CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 17 décembre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sF28C8B01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA7F61D3B { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s13C79B1A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7BE5FA78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sA57875D8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .s391E78BA { font-family:Arial; background-color:#ffffff } .sEC28DD31 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .s55E5497F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s8565C3AF { margin:8pt 28.35pt 3pt 17pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s659CE682 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sF13A94BC { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 34pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s695099B3 { width:10.89pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3F015572 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 51pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .sB6D33163 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s833B1EA7 { width:7.55pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC0FFF6FB { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 68.05pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .sD46FFE5D { width:8.66pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s590C43FC { width:10.32pt; text-indent:0pt; font-family:'Lucida Console'; font-size:10pt; display:inline-block } .s77D491C3 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 34pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .sEAB539EC { width:7.83pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s63DE7A05 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 51pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s5822B218 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 68.05pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s8128D712 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 85.05pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s554D0A64 { width:4.78pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC15FC45D { width:3.55pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sDF290AB { width:6.61pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s8F14C0C0 { width:0.49pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD9370BF0 { width:14.44pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s35B94E0 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s70E0A597 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 85.05pt; text-indent:-17pt; line-height:12pt } .s4859184F { width:7pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s97F55089 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 51pt; text-indent:-17pt; line-height:12pt } .sD06D394E { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 68.05pt; text-indent:-17pt; line-height:12pt } .sB12058F2 { width:8.11pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF5711BAC { width:6.44pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sAEF678F5 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 50.75pt; text-indent:-33.75pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s5BA1F1FC { width:14.19pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .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 } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s81EF3014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s1E2B8B97 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s716C64EA { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt } .s74B60DCE { margin-left:42.72pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s66D0E078 { margin-left:-24.7pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD6845F38 { font-family:Arial; color:#0072bc } .s539148BA { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#000000 } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s807BA660 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.16pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.34pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7C9EDFAD { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC53553B8 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s5FB69022 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:29.21pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sA527F4CF { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s832D087D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:31.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s4F597665 { width:33.22pt; display:inline-block } .sEEEC397 { width:146.09pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   SECOND SECTION CASE OF TAGANOVA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA AND RUSSIA (Applications nos. 18102/04 and 4 others)   JUDGMENT This version was rectified on 21 January 2025 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.     Art 56 • Declaration by Georgia upon ratification of the Convention with respect to Abkhaz territory not capable of restricting the Convention’s territorial application thereto • Art 57 • Georgia’s reservation in respect of Art 1 P1 not valid as Art 57 requirements not met Art 1 • Jurisdiction o f Russia and Georgia over Abkhazia • Effective control exercised by Russia over Abkhaz territory in view of strong Russian presence and Abkhaz authorities’ dependency on the Russian Federation • Responsibility of Russia for complaints concerning the Abkhaz authorities in relation to applicants nos. 2-6 • Positive obligations of Georgia with regard to Abkhazia, a part of its territory over which at the time it had no control • No responsibility on the part of Georgia as positive obligations satisfied Art 1 P1 • Peaceful enjoyment of possessions • Art 8 • Home • Family life • Lack of access to properties and homes left behind in Abkhazia a continuing situation falling within Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis • Court competent to examine complaints in respect of Russia from the date it ratified the Convention (5 May 1998) up to the date it ceased to be a Party (16 September 2022) and in respect of Georgia as regards the complaints falling under Art 1 P1 from the date it ratified P1 (7 June 2022) and with regard to the remaining complaints from the date it ratified the Convention (20 May 1999) Art 35 § 1 • Exhaustion of domestic remedies • Lack of effective remedies in both Russia and Georgia with respect to complaints of applicants nos. 2-6 under Art 1 P1 Art 1 P1 • Peaceful enjoyment of possessions • Art 8 • Home • Family life • Applicants nos. 3-6 continuously deprived of access to, control, use and enjoyment of their property without any compensation and of access to their homes Art 1 P1 • Peaceful enjoyment of possessions • Art 8 • Home • Inability of applicant no. 2 to access his home in Abkhazia for a prolonged period of time until its return to him • Excessive individual burden • Inability to enjoy his home Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Access to court • Second applicant’s inability to have his dismissal from his job post examined by the de facto Abkhaz courts • Conclusions reached in Mamasakhlisi and Others v. Georgia and Russia applied • De facto Abkhaz courts could not qualify as a “tribunal established by law” • Situation in respect of the legal and judicial system in Abkhazia could not be attributed to Georgia   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.     STRASBOURG 17 December 2024   FINAL   17/03/2025   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION THE FACTS I.   Events relating to the first and second applicants, Ms Taganova and Mr Esartia (nos. 18102/04 and 48656/06) A.   House at no. 185 Sukhumi Road 1.   Actions pursued by the applicants before the de facto Abkhaz authorities 2.   Actions pursued by the applicants before the Russian authorities 3.   Actions pursued by the applicants before the Georgian authorities . 4.   Further developments B.   The second applicant’s dismissal from his job Actions pursued by the second applicant before the de facto Abkhaz authorities II.   Events relating to the third applicant, Ms Ketevan Mekhuzla (no.   5148/05) A.   Actions pursued by the applicant before the Georgian authorities 1.   Before the administrative authorities 2.   Before the courts (a)   At first instance (b)   At last instance B.   Further developments III.   Events relating to the fourth applicant, Ms Ksenia Sanaia (no.   26166/05) IV.   Events relating to the fifth and sixth applicants, Ms Suliko Dvali and Ms Marina Gogia (no. 42765/05) V.   Further developments concerning applications nos. 5148/05, 26166/05 and 42765/05 RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE I.   Reservation by Georgia II.   Declaration by Georgia III.   Georgian law on internally displaced persons IV.   Laws on occupied territories V.   Judgment of the Georgian constitutional court VI.   Right of property VII.   Legitimate courts of Abkhazia VIII.   Registration of property A.   Provisional registration of property B.   Resolution no. 400 on measures for declaring and inventorying real property located on occupied territories of Georgia IX.   Administrative decisions, acts or omissions X.   Compensation XI.   International material THE LAW I.   Preliminary remarks A.   Temporal scope B.   Right to pursue the application on behalf of the second, third, fourth and fifth applicants II.   Joinder of the applications III.   Admissibility issues A.   Incompatibility ratione temporis of the applications with the Convention provisions 1.   The parties’ positions 2.   The Court’s assessment (a)   General principles (b)   Application to the present case B.   Incompatibility ratione materiae of applications nos. 5148/05, 26166/05 and 42765/05, brought against both Georgia and Russia, and application no. 48656/06, brought against Russia, with the Convention provisions 1.   The parties’ positions 2.   The Court’s assessment (a)   The first applicant (b)   The remaining applicants C.   Incompatibility ratione loci and ratione personae of the applications with the provisions of the Convention 1.   The parties’ positions 2.   The Court’s assessment (a)   The jurisdiction of Georgia (b)   The jurisdiction of Russia 3.   Conclusion D.   Compliance with the six-month time-limit 1.   The parties’ positions 2.   The Court’s assessment (a)   General principles (b)   Application of those principles to the instant case E.   Exhaustion of domestic remedies F.   Alleged lack of substantiation of the applicants’ complaints in application no. 48656/06 1.   Submissions by the Russian Government 2.   Submissions by the applicants 3.   The Court’s assessment G.   The matter allegedly being resolved in application no.   18102/04 and alleged lack of victim status in application no. 48656/06 Conclusion IV.   Alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 A.   Applications nos. 5148/05, 26166/05 and 42765/05, brought against both Georgia and Russia 1.   Admissibility 2.   Merits (a)   Submissions by the parties (b)   The Court’s assessment B.   Application no. 18102/04 (against Georgia) and no. 48656/06 (against Russia) 1.   Admissibility 2.   Merits (a)   Submissions by the parties (b)   The Court’s assessment V.   Alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention A.   The parties’ submissions 1.   The applicants 2.   The respondent Governments B.   The Court’s assessment 1.   Applications nos. 5148/05, 26166/05 and 42765/05, against both Georgia and Russia 2.   Application no. 48656/06, against Russia VI.   Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention VII.   Alleged violation of Article 13 in conjunction with different articles of the Convention under which the applicants complained VIII.   Alleged violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of   the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 IX.   Application of Article   41 of the Convention A.   Damage 1.   Claims by the applicants (a)   In respect of application no. 48656/06 (b)   In respect of applications nos. 5148/05, 26166/05 and 42765/05 2.   Submissions by the Russian Government (a)   As regards application no.   48656/06 (b)   As regards applications nos. 5148/05, 26166/05 and 42765/05 3.   The Court’s assessment (a)   As regards application no.   48656/06 (b)   As regards applications nos. 5148/05, 26166/05 and 42765/05 B.   Costs and expenses 1.   The parties’ positions (a)   As regards applications nos. 5148/05, 26166/05 and 42765/05 (b)   As regards application no. 48656/06 2.   The Court’s assessment C.   Default interest APPENDIX In the case of Taganova and Others v. Georgia and Russia, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Arnfinn Bårdsen , President ,   Saadet Yüksel,   Lado Chanturia,   Pauliine Koskelo,   Jovan Ilievski,   Davor Derenčinović,   Gediminas Sagatys , judges , and Hasan Bakırcı, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications against Georgia and Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”), namely no.   18102/04 lodged against Georgia and no. 48656/06 lodged against Russia by Mrs Galina Alekseevna Taganova and Mr Tariel Apolonovich Esartia, both Russian nationals (“the first and second applicants”); no. 5148/05 lodged against Georgia and Russia by Ms Ketevan Mekhuzla, a Georgian national (“the third applicant”); no. 26166/05 lodged against Georgia and Russia by Ms   Ksenia Sanaia, a Georgian national (“the fourth applicant”); and no.   42765/05 lodged against Georgia and Russia by Ms Suliko Dvali and Ms Marina Gogia, both Georgian nationals (“the fifth and sixth applicants”), on the various dates indicated in the appended table; the decisions to give notice to the Georgian and Russian Governments of the applications; the parties’ observations; the comments submitted under Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule   44 § 3 of the Rules of Court in respect of application no. 48656/06 by the Georgian Government, which was invited to intervene by the Vice ‑ President of the Section; the decision of the President of the Section to appoint one of the elected judges of the Court to sit as an   ad hoc   judge in respect of Russia, applying by analogy Rule 29   §   2 of the Rules of Court (see   Kutayev v. Russia , no.   17912/15 , §§   5-8, 24   January 2023); Having deliberated in private on 26 November 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1 .     The applicants in applications nos. 18102/04 and 48656/06 complained primarily about their inability, over a prolonged period of time, to enjoy peacefully their home and movable property situated in Abkhaz territory, and to have access to a court in relation to that. The complaints in application no.   18102/04 (against Georgia) were made under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention, as well as under Articles 6 § 1, 13 and 14 of the Convention, while the complaints in application no.   48656/06 (against Russia) were made under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, and Articles 13 and 14 in conjunction with the above-mentioned provisions. 2.     The applicants in applications nos. 5148/05, 26166/05 and 42765/05 (against both Georgia and Russia), who had been granted legal aid, complained about having been denied access to, and having been unable to enjoy, their homes located in Abkhaz territory. They invoked Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, and Articles 13 and 14 in conjunction with the above-mentioned provisions. 3 .     The Court notes that the term “Abkhazia” refers to the region in Georgia which is currently outside the de facto control of the Georgian Government. 4.     Application no. 18102/04 was communicated to the Georgian Government on 28 February 2006. Applications nos. 5148/05, 26166/05 and 42765/05 were communicated to the Georgian and Russian Governments on 6 February 2007. Following an exchange of observations between the Georgian and Russian Governments, in 2008 the Georgian Government withdrew their observations in their entirety. Application no. 48656/06 was communicated to the Russian Government on 13 July 2016. On 15   September 2016 the parties were invited by the Court to submit their consolidated observations on the admissibility and merits of applications nos.   18102/04, 5148/05, 26166/05 and 42765/05, in the light of the questions that had been put to them in 2006 or 2007, taking into account possible subsequent factual and legal developments. 5.     The applicants were represented before the Court by Mr   P.   Beria, Ms   N.   Katsitadze, Mr V. Vakhtangadze and Mr G. Mitrtskhulava, lawyers practising in Tbilisi; they were joined later by Mr Jarlath Clifford, Mr   Philip Leach, Ms Joanne Sawyer and Ms Jess Gavron, lawyers from the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (“EHRAC”). 6.     The Georgian Government were successively represented by their Agents, Ms E. Gureshidze, Ms I. Bartaia, Mr D. Tomadze, Mr   L.   Meskhoradze and Mr B. Dzamashvili, of the Ministry of Justice. 7.     The Russian Government were successively represented by Mr   P.   Laptev, Ms V. Milinchuk, Mr G. Matyushkin and Mr M. Galperin, Representatives of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. THE FACTS 8.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. Events relating to the first and second applicants, Ms Taganova and Mr Esartia (nos. 18102/04 and 48656/06) House at no. 185 Sukhumi Road 9 .     The first and second applicants were wife and husband, who were born in 1943 and 1948, respectively, and lived in Abkhazia. The second applicant, who was of Georgian ethnicity, acquired Russian nationality in 2000 at the latest. He died on 29 May 2012. His wife, the first applicant, informed the Court on 1   June 2012 that she wished to pursue the proceedings before the Court on his behalf as well. 10 .     On an unspecified date the second applicant’s parents built a house at no. 185 Sukhumi Road in the village of Psakhara (then known as Kolkhida), Gagra District, Abkhazia, Georgia. An extract of a record issued in 1969 by the Gagra local authorities indicated that on 5 June 1950 the authorities had designated 0.15 hectares of land in the local collective farm ( колхоз ) for the second applicant’s father’s use because he had been living and working there permanently. The second applicant and his parents lived in that house for an unspecified period of time. 11 .     According to the house’s “technical passport”, dated 13 October 1989, the second applicant and his father each owned half of that house; a note in the technical passport, made in a section called “special remarks”, read “old house suitable for demolition”. On 13 August 2002 the de   facto Gagra municipal authorities issued the second applicant with a certificate confirming that he had been registered at no. 185 Sukhumi Road since 1   January 1977. 12 .     At some point in time the second applicant built a new house at no.   185a Sukhumi Road, on the same plot of land as the house described above. He started living in the new house in 1977 together with his family (at the time), having lived with them in the old house at no. 185 Sukhumi Street between 1975 and 1977. 13 .     In 1992, after sending his three children, his parents and his former wife away from Abkhazia following the outbreak of hostilities, the second applicant started living with the first applicant in the (old) house at no.   185 Sukhumi Road. At an unspecified date later that same year the applicants were thrown out of that house by Abkhaz fighters. A certificate issued to the first applicant on 12 February 2004 by the head doctor of Gagra Hospital indicated that she had been working at the hospital since 1992 and her salary at the time of issuing the certificate was 500 Russian roubles (RUB). 14 .     In 1992 the new house at no. 185a Sukhumi Road burned down, allegedly after being hit by a missile. 15 .     It would appear that the applicants then started using a house belonging to the second applicant’s son. The second applicant, who had left Abkhazia temporarily in 1993 to attend his mother’s funeral, returned to the village of Psakhara on an unspecified date thereafter. Apparently in his absence, the first applicant was thrown out of the house of the second applicant’s son, allegedly by individuals from the de facto Abkhaz administration, following which she started living in the hospital where she also worked. 16.     The applicants married on 15 January 1998. Unlike thousands of Abkhaz residents of Georgian ethnic origin, they did not flee Abkhazia. 17 .     On an unspecified date before 1994, the house at no.   185 Sukhumi Road was given by the de facto Abkhaz authorities to a certain N.B., an ethnic Abkhazian. According to a certificate dated 4   August 2003, sent by the de facto Directorate of Municipal Affairs of Gagra to the de facto Gagra District Court, the house at no. 185 Sukhumi Road was (at that time) at the disposal of the Psakhara village administration. Actions pursued by the applicants before the de facto Abkhaz authorities 18 .     According to the applicants, at an unspecified point in time (in the early 1990s) they contacted the de facto Gagra city administration and complained that they were unable to live in their house at no. 185 Sukhumi Road. The administration replied, saying that since the house was not occupied, they could return to it. However, once the applicants moved into the house, individuals of Abkhaz origin who claimed to be the new owners turned up and forced them to leave. The de facto local administration and the police refused to intervene and advised them to apply to the courts. 19 .     According to the applicants, from 1994 onwards they submitted complaints to various de facto Abkhaz administrative bodies, as well as the de facto Gagra District Court, asking to have their house returned, that the second applicant be reinstated in his work post, and asserting that they were “victims of Abkhaz nationalism”. The complaints were not dealt with and the applicants were passed back and forth between the court and the administrative authorities. 20 .     The first applicant submitted copies of letters dated 1994, in which she had complained to the de facto Abkhaz Ministry of the Interior about being threatened by several individuals, some of whom she indicated by name, and being asked by them to leave the dwelling (not specified) in which she lived at the time; in those letters her address was indicated as no.   49/5 Abazgaa Street, Gagra, Abkhazia, Georgia. She also submitted copies of letters, dated 2002 and 2003, in which she (and the second applicant) had written respectively to the Human Rights Committee in Moscow, the Administration of the Russian President, as well as the de facto Abkhaz municipal administration and the de facto Gagra District Court in relation to her inability to live in the house at no. 185 Sukhumi Road; in those letters her address was indicated as being no. 49/5 Abazgaa Street, Gagra, Abkhazia, Georgia. The first applicant listed no.   49/5 Abazgaa Street, Gagra, Abkhazia, Georgia as her address also in a letter she wrote to the Court on 6   October 2006, complaining about the poor state in which the house at no.   185 Sukhumi Road had been returned to the second applicant and herself. A letter from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs of 2008, addressed to the applicants, indicated no. 49/5 Abazgaa Street, Gagra as their address. Another address, in Krasnodar Region, Russia, was indicated in two letters of 2009 addressed to the first applicant by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In a copy of the first applicant’s Russian passport issued in 2000, her address was in Vladimir Region, Russia. 21 .     On 26 September 2003 the applicants received an order of the de   facto Gagra District Court, issued on 18 July 2003 by a single-judge formation, stating that their complaint “lodged against the Psakhara local administration with a view to recovering the right to housing” was inadmissible, on the grounds that they had not indicated the name and address of the respondent party. 22.     That order could be appealed against to the de facto Supreme Court of Abkhazia within fourteen   days of being issued. As this deadline had already expired by the time the applicants were notified of the order, they lodged an application for supervisory review with the de facto Supreme Court of Abkhazia. 23.     On 4 December 2003, ruling on the application for supervisory review in the applicants’ presence, the de facto Supreme Court of Abkhazia took note of “the applicants’ right of ownership over a property in the village of Psakhara, Gagra, which they had been thrown out of ( выгнали ) by the municipal administration”, in the light of the case file. It then quashed the de facto Gagra District Court’s order of 18 July 2003 (see paragraph 21 above) and remitted the case to it for examination on the merits. The de   facto Supreme Court of Abkhazia indicated that if, during the de   facto Gagra District Court’s examination of the merits, the participation of other persons proved to be necessary for determining the applicants’ rights over the disputed property, that court would have to summon those persons as respondent parties of its own motion. 24 .     In a decision of 9 February 2004, Judge B. from the de facto Gagra District Court refused to examine the applicants’ case. The decision stated that in spite of several oral warnings, the applicants had not lodged their various claims and complaints separately, in accordance with specific provisions of the Abkhaz Code of Civil Procedure, and had not paid the State tax which was due (the amount in question was not indicated). The decision indicated that the applicants had fifteen days to remedy the flaws. An ordinary appeal against that order could be lodged with the de   facto Supreme Court of Abkhazia within fourteen days of the order being issued. 25 .     On 12 February 2004 the applicants complained to the de   facto Supreme Court of Abkhazia and the de facto Abkhaz Ministry of Justice about how much money (RUB 3,500) the Gagra District Court judge had (orally) told them would be needed for legal representation in respect of each of their several claims and complaints, in addition to the State tax due in respect of each of them. They emphasised that the first applicant received only RUB   500   per month and the second applicant was unemployed. The applicants also complained that they had been thrown out of their own house and their complaints had remained unexamined for ten years. On 4   May 2004 the de facto Supreme Court of Abkhazia replied that in order to properly initiate proceedings, the applicants had to comply with the instructions given by the de facto Gagra District Court. 26.     In the meantime, on 26 April 2004 the president of the de   facto Gagra District Court had replied to a request sent by the de facto Abkhaz Ministry of Justice in connection with the applicants’ case, stating that on 9   February 2004, in accordance with the law, it had been decided not to examine the applicants’ case; he referred to the reasons detailed in paragraph 24 above. The letter further stated that the applicants were legally entitled to resubmit their complaint to the court and had to comply with the conditions set out in Articles 134 and 135 of the Abkhazian Code of Civil Procedure. 27.     On 8 June 2004 the second applicant contacted the de facto Abkhaz President and the de facto mayor of the Gagra municipality, complaining that his house had been put up for sale by the municipality and requesting its return. 28 .     On 27 October 2004 the applicants complained to the head of the de   facto Gagra municipal administration and to the de facto Gagra District Court, emphasising that they had been denied justice. Actions pursued by the applicants before the Russian authorities 29 .     According to the applicants, in 2004 they wrote to the President of the Russian Federation, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation, complaining that they could not have their house returned to them. They received several replies from those authorities, in essence indicating that their requests had been forwarded to the competent body. 30 .     On one occasion, in a letter of 30 June 2009, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs replied as follows to the first applicant’s request for assistance: “The complexity of your problem lies in the fact that, bearing in mind the long-term absence of property owners who left Abkhazia during the Abkhaz-Georgian conflict in 1992-1993 and did not make the appropriate regular payments, the Abkhaz authorities enacted a number of laws and regulations providing for the confiscation of abandoned living quarters and their transfer into the possession of Abkhaz citizens.” 31 .     The Russian Government, in their submissions made in November 2016 on the admissibility and merits of the applications, informed the Court that in view of the great number of property-related complaints which Russian public authorities had received from Russian nationals in Abkhazia, Russia and Abkhazia had agreed to set up a Commission for the Protection of the Property Rights of Russian Citizens in Abkhazia (“the Property Commission”). The Property Commission, whose work aimed to resolve such property-related issues, had been operating in Abkhazia since 2010 with the support of the Russian embassy there. 32 .     According to the Russian Government, the first applicant applied to the Property Commission in 2012, and the Property Commission, having found that the accompanying documents submitted by her were not sufficient, advised her to bring judicial proceedings instead. In June 2016 the first applicant instead submitted a complete set of documents to the Property Commission, and in October 2016 the Russian embassy in Abkhazia informed her that her case was pending before the Property Commission. In addition, the different Russian authorities approached by the first and second applicants replied to their numerous enquiries and complaints, keeping the applicants informed of “the practical actions taken to address their property problems”. 33 .     According to the Georgian Government, electronic media sources reported that the Property Commission had adopted a decision in Sukhumi in December 2010 to reject applications relating to property rights lodged by Russian citizens of Georgian ethnicity. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Georgia and the Minister of Reintegration of Georgia strongly criticised that, stating that this was the continuation of a policy of ethnic cleansing of Georgians in Abkhazia and the Russian Federation was violating international human rights; they also emphasised that until all internally displaced persons (IDPs) and refugees returned to Abkhazia, the process of the return of property could not be viewed as lawful. On 13   January 2011 the Georgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement condemning the discrimination against ethnic Georgians and the violation of their property rights in occupied Abkhazia. 34 .     The Georgian Government further submitted that on 31 January 2011 the de facto Abkhaz president had stated that Georgians could return their properties left in Abkhazia only in the event that the Georgian Government paid 13 billion United States dollars (USD) in compensation for the damage inflicted during the Georgian-Abkhazian war in 1992-1993. According to him, the Property Commission, co-chaired by himself and the Ambassador of the Russian Federation, had been working on the matter of abandoned properties in Abkhazia. Representatives of the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation and the General Prosecutor’s Office of Abkhazia were participating in the work of that commission. Actions pursued by the applicants before the Georgian authorities 35 .     On 25 March 2004 the applicants turned to M.C., the legitimate   head of the Service for the Protection of the Rights of Internally Displaced Persons from Abkhazia, located in Tbilisi, asking for assistance with restoring their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property. In letters of 14 April 2004 and 11   April 2006, M.C. asked the representative of the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG) and the Head of the UN Human Rights Office Abkhazia, Georgia (HROAG) to provide the applicants with help in restoring their rights. 36 .     In a letter of 19 May 2006, M.C. also requested assistance from the HROAG in progressing the applicants’ request, and on 13 June 2006 he was informed in reply that HROAG representatives had met with the applicants in order to discuss their case. 37.     In the meantime, in the spring of 2004 the applicants had written to the then Georgian President, asking for assistance. While they claimed that they had received a reply stating that their house would be returned to them within a month, in reality nothing materialised. 38 .     On 31 January 2007 the father of the second applicant submitted a declaration to the Georgian embassy in Ukraine in which he stated that the house at no. 185 Sukhumi Road in the village of Psakhara was his property. He attached a plan of the plot of land, a record from the register of households, a note in his Soviet passport and a building plan of the house. He referred to the second applicant as a family member. That declaration was subsequently recorded by the Ministry for Internally Displaced Persons from the Occupied Territories, Accommodation and Refugees of Georgia (“the Ministry for Displaced Persons”; more information about the Ministry’s role in the context of provisional registration of property located in Abkhazia can be found in paragraphs 140-143 below). Further developments 39 .     In June 2006 the first applicant wrote to a certain K.A. of the de   facto Gagra municipal administration, complaining that for many years she and her husband, the second applicant, had had no access to the house at no.   185 Sukhumi Road. She stated that the explanation which they had been given by the head of the de facto administrative authorities had been that for years the applicants had failed to pay “rent for the land”. She claimed that the de facto authorities should have been aware that doctors, like her husband, were exempt from taxes, and in any event, he should have been notified first. 40 .     In August 2006 the de facto local authorities returned the house situated at no. 185 Sukhumi Road in the village of Psakhara to the applicants. The official explanation, which they received in a letter of 22   August 2006 of the head of the de facto administration of Psakhara village, was that a lease agreement concluded in 1996 between the ( de   facto ) local administration and a certain N.B. had come to an end in August 2006. That letter also stated that the lawful owner of the house was the second applicant who “had been living in Gagra since 1992 uninterruptedly”. According to the applicants, everything in the house had been taken and it was uninhabitable. 41.     In a letter of 18 July 2007, in the context of application no.   18102/04, the applicants informed the Court that the house was again being taken away from them. The Georgian Government informed the Court that following the requests made to the HROAG and the UNOMIG for assistance in restoring the applicants’ property rights, on 16 August 2007 a HROAG representative had reported that during a meeting with the applicants on 9   August 2007 it had been confirmed that they had returned to their house on 8   September 2006, following the decision of the de   facto Gagra administration. However, N.B., the third party mentioned above, had challenged that decision; the applicants continued to live in the house while his complaint was pending. 42 .     In a letter of 5 May 2008, in the context of application no.   18102/04, the applicants informed the Court that their house was being taken away from them. 43 .     In letters of 5 March 2009, 19 April 2010 and 20   October 2010, the applicants informed the Court that they had not received any response to their numerous complaints addressed to the Russian and Abkhaz authorities in connection with their unlawful de facto eviction. The second applicant’s dismissal from his job 44 .     In June 1993 the second applicant was removed from his post at the hospital by an order of the then hospital director. According to the applicants, his dismissal was part of a general wave of dismissals of medical staff of Georgian origin. Actions pursued by the second applicant before the de facto Abkhaz authorities 45.     According the applicants, from 1994 onwards the second applicant submitted complaints to various de facto Abkhaz authorities, asking to be reinstated in his post and asserting that he was a “victim of Abkhaz nationalism”. 46.     In particular, on 13 May 2004 he complained to the de facto Gagra District Court of his unlawful dismissal, asking to be reinstated in his post and for compensation in respect of pecuniary damage, to be calculated from 1992. He also asked that the State tax be waived in his case, since he was unemployed and had no other income. It would appear that no action was taken in respect of that complaint. 47.     On 19 May 2004 the second applicant complained to the de   facto Supreme Court of Abkhazia and the de facto Abkhaz Ministry of Justice that the de facto Gagra District Court had denied him justice, and he asked to be reinstated in his post. No information on any follow-up to that complaint has been provided to the Court. Events relating to the third applicant, Ms Ketevan Mekhuzla (no.   5148/05) 48 .     In 1948 the third applicant settled in Sukhumi, Abkhazia, Georgia with her husband. She died in 2011 and Mr Badri Mekhuzla, born on 28   May 1949, informed the Court of her death and expressed a wish, as her son, to pursue the application before the Court in his late mother’s stead. Mr   Badri Mekhuzla did not submit initially a birth certificate or an heir’s certificate proving that he was Ms Ketevan Mekhuzla’s legal heir. On 26 July 2024 he sent a copy of a decision by a Georgian court, delivered on 19 March 2024, confirming that he was the heir of the estate of his mother, namely the third applicant. 49 .     In 1953 the third applicant and her husband built a house at no.   7 Tavadze Street in Sukhumi. 50.     In 1960 the third applicant began working as a nurse at Sukhumi Hospital. In 1971 her husband died. 51 .     A decision of the Executive Committee of Sukhumi City Council (“the Sukhumi City Council”), dated 31 January 1990 and entitled “On the registration of irregularly built constructions”, recorded that the Sukhumi City Council had granted the third applicant ownership rights over a house; the two-storey house had been built before September 1974 without the requisite permits and its address (in Sukhumi) was illegible. 52 .     After Sukhumi was occupied by separatists and their supporters, on 4   October 1993 the third applicant was forced to leave the city out of fear for her life. On her arrival in Tbilisi she joined her family, with whom she then lived in rented accommodation for years. 53.     The third applicant had displaced person status within the meaning of the Internally Displaced Persons   and Refugees Act of 28 June 1996 (“the 1996 IDPs Act”, see paragraphs 100-101 below). According to her, after the mass exodus of the Georgian population from Abkhazia in 1993, her house was occupied by ethnic Abkhaz people. She heard that an Abkhaz family had taken over her house and had subsequently sold it. 54 .     The third applicant’s identity card, issued by the Georgian authorities on 3 May 1999 and submitted to the Court, indicates no.   7 Tavadze Street, Sukhumi as her permanent address. 55 .     An identity card in the name of Badri Mekhuzla, born on 28   May 1949 (s