and to CCTV cameras positioned near the machines. Second, the remaining individual applicants (nos. 7-10) allege that they were deprived of the right to vote altogether. As residents abroad (France, Spain and the United States, as indicated in the table below), they claim that an insufficient number of polling stations was made available to them by the Georgian authorities in those countries. None of the individual applicants applied to a domestic court to challenge the alleged electoral irregularities. They contend that, as ordinary voters, they lacked legal standing under Article 78(24) of the Electoral Code, which is why they lodged their applications with the Court within four months, within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, following the impugned elections of 24 October 2024 (see the introduction dates listed in the table below). The applicant organisation, by contrast, held electoral-observer status during the parliamentary elections and therefore possessed standing under Article 78(24) of the Electoral Code and thus lodged electoral complaints regarding the alleged breach of ballot secrecy caused by the allegedly faulty electronic counting machines with all seventy-three district election commissions operating throughout the country, and subsequently initiated repeated sets of judicial proceedings before the administrative courts. All complaints were ultimately dismissed as manifestly ill-founded by the second and final instances in electoral disputes, namely the Tbilisi and Kutaisi Courts of Appeals, which rejected the applicant organisation’s complaints by decisions of 6, 7, 14 and 22 November 2024. All of the applicants complain, relying on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, that their electoral rights were affected either by a breach of ballot secrecy during the electronic vote-counting procedure at polling stations or by their inability to vote from abroad owing to the absence of polling stations at their places of residence. The individual applicants further complain, citing Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, that they had no effective procedural avenue to bring their electoral grievances before domestic courts. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.  Having regard to the circumstances of the present case, can the applicant organisation (applicant no. 11), as an observer of the parliamentary elections held on 24 October 2024, claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention?   2.  Has there been a breach of the applicants’ rights under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention to vote in free elections ensuring the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature?   2.1.  In particular, was the principle of the secrecy of the ballot undermined by the manner in which the electronic counting of votes functioned in polling stations on the day of the parliamentary elections?   In this respect, are the relevant individual applicants (nos. 1 to 6 and 12) in possession of any proof that they actually cast a ballot in the parliamentary elections of 24 October 2024 and that the manner in which their vote was processed by the electronic counting machines at their respective polling stations could have breached the requisite secrecy requirements? 2.2.  Could the unavailability of polling stations in the places of residence of the relevant applicants abroad (applicants nos. 7 to 10) be said to have undermined the free expression of the opinion of the Georgian people in the choice of the legislature, in breach of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?   3.  Did the individual applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   APPENDIX No. Application number and name - Legal representative - Date of introduction - Applicant’s name - Year of Birth/Registration - Place of Residence - Nationality 1. 34522/24 Alavidze and Others v. Georgia   Represented by:   Ms Tamar ALEKSIDZE Ms Maka NUTSUBIDZE   Lodged on 25/11/2024 1. Mr Besarion ALAVIDZE 1976 Tbilisi (Georgia) Georgian 2. Ms Tamar ALEKSIDZE 1984 Tbilisi (Georgia) Georgian 3. Mr Vakhtang KHMALADZE 1947 Tbilisi (Georgia) Georgian 4. Ms Maka NUTSUBIDZE 1975 Tbilisi (Georgia) Georgian 5. Ms Flora PACHULIA 1991 Kutaisi (Georgia) Georgian 6. Mr Kakhaber URIADMKOPELI 1988 Tbilisi (Georgia) Georgian 2. 4373/25 Aptsiauri and Others v. Georgia   Represented by: Ms Tamar ALEKSIDZE Ms Maka NUTSUBIDZE   Lodged on 5/02/2025 7. Ms Nana APTSIAURI 1995 North Miami (FL, USA) Georgian 8. Ms Kesaria BURCHULADZE 1983 Arnedo (Spain) Georgian 9. Mr Lasha KAJAIA 1979 Rutherford (NJ, USA) Georgian 10. Ms Ana TSOTSKHALASHVILI 1989 Strasbourg (France) Georgian 3. 6547/25 Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association and Meladze v. Georgia   Represented by: Mr Davit JAVAKHISHVILI, Mr Aleksandre PATARAIA, Ms Mariam SKHVITARIDZE     Lodged on 24/02/2025 11. GEORGIAN YOUNG LAWYERS’ ASSOCIATION Tbilisi Registered under Georgian law 12. Gvantsa MELADZE 1978 Tbilisi Georgian