CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 15 septembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s490D418E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD8BF637E { margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s21B1FE17 { width:12.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC38D9B28 { width:156.85pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s2753FA3F { width:163.53pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 8100/09 Levan GOGIDZE against Russia and 2 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 15   September 2020 as a Committee composed of:   Aleš Pejchal, President,   Pauliine Koskelo,   Tim Eicke, judges, and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on 8   February 2009, Having regard to the decision of 24 August 2011 to give notice of the applications to the Russian Government (“the Government”) for information, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     A list of the applicants, all Georgian nationals, and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the Appendix. 2.     The applicants submitted various complaints in the context of events relating to the conflict in August   2008 (see Dzhioyeva and Others v.   Georgia (dec.), nos.   24964/09, 20548/09 and 22469/09, §   14, 20   November 2018). COMPLAINTS Gogidze v. Russia (no. 8100/09) 3.     The applicant raised various complaints under Articles 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. To support his claims, the applicant submitted to the Court his written statement, a certificate issued by a municipal authority confirming residence, as well as ownership and destruction of property in the village of Achabeti, and an identity card. While throughout the application form the applicant indicated the year of 1936 (with no indication of the date or month) as his date of birth, the certificate issued by the municipality and the identity card referred to a date in 1940. Babutsidze v. Russia (no. 8177/09) 4.     The applicant raised various complaints under Articles   8, 13 and   14 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention. To support his claims, the applicant submitted to the Court a certificate issued by a municipal authority confirming residence and ownership of property in the village of Achabeti, and his identity card. The date of birth written on the identity card was different from the one indicated on the certificate issued by the municipal authority. Gegelashvili v. Russia (no. 8270/09) 5.     The applicant raised various complaints under Articles 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention. To support her claims, the applicant only submitted to the Court a certificate confirming ownership of property in respect of an individual other than herself, with no explanation as to its relevance. THE LAW 6.     Given their similar factual and legal background, the Court decides that applications nos. 8100/09, 8177/09 and 8270/09 should be joined under Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of the Court. 7.     The Court has already dealt with similar complaints and made findings regarding the issue of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article   35 §   1 of the Convention and a duty incumbent on applicants to substantiate their grievances by supplying evidence in support of their claims in the previous cases against Georgia which concerned events relating to the conflict of August 2008 (see Dzhioyeva and Others v.   Georgia (dec.), nos.   24964/09, 20548/09 and 22469/09, 20 November 2020, §§   23-30; Naniyeva and Bagayev v.   Georgia (dec.), nos.   2256/09 and 2260/09, §§   19-26, 20   November 2018; and Kudukhova v.   Georgia (dec.), nos.   8274/09 and 8275/09, §§   21-28, 20   November 2018). These considerations also apply in the present case. 8.     In particular, the Court would reiterate that it is not a tribunal of facts and cannot, without appropriate assistance on the part of the applicants, establish the factual account of complex events, such as situations of armed conflict (see Naniyeva and Bagayev , cited above, §   39). In this connection, the Court observes that the documents submitted by the applicants, who were represented by a lawyer, contained personal information which did not correspond to the one indicated in the relevant application forms (see paragraphs   3-5 above). It cannot therefore be said that these documents relate to their grievances. 9.     Accordingly, it follows that the applications are unsubstantiated and must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, in accordance with Article 35 §§   3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the present applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 8 October 2020.   Renata Degener   Aleš Pejchal   Deputy Registrar   President   Appendix     No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of birth Place of residence before August   2008   Principal representative 1 8100/09 Gogidze v. Russia 08/02/2009 Levan GOGIDZE Date of birth unclear Achabeti Village Ms Ts. Javakhishvili 2 8177/09 Babutsidze v. Russia 08/02/2009 Zurabi BABUTSIDZE Date of birth unclear Achabeti Village 3 8270/09 Gegelashvili v. Russia 08/02/2009 Eka GEGELASHVILI 1975 Avnevi Village