Background
After returning from Türkiye to Georgia in August 2020, Irine Nadashvili was placed in quarantine under COVID-19 measures and later transferred by police to a psychiatric hospital after allegedly refusing a nasal PCR test. She alleged that hospital staff confined her, deprived her of personal belongings and outside communication, forcibly tested her, and compelled her to take psychotropic medication.
In April 2021, Nadashvili brought a civil claim against the Ministry of Health and Social Protection seeking compensation for alleged unlawful detention and inhuman or degrading treatment. The Batumi City Court admitted the claim and ordered retrieval of hospital video footage, but was told that the recordings had not been archived. Following two judicial reassignments, the case remained inactive for extended periods. A preparatory hearing was eventually scheduled for February 2026, and the proceedings were still pending at first instance when the European Court gave judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The European Court of Human Rights unanimously held that Georgia violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention by failing to determine Nadashvili’s civil claim within a reasonable time. It rejected the Government’s timeliness objection because the unfinished domestic proceedings constituted a continuing situation and no effective domestic remedy was available for the delay.
The proceedings had lasted more than five years at a single level of jurisdiction without examination of the merits, including four years and eight months of total inactivity. Although the pandemic may have contributed to some delay, the applicant’s procedural requests did not explain the stagnation. Nor could internal court reorganisation and judicial reassignments justify it, particularly because three years and eleven months elapsed after the final reassignment before a preparatory hearing was scheduled.
The Court awarded Nadashvili EUR 1,500 for non-pecuniary damage, plus any applicable tax, and dismissed the remainder of her EUR 25,000 claim. It did not decide whether her alleged treatment in the psychiatric hospital was unlawful or violated the Convention.
Key Takeaways
- More than five years without a first-instance examination of the merits failed Article 6 § 1’s “reasonable time” requirement.
- COVID-19 restrictions, court reorganisation, and judicial reassignments did not justify years of unexplained inactivity.
- An excessive-length complaint concerning proceedings that remain pending is based on a continuing situation, particularly where no effective domestic remedy exists.
Why It Matters
The judgment reinforces that states must organise their courts so civil claims can be resolved within a reasonable time. Administrative disruption and changes in judicial assignments do not relieve a state of responsibility for prolonged judicial inactivity.
It also illustrates the limited scope of a length-of-proceedings judgment: the Court addressed the delay in hearing Nadashvili’s civil claim, not the merits of her allegations concerning detention, forced testing, medication, or hospital treatment.