Below are set out certain final rulings delivered by the European Court of Human Rights, presented in a chronological order, which may be of particular interest to the GRECO community: Kezerashvili v. Georgia (no. 11027/22, 5 December 2024) concerns a set of criminal proceedings against a former Minister of Defence, in which he was tried, acquitted, and ultimately convicted, in absentia, of embezzlement. The Court found a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of a lack of objective impartiality of the Supreme Court, and no breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (right to a fair trial) on account of the Supreme Court’s reversal of the applicant’s acquittal by the lower courts. Ferrero Quintana v. Spain (no. 2669/19, 26 November 2024) concerns the imposition of a maximum age of 35 for a public competition to fill several low-ranking police-officer positions in the police force. The Court found that it was established that restricting admission to positions for police officers of the lowest rank in the police force by establishing a maximum age of 35, at the relevant time, had been necessary to ensure and maintain the functional capacity of that autonomous police force. No breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12(general prohibition of discrimination) to the Convention. Bakradze v. Georgia (no. 20592/21, 7 November 2024), concerns the failure of the applicant, who used to be a judge, in two judicial competitions in Georgia, which she alleged was the result of discrimination due to her role in a non-governmental organisation. The Court held that there had been a breach of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association) on account of the domestic courts’ failure to address the applicant’s prima facie complaint of discrimination as a result of questions concerning the applicant’s NGO activity asked during her interviews. Gadzhiyev and Gostev v. Russia (nos. 73585/14 and 51427/18, 15 October 2024) concerns disciplinary measures (i.e. dismissal from work) taken against the applicants for having public raised matter of general interest (relating to the problem of corruption within the police force and shortcomings in the metro system). The Court found a breach of Article 10 (freedom of expression) as the interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression (i.e. their dismissal from work) had not been “necessary in a democratic society”. Shlosberg v. Russia (no. 32648/22, 3 September 2024) concerns disqualification of an opposition candidate from standing in parliamentary elections due to his participation in a rally deemed extremist by the authorities for which he had been sanctioned in breach of the Convention. The Court found a breach of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) to the Convention as the applicant’s disqualification, while formally complying with positive law, had been based on arbitrary grounds. Hrachya Harutyunyan v. Armenia (no. 15028/16, 27 August 2024) concerns alleged violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention in relation to insult and defamation proceedings brought against him after he had reported alleged corrupt activities by his former colleague in private correspondence with the latter’s hierarchy. The Court considered that where the reporting of alleged professional misconduct had taken place after the end of employment, the protection regime for the freedom of expression of whistle‑blowers should not automatically cease to apply simply because the work‑based relationship had ended. Rather, such protection could, in principle, apply provided that public-interest information had been obtained while the “whistle-blower” had had privileged access to it by virtue of his or her work-based relationship. In view of the principles established in its case-law, the Court found a breach of Article 10. Ždanoka v. Latvia (no. 2) (no. 42221/18, 25 July 2024) concerns the removal of the applicant’s name from a list of candidates for parliamentary elections in 2018 on the grounds of her past active participation in the Communist Party of Latvia during the post-independence struggles against the Soviet Union. Her political activities were considered to represent a threat for the independence of Latvia and risked undermining the principles of a democratic State governed by the rule of law. The Court was satisfied that in disqualifying the applicant from standing for parliamentary election, the Latvian authorities had not overstepped their discretion (“margin of appreciation”) to decide on such matters. There had been no breach of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) to the Convention. | 
