CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 juin 2018

.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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 21 June 2018   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 15016/07 Rolf SCHRADE against Georgia lodged on 26 March 2007 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Rolf Schrade, is a German national, who was born in 1934 and lives in Berlin-Mahlow. He is represented before the Court by Mr H. von Sachsen-Altenburg, Ms N. Andronikashvili and Mr   I.   Kandashvili, lawyers practising in Leiferde and Tbilisi. The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Background 3.     The applicant is a photographer. Photographs taken by him in Georgia since 1959 constitute valuable documentary evidence of a great number of Georgian historical monuments. His entire works on the country serve as a reference for researchers and scientists worldwide. 4.     In 2005, the applicant instituted civil proceedings over the infringement of copyrights for the unauthorised use of his photographs by Georgian companies Global Access Georgia Ltd (“Global Access Georgia”) and Artanuji Publishing House (“Artanuji”). 2.     Case of Global Access Georgia 5.     In 2005 Global Access Georgia published an English language booklet for foreign tourists and visitors in Georgia under the title of “Your personal Connection for Doing Better Business in Georgia and the Caucasus Region”. The booklet featured the applicant’s photograph titled “Gurjaani Church” copied from the 1986 German publication - Georgien Wehrbauten und Kirchen. 6.     On 7 September 2005 the applicant lodged a claim with the Tbilisi City Court seeking damages from Global Access Georgia over the violation of his intellectual property rights. 7.     On 9 September 2005 the Tbilisi City Court rejected the claim as inadmissible. The court held that the applicant did not have a standing to assert the rights argued. 8.     On 11 November 2005 the applicant appealed against the decision of the first instance court. On 15 December 2005 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal refused to entertain the applicant’s appeal on account of the non-payment of court fees. 9.     On 12 January 2006 the applicant re-applied to the Tbilisi Court of Appeal indicating that the court fees did not apply to the disputes related to intellectual property under the law applicable at the material time. 10.     On 22 March 2006 the Tbilisi Court of Appeals allowed the applicant’s appeal finding that he had standing to bring the proceedings. By the same decision, the court remitted the case to the court of first instance for examination on merits. According to the applicant, the case has been pending before the Tbilisi City Court ever since. 2.     Case of Artanuji 11.     In late 2004 the applicant discovered that a Georgian company Artanuji had unlawfully reproduced his copyrighted photographs in its various publications of history textbooks for Georgian secondary schools. 12.     On 24 January 2005 the applicant lodged a claim with Tbilisi Regional Court against Artanuji and its director B.K. The applicant sought 171,680 Georgian laris (GEL) in pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages for the copyright violations. 13.     On 24 February 2005 Artanuji lodged a preliminary objection with the court arguing that the applicant had not had standing to pursue the claim. According to the respondent, the applicant had not owned the impugned intellectual property rights but it was German publishing houses who had been the actual owners. 14.     On 15 July 2005 the case was transferred to the Tbilisi City Court due to the change of jurisdiction of the courts following the amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure. 15.     On 14 June 2007 the Tbilisi City Court resumed hearing in the case after almost two years of inactivity. 16.     On 31 July 2007 the Tbilisi City Court rejected the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated. 17.     On 26 July 2010 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal, acting on the appeal of the applicant, reversed the judgment and allowed the applicant’s claim in part. The court found a violation of the applicant’s intellectual property rights in 152 instances in respect of 57 photographs for which the applicant was awarded GEL 3,090 in pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and GEL   500 and 24 euros (EUR) in legal costs and expenses. 18.     Both parties appealed against the judgment of the Tbilisi Court of Appeal, on points of law, with the Supreme Court of Georgia. The applicant argued that the damages awarded were of a disproportionately small amount. 19.     By a decision of 10 February 2010, the Supreme Court rejected both appeals as inadmissible. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, taken separately and in conjunction with Article 13, about the length of both sets of civil proceedings and the lack of effective remedies in that respect. In connection with the civil proceedings conducted against Global Access Georgia he in addition relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES As regards the civil proceedings conducted against Global Access Georgia:   1.     Was the length of civil proceedings in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy in respect of the length of the proceedings concerned, as required under Article 13 of the Convention?   2.     Does the length of the civil proceedings in the present case also give rise to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?   As regards the civil proceedings conducted against Artanuji:   Was the length of civil proceedings in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy in respect of the length of the proceedings concerned, as required under Article 13 of the Convention?