Communicated on 8 July 2019
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 24225/19
GEORGIAN MUSLIM RELATIONS and others
against Georgia
lodged on 25 April 2019
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the State’s alleged failure to protect the applicants from hate speech and other acts of violence by private parties motivated by their religion and the subsequent failure of the authorities to conduct an effective investigation into the applicants’ allegations.
On 1 August 2014 the first applicant was given a right to use property, a plot of land with a building, under a lease agreement. It was planned to open a Muslim boarding school there. Already before that, in June 2014, when the local orthodox population had learnt about the plan, they had started mounting protests against the opening of a Muslim school in the neighbourhood. Between July and November 2014 local residents erected barricades at the entrance of the building preventing the applicants from entering it and finalising the necessary works. There were several incidents of verbal abuse of the applicants with the local residents insulting them and threatening to burn the school. During one of the incidents a pig’s head was nailed to the entrance door of the school. Sporadic incidents continued to happen in subsequent years. Police were regularly called by the applicants to the area, but they preferred not to intervene, failing, hence, to stop and prevent the violent behaviour of the local population. The applicants lodged a criminal complaint and on 10 September 2014 criminal proceedings were initiated under Article 151 of the Criminal Code (an offence of threat to property). On 8 February 2019 the investigation was reclassified under Article 156 (an offence of persecution). The investigation is still ongoing and despite the applicants’ reiterated requests they have not been granted the status of a victim in the proceedings. In parallel, the applicants lodged a civil claim alleging discrimination on the ground of their religion on the part of the Ministry of the Interior and private individuals. Their claim was granted in part as far as private individuals were concerned. As regard the Ministry of the Interior, the courts rejected the argument that the police had failed to restore order and to assist the applicants in having a free access to the school building.
Relying on Article 3 and Article 8 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 14 the applicants (except for the first applicant) complain firstly that the State failed to fulfil its positive obligation to protect them from degrading and humiliating treatment to which they had been subjected by private parties on account of their religion, and secondly, that the authorities have failed to conduct an effective investigation into their allegations. The first applicant further complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about being prevented from peacefully enjoying its possessions.
Given the subject matter of the application, notably the fact that the applicants have apparently been prevented from opening a Muslim boarding school, and since they have been complaining about their being discriminated against on the ground of their religion, the application also raises an issue under Article 9 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 14.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Were the applicants (with the exception of the first applicant) subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 and/or Article 8 of the Convention? In this connection, did they suffer discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 3 and/or Article 8 of the Convention?
2. Did the State authorities in the present case comply with their positive obligation under Article 3 and/or Article 8 of the Convention to prevent and stop the violent behaviour towards the applicants (with the exception of the first applicant)? In this connection, have the applicants suffered discrimination on the part of the relevant authorities contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 3 and/or Article 8 of the Convention?
3. Has there been a violation of Article 3 and/or Article 8 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 14 on account of the alleged ineffective investigation into the applicants’ complaints (with the exception of the first applicant)?
4. Has there been a violation of Article 9 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 14 (with the exception of the first applicant) on account of the applicants being prevented from opening a Muslim boarding school?
5. Has there been an interference with the first applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference compatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?
APPENDIX
No.
Applicant’s Name
Birth/Registration date
Place of residence/registration
1
GEORGIAN MUSLIM RELATIONS
Registered on 31/01/2013
Batumi, Georgia
2
Ramaz KAKALADZE
01/07/1984
Shuakhevi, Georgia
3
Merab MIKELADZE
01/05/1985
Chakvi, Georgia
4
Kakha KAKHADZE
15/01/1992
Naruja, Georgia
5
Badri IREMADZE
18/03/1988
Batumi, Georgia
6
Roin GUNDADZE
06/11/1991
Tkhilvana, Georgia
7
Dato TSETSKHLADZE
27/02/1991
Tkhilvana, Georgia
8
Teimuraz KHALVASHI
23/02/1972
Tsetskhlauri, Georgia
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy