CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 avril 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 12 April 2016   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 60249/09 KAVKASIONI LTD against Georgia lodged on 16 October 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     The applicant company, Kavkasioni, is a limited liability company, registered in Georgia. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant company, may be summarised as follows. A.     The circumstances of the case 2.     Following a decision of 13 December 2001 Tbilisi City Council put a number of properties owned by Tbilisi City Hall, including a building site adjacent to primary school no. 128 (“the school”), on a privatisation list. The initial price of that property was 16,927 United States dollars (USD). The applicant company, which formed at the material time a temporary partnership with Mr D.C., won the privatisation bid. On 24 September 2002 the State property management department delivered the relevant property certificate to the applicant company and Mr D.C. On 25 October 2002 the two partners decided to divide the property acquired. Accordingly, 5,828   sq.   m were registered by the Public Registry in the name of the applicant company, while the remaining 1,000 sq. m were registered in the name of Mr   D.C. 3.     In the meantime, the headteacher of the school brought an action against the State property management department, seeking the invalidation of the results of the privatisation bid. She claimed that the land at issue belonged to the school and requested the annulment of the title to the property given to the applicant company and Mr D.C. On 5 February 2003 the Tbilisi Krtsanisi-Mtatsminda Court dismissed the headteacher’s action as being manifestly ill-founded. 4.     On 4 October 2004 Tbilisi City Council overturned in part its decision of 13 December 2001 concluding that the land at issue had been subjected to privatisation in breach of the Privatisation of State Property Act. The applicant company was not informed about the above decision of the City Council. 5.     On 17 May 2005 Tbilisi City Hall authorised the applicant company to build a multi-storey residential building on the land at issue. 6.     In July 2005 the Tbilisi mayor’s office ordered the suspension of the construction and stripped the applicant company of its property rights. The applicant company appealed against the above decision. It requested the first-instance court to annul Tbilisi City Council’s decision of 4 October 2004 (see paragraph 4 above) and to restore its property rights with respect to the land concerned. By a decision of 29 November 2005 the Tbilisi City Court granted the applicant’s request in part. In particular, it overruled the decision of 4 October 2004 and ordered the Tbilisi mayor’s office to issue a new administrative act with the participation of the interested parties, including the applicant company, in the decision-making process. 7.     On 14 February 2006 the Tbilisi mayor’s office issued a new administrative act according to which the privatisation of the land at issue back in 2002 was declared unlawful. Among other reasons, the mayor’s office referred in its decision to criminal proceedings which had been initiated against the former first deputy head of the State property management department in connection with the respective privatisation. It appeared that he had been charged in that connection with abuse of power and by a court decision of 25 March 2005 had been sentenced to one year’s suspended prison sentence. 8.     On 5 July 2007 the Tbilisi City Court upheld the decision to revoke the applicant company’s property title. That decision was further upheld on appeal by the Tbilisi Court of Appeal on 17 December 2008. Both courts concluded that the privatisation of the land belonging to the school had happened in violation of the Privatisation of State Property Act. 9.     By a decision of 27 May 2009 the Supreme Court of Georgia rejected as inadmissible an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant company. B.     Relevant domestic law 1. The Constitution of Georgia 10.     Article 21 of the Constitution of Georgia recognises the inviolability of the right to own and inherit property. Paragraph 2 of the Article states that the right to property may be restricted for pressing social needs in cases determined and in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. Paragraph 3 further provides: “Deprivation of property for pressing social needs shall be permissible in circumstances expressly determined by law, on the basis of a court decision or in urgent cases provided for by an organic law, provided that prior, full and fair compensation is made. The compensation shall be exempted from any taxes and fees.” 2. Privatisation of State Property Act 11.     Section 4 of the Privatisation of State Property Act lists categories of State property which may not be privatised. They include property belonging to public schools and other educational institutions, including their land. COMPLAINTS 12.     The applicant company complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions was breached, and that it was deprived of its property.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the deprivation of the applicant company’s possessions in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?   2.     Did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant company, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?