Resolution ResDH(2006)53
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 8 April 2004 – Grand Chamber
in the case of Assanidze against Georgia
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 2 November 2006,
at the 976th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),
Having regard to the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Assanidze case delivered on 08/04/2004 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention;
Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 71503/01) against Georgia, lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 2/07/2001 under Article 34 of the Convention by Mr Tenguiz Assanidzé, a Georgian national, and that the Court in particular declared admissible the complaints relating to the violation of the applicant's right to freedom and security of person due to his arbitrary detention for more than three years by the authorities of the Autonomous Republic of Ajaria despite the fact that he had been acquitted at national level on 29/01/2001 by the Supreme Court of Georgia;
Whereas in its judgment of 08/04/2004 the Court[1]:
- Dismissed unanimously the preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies (paragraph 131);
- Held unanimously that the matters complained of were within the “jurisdiction” of Georgia within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention and that only the responsibility of the Georgian State was engaged under the Convention (paragraph 150);
- Held unanimously that the complaint under Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention regarding the applicant's detention from 1 October to 11 December 1999 was out of time (paragraph 161);
- Held unanimously that the complaint under Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention regarding the applicant's detention from 11 December 1999 to 29 January 2001 fell outside the scope of the matters referred to it for examination (paragraph 162);
- Held unanimously that since 29 January 2001 the applicant had been held arbitrarily in breach of the provisions of Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention (paragraph 176);
- Held unanimously that no separate examination of the issue of the applicant's place of detention was necessary under Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention (paragraph 178);
- Held unanimously that the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention fell outside the scope of its examination (paragraph 178);
- Held by fourteen votes to three that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention on account of the failure to comply with the judgment of 29 January 2001 (paragraph 184);
- Held by fourteen votes to three that no separate examination of the complaint concerning the failure to comply with the judgment of 29 January 2001 was necessary under Article 5, paragraph 4, of the Convention (paragraph 187);
- Held unanimously that no separate examination of the complaint concerning the failure to comply with the judgment of 29 January 2001 was necessary under Article 13 of the Convention (paragraph 187);
- Held unanimously that the complaint under Article 5, paragraph 3 of the Convention was out of time (paragraph 190);
- Held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 10, paragraph 1 of the Convention (paragraph 192);
- Held unanimously that it was unnecessary to consider the complaint under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (paragraph 194);
- Held unanimously
(a) that the respondent state must secure the applicant's release at the earliest possible date (paragraphs 202 and 203);
(b) that, in respect of all the damage sustained, the respondent State was to pay the applicant, within three months, 150 000 euros for the period of detention from 29 January 2001 to the date of the judgment, plus any amount payable by way of value-added tax, to be converted into Georgian laris at the rate applicable at the date of settlement (paragraph 201);
(c) that the respondent state was to pay the applicant, within three months, 5 000 euros in respect of costs and expenses, plus any amount payable by way of value-added tax, to be converted into Georgian laris at the rate applicable at the date of settlement (paragraph 207);
(d) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement, simple interest should be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismissed unanimously the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures taken in consequence of the judgment of 08/04/2004, having regard to Georgia's obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by it;
Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state gave the Committee information (see appendix to this Resolution) about the measures taken in order to erase the consequences of the violations for the applicant in accordance with the judgment and to prevent new violations of the same kind as those found;
Having satisfied itself that on 21/08/2004, after the expiry of the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the sums provided in the judgment of 08/04/2004, including the default interest due,
Declares, after having examined the information supplied by the Government of Georgia, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.
Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2006)53
Information provided by the Government of Georgia
during the examination of the Assanidze case
by the Committee of Ministers
1) Individual measures:
The applicant was released on 09/04/2004, i.e. the day after the Court's judgment.
2) General measures:
Following the resignation, on 6 May 2004, of Mr Abachidse, the former leader of the Autonomous Republic of Ajaria (responsible for the failure to comply with the release order of Mr. Assanidze) and the new legitimate elections on 20 June 2004 in the Autonomous Republic of Ajaria, the difficulties encountered in exercising jurisdiction in this region are henceforth solved.
The judgment of the European Court has received wide media coverage and has been transmitted to relevant authorities, particularly the national courts, to draw their attention to the requirements of the Convention.
3) Conclusions:
The government believes that the measures taken have erased as far as possible the consequences for the applicant of the violations found in the present case and that the regularisation of the situation in the Autonomous Republic of Ajaria effectively prevents new, similar violations. The government therefore considers that Georgia has fulfilled its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention with regard to the present judgment.
[1] Reference within parenthesis is to paragraphs of the judgment.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy