Communicated on 26 September 2019
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 17959/11
LTD SONY TSENTRI TBILISI and LTD LAZERI-2 TBILISSI
against Georgia
lodged on 15 March 2011
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the early termination of lease contracts with the applicant companies and their eviction from the leased properties where they were running their businesses. On 1 January 2006, the applicant companies signed a nine-year lease agreement with M.K., according to which they leased about 250 m2 of non-residential commercial area on 30 Rustaveli Avenue in Tbilisi. On 22 November 2006 they were informed by M.K. that she had transferred the title over the property concerned to the Ministry for Economic Development. In the same letter the applicant companies were informed that they would continue their legal relationship with the new owner in accordance with the relevant national legislation. Eight and a half months after, on 7 August 2007, at 8.00 a.m. about 200 police officers forced their way into the applicants’ leased property. They seized the area as a result of which the operation of both businesses was stopped. On 14 August 2007 the applicant companies received letters from a deputy Minister of the Ministry for Economic Development by which they were informed that their lease contracts had been terminated as of 1 July 2007.
The applicants complained requesting the reinstatement of the lease and the compensation for the losses incurred as a result of the early termination of the lease contracts and the eviction. On 8 June 2009 the Tbilisi City Court rejected the applicant companies’ application in its entirety. The first instance court found, inter alia, that there had been no lease agreements in force at the material time between the parties concerned. The above decision was upheld on appeal by the Tbilisi City Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Georgia on 4 February and 10 October 2010 respectively.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been an interference with the applicant companies’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law? In that connection,
(a) As far as the lease agreements are concerned, was the law applied and interpreted by the national courts sufficiently precise and foreseeable? If so, did the domestic courts strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest and the interests of the applicant companies? The reference is being made, in particular, to Articles 572 and 581 § 2 of the Civil Code of Georgia.
(b) As far as the eviction is concerned, was Article 172 § 3 of the Civil Code of Georgia sufficiently precise and foreseeable and did it provide for sufficient procedural guarantees against possible arbitrariness?
2. Did the applicant companies have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy