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 } .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 } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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. 12542/09 Karaman BEDIANASHVILI 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 the various dates indicated in the Appendix, 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 of whom are 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 3.     The applicant in application no.   12542/09 complained under Articles   2, 3, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention, Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention, and Article 2 of Protocol No.   4 to the Convention. The application form only gives the personal details of one applicant, a resident in the village of Pkhvenisi, while subsequently it refers to a number of applicants, without identifying them. The application form interchangeably refers to three apparently unrelated villages of Pkhvenisi, Charebi, and Kheiti. However, the complaints in respect of the alleged violations of the Convention exclusively concern the village of Kheiti to which the applicant has no apparent link. 4.     The two applicants in application no.   12551/09 complained under Articles   2, 3, 5, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention, Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention, and Article   2 of Protocol No.   4 to the Convention. The application form gives only the personal details of two applicants, residents in the village of Tamarasheni, while subsequently it refers to a number of applicants. The application form interchangeably refers to two apparently unrelated villages of Tamarasheni and Achabeti. The majority of the complaints are formulated in a generic manner, the submissions under Article   3 relate to “the first, second, third, fourth, seventh and ninth applicants”, and the complaint under Article   5 of the Convention refers to the “seventh applicant”. The complaints in respect of the alleged violations of the Convention exclusively concern the village of Achabeti to which the applicants have no apparent link. 5.     The applicant in application no.   25841/09 complained under Articles   2, 3, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention, Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention, and Article 2 of Protocol No.   4 to the Convention. The application form only gives the personal details of one applicant, a resident in the village of Charebi, while subsequently it refers to two applicants, without naming them. Two different dates of birth are given in respect of the applicant. The same person is interchangeably referred to as the applicant as well as the applicant’s neighbour. The application form refers to three apparently unrelated villages of Charebi, Zemo Khviti and Kheiti, and especially the latter to which the applicant has no apparent link. THE LAW 6.     Given their similar factual and legal background, the Court decides that applications nos. 12542/09, 12551/09 and 25841/09 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, §§   23-30, 20   November 2018; 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 applicants, who were represented by a lawyer, submitted inconsistent information as regards their grievances (see paragraphs   3-5 above). They cannot therefore be said to have substantiated 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   Represented by 1 12542/09 Bedianashvili v. Russia 17/02/2009 Karaman BEDIANASHVILI 1966   Mr N. Legashvili   2 12551/09 Datashvili and Gelashvili v. Russia 09/02/2009 Rusia DATASHVILI 1930   Giorgi GELASHVILI 1926 3 25841/09 Razmadze v. Russia 03/04/2009 Zhora RAZMADZE 1954