CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 20 décembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s64E792FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s74FD211E { width:197.76pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s1DAFEEA6 { border:0.75pt solid #17365d; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ddd9c3 } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6674DD39 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; list-style-position:inside } .sAD9A27EF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:10.75pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-10.75pt; font-size:11pt } .s1D5AA5BA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:10.75pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sC8139CB0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:10.75pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sCC38519 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:10.75pt; font-size:11pt } .sC202EACC { clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break }     THIRD SECTION           CASE OF BERDZENISHVILI AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA     (Applications nos. 14594/07, 14597/07, 14976/07, 14978/07, 15221/07, 16369/07 and 16706/07)                     JUDGMENT ( Merits )     STRASBOURG   20 December 2016     FINAL   20/03/2017   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Berdzenishvili and others v. Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   Helena Jäderblom,   Helen Keller,   Dmitry Dedov,   Branko Lubarda,   Pere Pastor Vilanova,   Georgios A. Serghides, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 29 November 2016, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in seven applications (nos.   14594/07, 14597/07, 14976/07, 14978/07, 15221/07, 16369/07 and 16706/07) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by 19 Georgian nationals (“the applicants”), whose names, dates of birth and places of residence are shown on the list appended to this judgment. The applications were lodged on 2 April 2007, 30 March 2007, 5 April 2007, 4 April 2007, 5 April 2007, 6 April 2007 and 10   April   2007 respectively. 2.     The applicants were represented by several lawyers, whose names are shown on the list appended to this judgment. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr G.   Matyushkin, Representative of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. 3.     The applicants alleged that they had been arrested, detained and collectively expelled as part of an administrative practice that was in place in autumn 2006 in the Russian Federation directed against Georgian nationals. According to the applicants these acts resulted in violations of Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14, 17 and 18 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, Articles 2 and 4 of Protocol No. 4 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7. 4.     The applications were allocated to the former Fifth Section of the Court. On 9   February 2010 a Chamber of the former Fifth Section decided to communicate the applications to the Government for information and to adjourn their examination pending the outcome of the proceedings in the inter-State case Georgia v. Russia (I) [GC] (no.   13255/07). 5.     On 5 February 2014 the President of the Court decided to allocate the applications to the former First Section, which, on 27 January 2015, decided to invite the Government to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the applications and to produce the relevant documents. Subsequently the applications were allocated to the Third Section. 6.     The Government and the applicants each submitted observations on the admissibility and merits of the cases. In addition, third-party comments were received from the Government of the Republic of Georgia (Article   36   § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 1 of the Rules of Court). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A.     The background to the cases 7.     During the period from the end of September 2006 to the end of January 2007 identity checks of Georgian nationals residing in Russia were carried out in the streets, markets and other workplaces and at their homes. Many were subsequently arrested and taken to police stations. After a period of custody in police stations, they were grouped together and taken by bus to a court, which summarily imposed administrative penalties on them and gave decisions ordering their administrative expulsion from Russian territory. Subsequently, after sometimes undergoing a medical visit and a blood test, they were taken to detention centres for foreigners where they were detained for varying periods of time, and then taken by bus to various airports in Moscow, and expelled to Georgia by aeroplane. Some of the Georgian nationals against whom expulsion orders were issued left the territory of the Russian Federation by their own means (for further details as to the background of the case see Georgia v.   Russia (I) [GC], no.   13255/07, §   45, ECHR 2014). B.     The particular circumstances of each case (arrest, detention and expulsion of the applicants) 1.     Vaja BERDZENISHVILI (born on 28 July 1976, application no.   14594/07) 8.     The applicant entered the territory of the Russian Federation on 1   June 2006 on a multiple entry business visa, valid until 27 May 2007. On 4   October 2006 immigration officers stopped the applicant on the street, checked his identity documents and brought him to the Department of the Interior in the Vykhino District of Moscow, where he was detained. On 5   October 2006 the Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow fined the applicant (RUB 1,000) for failure to observe the applicable registration procedure and ordered his administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation. He was subsequently, around midday, released. On 8 October 2006 the applicant left the Russian Federation by his own means. 2.     Tengiz KBILASHVILI (born on 11 November 1964, application no.   14597/07) 9.     The applicant entered the territory of the Russian Federation on 12   August 2006 on a multiple entry business visa. Subsequently he registered at his place of residence with the competent authority and worked as a driver in Moscow. On 1 October 2006 the applicant was detained in the Cheremushkinskiy militia department. On 3 October 2006 the Cheremushkinskiy District Court of Moscow found the applicant liable under Article 18.10 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences, as he had not applied for a work permit. The court fined the applicant (RUB 1,000) and ordered his administrative expulsion from the Russian Federation. He was subsequently transferred to the Kankova militia department, where he was detained until the next day. On 4 October 2006 he was transferred to the Centre for Temporary Detention of Aliens no.1, where he stayed until his deportation. On 6 October 2006 the applicant was taken to a military airport and was flown to Georgia with a cargo plane. 3.     Abram GIVISHVILI (born on 2 January 1964, application no.   14976/07) 10.     The applicant entered the territory of the Russian Federation on 6   July   2000 under the visa-free regime and settled in the village of Mescheryakovka in the Arkadakskiy District of the Saratov Region. On 10   October 2006 the applicant was arrested by police officers during an identity check operation in the area of his residence. Later that same day the Arkadakskiy Disrtict Court of the Saratov Region found him guilty of staying in the country without the required residence permit. The court fined the applicant (RUB 1,000), ordered his detention and his expulsion. Subsequently the applicant was transferred to a detention centre for aliens. On 12 October 2006, after friends of the applicant had paid the administrative fine and bought him an aeroplane ticket to Armenia for the next day, the applicant was released. On 13 October 2006 the applicant left the territory of the Russian Federation, leaving behind his property and belongings. 4.     Liana NACHKEBIA (born on 24 July 1948, application no.   14978/07) 11.     The applicant entered the territory of the Russian Federation in 2004 and worked on a market in Moscow. On 4 October 2006 the market was raided by a special unit of the police and the applicant, together with around twenty other Georgian nationals, was arrested. The applicant was brought to the Department of the Interior in the Southern Orekhovo-Borisovo District of Moscow. On 5 October 2006 the Nagatinskiy District Court of Moscow found her guilty of staying in the country without the required residence permit. The court fined the applicant (RUB 1,000), ordered her detention and her expulsion. Subsequently the applicant was transferred to the Centre for Temporary Detention of Aliens no. 2. On 17 October 2006 the applicant was taken to a military airport and flown to Georgia with a cargo plane. 5.     Eka CHKAIDZE and David JAOSHVILI (born respectively on 1   December 1979 and on 12 February 1975, application no.   15221/07) 12.     The applicants entered the territory of the Russian Federation in December 2002/January 2003 and lived there without the required visa, at the latest since 25 December 2003. On 6 October 2006 both applicants were apprehended by the police and brought to the Ivanovskoye police station of the Department of the Eastern Administrative District of Moscow. On the same day the Perovskiy District Court of Moscow fined both applicants (RUB 1,500 each) for staying in the country without the required registration and ordered their expulsion. Subsequently both applicants were released. On 16 October 2006 the applicants left the Russian Federation by their own means with their son, leaving behind most of their belongings. 13.     An alleged detention of the applicants’ son and the fact whether the applicants owned a car, which they had to leave behind when leaving the Russian Federation, are matters of contention (see paragraphs 50-52 below). 6.     TWELVE APPLICANTS (application no. 16369/07) (a)     Irina CHOKHELI (born on 29 August 1967) 14.     The applicant entered the Russian Federation on an unknown date on a multi-entry business visa, valid until 15 August 2007. She had registered her place of residence through a private agency and received a certificate valid until 16 March 2007. On 11 October 2006 the applicant was apprehended by police officers for an inspection of her identity documents and was brought to the Vykhino police station in Moscow, where she was subsequently detained. On 12   October 2006 the Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow fined the applicant (RUB 1,000) for not complying with the applicable registration obligation, ordered her detention and expulsion. On 13   October 2006 the applicant was transferred to the Centre for Temporary Detention of Aliens no. 2, where she was detained until her expulsion. On 17   October 2006 she was brought by bus to Demododova airport and was flown to Georgia. (b)     Levan KOBAIDZE and Koba KOBAIDZE (born respectively on 8   April   1986 and 7   October 1988) 15.     The first applicant stayed in the Russian Federation on a multi-entry business visa, valid until 13 February 2007, and had registered his place of residence through a private agency. The second applicant had a temporary document issued by the Consulate of Georgia, authorising his residency in the Russian Federation until 5 November 2006. On 11 October 2006 the applicants were apprehended by police officers for an inspection of their documents and brought to the Vykhino police station in Moscow, where they were subsequently detained. On 12   October 2006 the Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow fined the applicants (RUB 1,000 each) for not complying with the applicable registration obligation and ordered their detention and expulsion. On 12 October 2006 the applicants were transferred to the Centre for Temporary Detention of Aliens no. 1, where they were detained until their expulsion. On 28 October 2006 the applicants were brought by bus to Demododova airport and were flown to Georgia. (c)     Nato SHAVSHISHVILI (born on 18 March 1956) 16.     The applicant had lived in Russia since 2005 and had a visa and registration valid until 19 October 2006. On 18 October 2006 the applicant left the Russian Federation by her own means. 17.     An alleged detention of the applicant in the beginning of October 2006 is a matter of contention (see paragraphs 53-55 below). (d)     David LATSABIDZE (born on 15 March 1961) 18.     The applicant had lived in Moscow since 1992. He worked as an engineer, had a visa valid until 28 October 2006 and a registration certificate, issued by a private agency, valid until the same day. 19.     It is a matter of contention, whether the applicant had been detained, whether his expulsion was ordered by a court and whether he was deported (see paragraphs 56-59 below). (e)     Artur SARKISIAN and Andrei SARKISIAN (born respectively on 23   February 1981 and on 12 November 1982) 20.     The applicants had lived in the Russian Federation since 1993, most recently in Moscow. The first applicant had a visa valid from 8 May 2006 until 7 May 2007. The second applicant had a visa valid from 30 June 2006 until 19 June 2007. Both applicants were in possession of registration certificates, valid until respectively 8 November 2006 and 30 December 2006. The applicants left the Russian Federation on 19 October 2006 by their own means. 21.     An alleged detention of both applicants is a matter of contention (see paragraphs 60-62 below). (f)     Gocha KHMALADZE (born on 17 December 1968) 22.     The applicant had lived in the Russian Federation since 2001. He had a visa valid until 30 August 2007 and a registration certificate that had expired on 18 September 2006. On 11 October 2006 the applicant was arrested by police officers and was brought to the Department of the Interior in the Vykhino district of Moscow, where he was detained. On 12   October 2006 the Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow fined the applicant (RUB   1,000), ordered his detention and subsequent expulsion. After the decision of the District Court the applicant was transferred to the Centre for Temporary Detention of Aliens no. 1, where he was detained until his expulsion. On 28 October 2006 the applicant was brought by bus to Demododova airport and was flown to Georgia. (g)     Irina KALANDIA (born on 18 January 1980) 23.     The applicant had lived in Moscow since 1997. She had a valid visa and a registration, but no work permit. On 27 September 2006 she was apprehended by police officers in a grocery store, and, after her identity papers had been checked and an administrative report had been drawn up, the applicant was released. On 6 October 2006 the Simonovskiy Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty of working without the required work permit and fined her (RUB 1,000). In addition the court ordered her detention and subsequent expulsion. After the court hearing the applicant was detained and brought to the Centre for Temporary Detention of Aliens no.   2, where she was detained until her expulsion. On 10 October 2006 the applicant was brought to Demododova airport and was flown to Georgia. (h)     Kakha TSIHISTAVI (born on 24 February 1983) 24.     The applicant entered the Russian Federation in May 2005 and settled in Moscow. He had a valid visa until 1 March 2007. On 3 October 2006 the applicant was apprehended by officers of the Department of the Interior of the Mozhayskiy district of Moscow and brought to their station, where he was detained. On the same day the Kuntsevskiy District Court of Moscow fined the applicant for not observing the applicable registration procedure and ordered his detention and expulsion. The applicant was brought to the Centre for Temporary Detention of Aliens no. 1, where he was detained until his expulsion. On 11 October 2006, after the applicant’s relatives had bought him an aeroplane ticket to Georgia, he was brought to the airport and released. The applicant left the Russian Federation on that day. (i)     Koba NORAKIDZE (born on 17 April 1969) 25.     The applicant had arrived in Moscow for the first time in February 2002. Since then he had lived, with short interruptions, in the Russian Federation and worked as a driver. After the last interruption he entered the Russian Federation on 4 March 2006 on a one month visa. On 6 October 2006 the Litkarinskiy Town Court of Moscow Region discontinued proceedings against the applicant for not observing the applicable registration procedure. On 23 October 2006 the Kuzminskiy District Court of Moscow fined the applicant (RUB 1,000) for not observing the applicable registration procedure. The court also ordered his expulsion from the Russian Federation. On 24 October 2006 the applicant left Russia by aeroplane. 26.     The arrests and detentions surrounding the two court decisions are matters of contention (see paragraphs 63-66 below). (j)     Khatuna DZADZAMIA (born on 27 January 1983) 27.     The applicant arrived in the Russian Federation in 1993 for the first time. On 6 September 2004 she was expelled from the Russian Federation due to a violation of visa-related regulations. On 8 October 2004 the applicant returned to Moscow. For the relevant time the applicant had a visa and registration, valid until respectively 8 October 2006 and 28 February 2007. The Presnenskiy District Court of Moscow decided that the expulsion decision of 2004 had included a five year ban from entering the Russian Federation. Consequently it fined the applicant (RUB 1,500), ordered her detention and expulsion. After several days of detention the applicant was expelled from the Russian Federation. 28.     The exact circumstances and dates of the applicant’s arrest, detention, court decision and expulsion are matters of contention (see paragraphs 67-70 below). 7.     Inga GIGASHVILI (born on 29 September 1969, application no.   16706/07) 29.     The applicant entered the territory of the Russian Federation on 12   August 2006 on a multiple entry business visa. Subsequently she registered at her place of residence with the competent authority through a private agency. On 11 October 2006 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow fined the applicant (RUB 1,000) for not having a valid, but a counterfeited, registration certificate. The court also ordered her detention and expulsion. At the latest on 12 October 2012 the applicant was transferred to the Centre for Temporary Detention of Aliens no. 2, where she was held until her expulsion. On 17 October 2006 the applicant was taken to a military airport and was flown to Georgia with a cargo plane. 30.     The date of the applicant’s arrest and her detention before 12   October 2006 are matters of contention (see paragraphs 71-73 below). C.     Conditions of detention 31.     The conditions of detention in the different places of detention are a matter of contention (see paragraphs 111-112 below). II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     Immigration laws and particular situation of Georgian nationals 32.     The entry and residence of immigrants are governed by two laws: Federal Law no. 115-FZ of 25 July 2002 on the Legal Status of Foreign Nationals in the Russian Federation and Federal Law no. 109-FZ of 18 July 2006 on the Registration in the Russian Federation of Migrants who are Foreign Nationals or Stateless Persons. Since the entry into force on 29 October 2002 of the Law on the Legal Status of Foreign Nationals, all citizens of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) – including Georgian nationals – are required to regularise their situation by applying for a residence permit, although they were previously lawfully resident on Russian territory. Under sections   20 and 21 of that Law, they must also submit a registration application to the local offices of the Russian Federal Migration Service, in order to obtain a registration certificate indicating their place of residence. If they want to carry on a professional activity they are required to obtain a work permit and a migrant worker’s card in accordance with section 13. A business visa ( деловая ) of variable duration is issued to foreign nationals wanting to take part in a seminar or having business contacts in the Russian Federation, but does not authorise them to work there legally. In addition, since 5 December 2000, following the denunciation of the Bishkek Agreement of 9 October 1992 on visa-free travel for the citizens of several member States of the CIS, including Georgia, all Georgian nationals must apply for a visa to enter Russian territory. B.     Administrative expulsion procedure 33.     Any foreign national who infringes the immigration regulations of the Russian Federation (Articles 18.8, 18.10 and 18.11 of the Code of Administrative Offences) is liable to administrative penalties and risks expulsion (Article 3.2). In addition, pursuant to Article 18.10 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences, a foreign national who engages in work activities without a work permit is also liable to an administrative fine and risks administrative expulsion. 34.     Any decision concerning an accusation of an administrative nature that may result in expulsion from the Russian Federation is to be taken by a judge of an ordinary court (Article 23.1 § 3). An appeal lies to a court or appeal court within ten days (Article 30.1 § 1, 30.2 § 2 and 30. 3 § 1). This deadline may be extended at the request of the appellant (Article 30.3 § 2). An appeal against an administrative expulsion order is to be examined within one day of the lodging of the appeal documents (Article 30.5 § 3), is exonerated from court fees and is of suspensive effect (Articles 31.1, 31.2 §   2, and 31.3 §§ 1, 2 and 3). Lastly, a foreign national may also lodge an appeal with the courts of review against an administrative expulsion order that has become enforceable (judgments of the Constitutional Court of 22   April 2004 and 12 April 2005 on the constitutionality of Articles   30.11 §§   1, 2 and 3 of the Code of Administrative Offences). THE LAW I.     PRELIMINARY ISSUES A.     The Government’s preliminary objection 35.     The Government submitted that the Court should refrain from examining the issues raised in the individual applications, as it has already, in its judgment on the inter-State application Georgia v. Russia (I) (cited above), found violations of the rights of particular nationals of the Republic of Georgia and therefore of the rights of the individual applicants. The Government argued that finding violations of Convention rights of the same persons under the same circumstances under proceedings instituted on an individual application would result in “double jeopardy of the state”, which would not be acceptable under international law. 36.     The applicants argued that there is no prohibition of “double jeopardy of a state” known to international law, as the double jeopardy doctrine only protects individuals from being tried or punished twice for the same offence. As far as the submission of the Government might be interpreted as an objection under Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention, the applicants argue that the individual applications can not be regarded as substantially the same as the inter-State application. The applicants submit that the inter-State case was brought by the Government of Georgia but not by the individual applicants and that therefore the Court only decided on violations of rights of unnamed nationals of the Republic of Georgia but did not give a ruling on individual violations of rights guaranteed by the Convention (see Georgia v. Russia (I) , cited above, § 128). 37.     The Court notes that the Convention only entails a prohibition of “double jeopardy of states” in so far as pursuant to Article 35 § 2 (b) of the Convention the Court shall not deal with any application that “... is substantially the same as a matter that has already been examined by the Court or has already been submitted to another procedure of international investigation or settlement and contains no relevant new information.” In that regard the Court reiterates that for an application to be “substantially the same”, it must concern substantially not only the same facts and complaints but be introduced by the same persons. It is therefore not the case that by introducing an inter-State application an applicant Government thereby deprives individual applicants of the possibility of introducing, or pursuing, their own claims ( Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, § 118, ECHR 2009). Therefore the Court concludes that the prior examination of the inter-State case Georgia v.   Russia (I) (cited above) does not hinder the Court from examining the present individual applications. B.     Withdrawal of his application by Mr Gocha KHMALADZE 38.     The Court notes that by letter of 27 October 2015 the legal representative of Mr Gocha Khmaladze informed the Court that his client no longer wishes to pursue the application. In accordance with Article 37 § 1 in   fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention and its Protocols, which require the continued examination of this part of the application. 39.     The Court therefore decides to strike the application no. 16369/07, insofar as it has been brought by Mr Gocha Khmaladze, out of its list of cases under Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. C.     Death of Mr Koba NORAKIDZE 40.     The applicant Koba Norakidze (application no. 16369/07) died on 1   May 2012. The representatives of the applicant notified the Court about this fact by letter of 27 October 2015. They also informed the Court that the son of the deceased, Mr Tato Norakidze, wishes to pursue the application lodged by his father before the Court. 41.     The Government objected to a continuation of the application by Mr   Tato Norakidze, and argued that the fact that the applicant’s representatives had not informed the Court earlier about the applicant’s death should be considered a loss of interest to pursue the application. 42.     The Court recalls that in various cases where an applicant died in the course of the proceedings it has taken into account the statements of the applicant’s heirs or of close members of his family who expressed the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court. It is not decisive that the next of kin has only manifested his or her wish to pursue the application only after a considerable time but that he or she has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application. Human rights cases before the Court generally have a moral dimension and persons near to an applicant may thus have a legitimate interest in seeing to it that justice is done even after the applicant’s death (see Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR   2000 ‑ XII, with further references). 43.     In sum the Court considers that Mr Tato Norakidze, as the son of the deceased applicant, has a legitimate interest in pursuing the application. The Court therefore concludes that the conditions for striking the case out from the list of pending cases, as defined in Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, are not met. Accordingly the Court must continue to examine the application at Mr   Tato Norakidze’s request. II.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 44.     Having regard to the similar subject matter and factual background of the seven applications, the Court has decided to join them, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court. III.     THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS A.     General Principles 45.     The Court reiterates that the proceedings before the Court are adversarial in nature. It is therefore for the parties to substantiate their factual arguments by providing the Court with the necessary evidence. Whereas the Court is responsible for establishing the facts, it is up to the parties to provide active assistance by supplying it with all the relevant information. In this context, the conduct of the parties when evidence is being obtained has to be taken into account ( Lisnyy and others v. Ukraine and Russia (dec.), nos. 5355/15, 44913/15, 50853/15, § 25, 5 July 2016, with further references). 46.     In cases in which there are conflicting accounts of events, the Court is inevitably confronted with the same difficulties as those faced by any first-instance court when establishing the facts. As to facts in dispute, the Court reiterates its jurisprudence requiring a standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” in its assessment of evidence. Such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact ( Aslakhanova and Others v.   Russia , nos. 2944/06, 8300/07, 50184/07, 332/08 and 42509/10, § 95, 18   December 2012, with further references). 47.     Furthermore, it is to be recalled that Convention proceedings do not in all cases lend themselves to a strict application of the principle affirmanti incumbit probatio ( El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, § 152, ECHR 2012). Under certain circumstances the Court has borne in mind the difficulties associated with obtaining evidence and the fact that often little evidence can be submitted by the applicants in support of their applications ( Saydulkhanova v. Russia , no. 25521/10, §   56, 25   June 2015). According to the Court’s settled case-law, in these cases it is for the applicant to make only a prima facie case and to adduce appropriate evidence. If, in response to such allegations made by the applicants, the Government then fail to disclose crucial documents to establish the facts or otherwise provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation, strong inferences may be drawn. The prima facie threshold is reached primarily on the basis of witness statements, including the applicants’ submission to the Court and to domestic authorities, and other evidence (see Aslakhanova , cited above, §§ 97, 99, with further references). However, where the applicants fail to make a prima facie case, the burden of proof can not be reversed (see Saydulkhanova , cited above, § 56, with further references). 48.     The Court has already found that these considerations apply to disappearances examined under Article 5 of the Convention, where, although it has not been proved that a person has been taken into custody by the authorities, it is possible to establish that he or she was officially summoned by the authorities, entered a place under their control and has not been seen since. In such circumstances, the onus is on the Government to provide a plausible and satisfactory explanation as to what happened on the premises and to show that the person concerned was not detained by the authorities, but left the premises without subsequently being deprived of his or her liberty. Furthermore, the Court reiterates that, again in the context of a complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, it has required proof in the form of concordant inferences before the burden of proof is shifted to the Government (see El-Masri , cited above, § 153, with further references). B.     Application to the present case 49.     The Court reiterates that it concluded in Georgia v. Russia (I) (cited above, § 159) that from October 2006 a coordinated policy of arresting, detaining and expelling Georgian nationals had been put in place in the Russian Federation, which had amounted to an administrative practice. While the Court does not suggest that at that time all Georgian nationals were arrested or detained in the Russian Federation, it nevertheless finds it appropriate to apply the principles concerning reversing the burden of proof to the present case. Nonetheless, where the applicants failed to make a prima facie case, no strong inferences will be drawn and proof “beyond reasonable doubt” would be required. 1.     Eka CHKAIDZE and David JAOSHVILI (born respectively on 1   December 1979 and on 12 February 1975, application no.   15221/07) 50.     According to the applicants their then six year old son had been detained for five hours at the Ivanov district police department on 9   October 2006 and he was only released after the payment of a bribe. The applicants also indicated that their belongings, which they had to leave behind in Russia, included a car. 51.     The Government objected to the allegation of the detention of the applicants’ son and stated that an inquiry by the prosecutor’s offices had not produced any proof for this allegation. The Government also indicated that no vehicle was registered in the name of the applicants in the database of the State Traffic Police Department. 52.     The Court observes that the applicants’ submission was of a general nature and lacked several important details, such as the exact time of the detention, the amount of the paid bribe, the make, model or registration number of the car (see, a contrario , El-Masri , cited above, § 156). The Court also notes that the applicants did neither submit any documents or witness statements regarding the alleged detention of their son and the ownership of the car nor have they informed the Court of any attempts they may have made in order to obtain at least fragmentary documentary evidence to substantiate their allegations (see Lisnyy and others , cited above, § 30). Accordingly, the Court finds that the applicants have not made a prima facie case and that the information in the Court’s possession does not suffice to establish that the applicants’ son had been detained on 9   October 2006 or that the applicants had to leave behind their car (see, mutatis mutandis , Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan [GC], no. 40167/06, § 183, ECHR 2015). 2.     Nato SHAVSHISHVILI (born on 18 March 1956, application no.   16369/07) 53.     The applicant alleged that on or around 28 to 30 September 2006 she was arrested by police officers and brought to the Department of the Interior, where she was detained for four days. Due to health issues, according to the applicant half her body had become paralysed, she was released on the evening of the fourth day. On 18 October 2006 she left the Russian Federation by aeroplane. 54.     The Government submitted that neither the Federal Migration Service nor the Department of the Interior had any records or information about the placement of the applicant in any detention facility. 55.     The Court observes that the applicant alleges a detention in a not closer specified police station. The Court also notes that the applicant was not able to provide the exact date of her arrest and that she did not submit any medical certificate regarding her paralysis, which was allegedly the reason for her release. Having regard to these uncertainties, the Court finds that the applicant has neither made a prima facie case nor that the applicant’s detention has been established beyond reasonable doubt (see, mutatis mutandis , Lisnyy and others , cited above, §§ 27, 28). 3.     David LATSABIDZE (born on 15 March 1961, application no.   16369/07) 56.     According to the applicant he was arrested on 10 October 2006 by officers of the migration authorities and was brought to the Department of the Interior for the Serpokhova district of Moscow, where he was kept for approximately one and a half hours. On the same day the applicant was taken to an unspecified District Court in Moscow, which ordered his detention and expulsion. Subsequently the applicant was transferred to the Serpokhova special detention centre, where he was detained until his expulsion. On 17 October 2006 the applicant was taken by bus to Domodedovo airport and he was flown, by cargo plane, to Georgia. 57.     The Government submitted that neither the Federal Migration Service nor the Department of the Interior had any records or information about the placement of the applicant in any detention facility. It further indicated that a Serpukhovskiy temporary detention centre does not exist. 58.     The Government provided several documents with regard to administrative proceedings concerning the applicant. These include an administrative offence report from the Leninskiy district dated 13 October 2006, indicating the applicant’s arrest on the same day at 10 o’clock and a decision of the Vidnoye Town Court of the Moscow Region, also dated 13   October 2006, fining the applicant (RUB 1,000) for not observing the applicable registration procedure, and ordering the applicant’s expulsion. The Court decision also indicates that the applicant shall be held at the Reception Centre of Serpukhov until his expulsion. Furthermore, the judgment shows a stamp of Domodova airport, dated 17 October 2006. 59.     On the basis of the material in its possession, the Court finds it established that the applicant was arrested on 13 October 2006 and taken to the Leninskiy police station, where he was held for one and a half hours. Subsequently the applicant was brought before the Vidnoye Town Court, which fined the applicant and ordered his detention and expulsion. The applicant was then detained until 17 October 2006 in the Reception Centre of Serpukhov. On 17 October the applicant was taken by bus to Domodedovo airport and was then flown, by cargo plane, to Georgia. 4.     Artur SARKISIAN and Andrei SARKISIAN (born respectively on 23   February 1981 and on 12 November 1982, application no.   16369/07) 60.     The applicants submitted that on 2 October 2006 they were stopped by police officers in the street next to the Oktiaborskoe pole metro station in Moscow for identity checks. Subsequently they were taken to the Department of the Interior for the Shchukino district of Moscow. After two hours they were transferred to a special detention centre in the Khoroshevo ‑ Mnevniki district. After eight days in the detention centre they were, for the first time, allowed to call their mother and were able to ask her to buy aeroplane tickets for them. After the applicants’ mother had done so and presented the aeroplane tickets to the officers of the detention centre, the applicants were released. On 19 October 2006 the applicants left the Russian Federation by aeroplane from Domodedova airport in Moscow. 61.     The Government submitted that an inquiry into the alleged detention in the Department of the Interior for Shchukino and Khoroshevo-Mnevniki districts of Moscow did not confirm the applicants’ version of events. According to the Government the applicants had not been brought to the police station of the North-Western Administrative District of Moscow either, as that police station was closed for reconstruction at the relevant time. Lastly, the Government submitted that no criminal proceedings were instigated against the applicants. 62.     The Court notes that the applicants have submitted copies of their passports, showing that they left Russian territory on 19 October 2006, in support of their application. However, the Court also observes that the applicants have not submitted any documents, such as the aeroplane tickets and the receipts of the purchase, or witness statements, such as from their mother, corroborating their submission regarding their detention and release. Under these circumstances the Court finds it unable to conclude that the applicants have made a prima face case. Consequently, the burden of proof can not be reversed and fully shifted to the Government (see Saydulkhanova , cited above, § 56, with further references). The Court considers it not established beyond reasonable doubt that the applicants had been detained between 2 and 10 October 2006. 5.     Koba NORAKIDZE (born on 17 April 1969, application no.   16369/07) 63.     According to the applicant’s submission, on 4 October 2006 four police officers of the Litkarenko Department of the Ministry of the Interior visited him at home and checked his identity documents. Owing to him being Georgian and under the pretence that he was suspected of theft, he was taken to the Litkarino police station, where he was identified in an identity parade by the theft victim. Subsequently he was detained and only after the intervention of one of the applicant’s friends, who worked for the Federal Security Service, his involvement in the alleged theft was cleared up and the investigation was dropped. The applicant was nonetheless not released but kept in a cell of the police station overnight. On 5 October 2006 he was transferred to the special detention centre in the Lubedtsi district in Moscow, where he was detained until 6 October 2006, when the Litkarinskiy Town Court of Moscow Region discontinued proceedings against the applicant for not observing the registration procedure. Approximately two weeks later the applicant was stopped by two men in plainclothes on the highway, who forced the applicant into their car and put a hood over his head. After a two hour drive, the applicant was led to an unspecified police station and placed in a cell. On the third day of detention in the police station the applicant was handed a decision of the Kuzminskiy District Court, ordering his expulsion and fining the applicant (RUB 1,000). The next day, 24 October 2006, the applicant was taken to the Sheremetevo airport by police officers and put on a flight to Gandja, Azerbaijan. 64.     The Government submitted that the applicant was apprehended on 22   October 2006 by officers of the Department of the Interior of the Kuzminski district of Moscow and was brought before the Kuzminskiy District Court on 23 October 2006. The court fined the applicant for not observing the applicable registration procedure and ordered the applicant’s expulsion. The Government also stated that neither the Federal Migration Service nor the Department of the Ministry of the Interior had any records or information about any subsequent detention of the applicant and that the applicant was not forcibly removed from the Russian Federation, but left on his own on 24   October 2006. 65.     The applicant submitted inter alia the decision of the Litkarinskiy Town Court of Moscow Region of 6 October 2006 and of the Kuzminskiy District Court of 23 October 2006. The Government submitted in addition to the decision of the Kuzminskiy District Court, reports concerning the arrest and detention of the applicant on 22 October 2006. 66.     The Court observes that the applicant has not submitted any proof concerning his detention from 4 to 6 October 2006 and from 21 to 24   October 2006, and that his submission concerning the second alleged detention is partially fragmentary. The Court also notes that the Kuzminskiy District Court did not order the applicant’s subsequent detention in one of the Centres for Temporary Detention of Aliens, as the Russian courts did in other cases. Accordingly the Court considers the information submitted by the applicant insufficient to conclude that he has made a prima facie case. Therefore, the burden of proof can not be reversed and shifted to the Government (see Saydulkhanova , cited above, § 56, with further references). The Court considers it not established beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant had been detained between 4 and 7 October 2006. However, based on the information and documents provided by the Government, the Court concludes that the applicant had been detained in the Department of the Interior of the Kuzminski district of Moscow on 22 and 23   October 2006. 6.     Khatuna DZADZAMIA (born on 27 January 1983, application no.   16369/07) 67.     The applicant initially submitted that at the end of September 2006 she had submitted her passport and several other documents to her University, for the renewal of her registration. On 8 October 2006 she received a call from the University, informing her that there were problems with her passport and that she had to go to the Presninski Passport Department. When she went there the next day, she was notified about a decision to expel her, owing to her visa-related offence in 2004. On 11   October 2006 she returned to the passport department to prove that she was an internally deplaced person and had a right to stay in the Russian Federation. In the evening on the same day she was taken to the Presninski District Court, which confirmed her expulsion. Subsequently she was brought to the Police Department of the Presninski District, where she was detained until midnight. During the following hours the police attempted to bring her to several different detention centres, where she was not admitted as they were already full or only for men or for convicted persons. At around 6 o’clock in the morning of 11 October 2006 she was admitted