The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) declared the second complaint filed by Giorgi Mamaladze inadmissible. This information was disseminated by the Ministry of Justice.

According to the Ministry, the second complaint concerned the alleged secret monitoring of a telephone conversation between Giorgi Mamaladze and his representative, which, according to Mamaladze, hindered his ability to freely submit his first complaint to the Strasbourg Court.

“As is known to the public, the first complaint filed by the applicant in the European Court related to the verdict issued against him (concerning the so-called cyanide case), which the Strasbourg Court deemed lawful. Specifically, on November 3, 2022, the Court upheld the position of the Ministry of Justice in the first case and found no violation of the right to a fair trial regarding the circumstances of obtaining evidence (‘sodium cyanide’) and their reliability.

As for the current complaint, it concerned the alleged secret monitoring of a telephone conversation between Giorgi Mamaladze and his representative, which, according to Mamaladze, hindered his ability to freely submit the aforementioned first complaint to the Strasbourg Court.

On August 1, 2021, ‘Mtavari Arkhi’ accused the State Security Service of allegedly illegally monitoring and collecting data on the professional and/or private lives of clergy and other publicly active individuals in 2019-2020. Giorgi Mamaladze claimed that these materials included files reflecting the surveillance of communications between him and his lawyer.

According to the Strasbourg Court’s assessment, there is no evidence to confirm the surveillance of communications between Giorgi Mamaladze and his lawyer. Furthermore, the applicant was able to file a complaint with the European Court without hindrance and subsequently send a large volume of materials. Therefore, there was no interference with the right to freely submit a complaint to the Strasbourg Court.

Based on the above, the Strasbourg Court upheld the position presented by the Ministry of Justice, along with the relevant evidence, and declared the complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded,” the statement reads.