FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 31315/12
Otar SHAVADZE against Georgia
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 13 October 2020 as a Committee composed of:
Ganna Yudkivska, President,
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,
Lado Chanturia, judges,
and Anne-Marie Dougin, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.
2. The Georgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr B. Dzamashvili of the Ministry of Justice.
3. The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the annulment of their property titles to plots of land at the request of the National Agency of Cultural Heritage Preservation.
4. On 11 January 2016 the applications were communicated to the Government. The parties submitted observations.
5. By letter of 22 December 2018 the Government informed the Court that following a new round of administrative proceedings the applicants’ property titles over the plots of land concerned had been restored.
THE LAWJoinder of the cases
6. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.The communicated complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1The parties’ submissions
7. By letter dated 28 February 2019 the Government invited the Court to strike the cases out of its list of cases, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention. The Government considered that the three cases had been resolved. In connection with the applicants’ claim for the compensation of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage (see paragraph 8 below) they noted that the applicants had failed to submit any just satisfaction claims, together with any relevant supporting documents, within the time-limit fixed therefor in the proceedings before the Court. In any event, according to the Government, the applicants had effective domestic remedies for that purpose, such as a tort complaint against relevant national authorities under Articles 992-1008 of the Civil Code; they had failed, however, to avail themselves of that possibility.
8. The applicants on their part submitted that they were willing to discontinue their respective applications before the Court on condition that the Georgian Government acknowledge a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 13 and Article 14 of the Convention. They also expected to be reimbursed for the expenses incurred in connection with the proceedings they had initiated on a domestic level and before the Court, and in addition requested the Government to pay 10,000 euros (EUR) each in respect of the non‑pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the breach of their various rights. In support, they only submitted a copy of a contract concluded between the applicants and their representative individually, according to which each of them had to pay the representative 2,000 US dollars (USD) for legal costs.The Court’s assessment
9. The Court observes that under Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention it may “at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the matter has been resolved.” To find that this provision applies, the Court must be satisfied that the circumstances complained of no longer obtain and that the effects of a possible violation of the Convention on account of those circumstances have been redressed (see, Pisano v. Italy (striking out) [GC], no. 36732/97, § 42, 24 October 2002). In the present case, this entails establishing whether the applicants’ property rights were restored and, whether the measures taken by the authorities adequately redressed their complaints. The Court notes in this connection that an applicant’s consent to withdraw an application is not a prerequisite for the application of subparagraph (b) of Article 37 § 1 of the Convention (see Pisano, cited above, § 41).
10. Starting with the first element, the Court notes that the property title of the three applicants over the plots of land concerned was restored; thus, the circumstances complained of no longer exist. As regards the question whether the effects of a possible violation of the Convention have been redressed, the Court considers that this is the case as the proceedings have been terminated in the applicants’ favour. At no point did the applicants argue that they had been evicted from the plots of land concerned or otherwise prevented from using their property (see Ogden v. Croatia (dec.), no. 27567/13, § 32, 10 February 2015; contrast with Strekalev v. Russia, no. 21363/09, § 48, 11 April 2017). There appears to be no remaining risk to their property rights either (see Ana Ionescu and Others v. Romania, nos. 19788/03 and 18 others, §§ 15-16, 26 February 2019; compare Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 1375/14, §§ 27-28, 2 July 2019 and Besnik Xhemalaj and Others v. Albania (dec.) [Committee], no. 11994/05, §§ 21‑22, 27 January 2015).
11. As to their claims for costs of the proceedings before the national courts, as correctly pointed out by the Government, the applicants did not make any claims for costs and expenses within the time-limit fixed. The claims they submitted at a later stage were not supported by any relevant evidence and consequently cannot be taken into account. The applicants additionally claimed EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Leaving aside the fact of their failing to claim those non-pecuniary damages as a part of just satisfaction claims, the Court notes the Government’s argument that the applicants could have claimed compensation for non‑pecuniary damage under the torts law. It appears that they still have this possibility as the statutory time-limit for a tort claim under the relevant provisions of Civil Code is three years and they have failed to provide any explanation for their inaction in this regard.
12. Lastly, the applicants claimed that they had not received compensation for the legal costs in the Convention proceedings, for which they claimed the amount of EUR 2,000 each. Pursuant to Rule 43 § 4 of the Rules of the Court, the Court has discretion to award costs if a case is struck out of the list. The fact that the applicant still has a claim for costs does not therefore prevent the application of Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. In any event, however, as already noted above, the applicants failed to claim these costs in a proper and timely manner.
13. In the light of the above, the Court considers that the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention and that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the applications under Article 37 § 1 in fine.
Accordingly, the cases should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.
Done in English and notified in writing on 12 November 2020.
Anne-Marie DouginGanna Yudkivska
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Appendix
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
1
31315/12
Shavadze v. Georgia
21/05/2012
Otar SHAVADZE
28/08/1958
Batumi
Georgian
Khatuna BAGRATIONI
2
32241/12
Kvirikadze-Makharadze v. Georgia
18/05/2012
Shorena KVIRIKADZE-MAKHARADZE
28/03/1972
Batumi
Georgian
Khatuna BAGRATIONI
3
33186/12
Iremadze v. Georgia
24/05/2012
Enver IREMADZE
04/02/1960
Batumi
Georgian
Khatuna BAGRATIONI
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy