CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 février 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } Communicated on 5 February 2021 Published on 8 March 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 31726/14 Aleksandre MEKARISHVILI and Others against Russia (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     A list of the applicants, all of them Georgian nationals, and the relevant details of the application are set out in the Appendix. 2.     The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 3.     Following the armed conflict in August 2008 (see Dzhioyeva and Others v.   Georgia (dec.), nos. 24964/09, 20548/09 and 22469/09, §   14, 20   November 2018), construction of barbed wire fences began along the so ‑ called administrative boundary line with the territory of Tskhinvali Region (South Ossetia [1] ). These activities affected the previously undisputed parts of the Georgian territory, including the plots of land belonging to the applicants. In particular, in so far as the village of Dvani was concerned, the construction intensified in September-October   2013. 4.     Plots of land owned by the applicants, varying in size from 0.3 to 1.5 hectares, used as pastures or cultivated for agricultural purposes, were divided by the barbed wire fences, restricting the applicants’ access to their property and their ability to use or otherwise dispose of it. COMPLAINTS 5.     The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 that the Russian military alone and/or in cooperation with the South Ossetian military units set up a barbed wire fence “border” along the applicants’ villages, dividing their lands, resulting in the applicants’ inability to use their property. 6.     The applicants additionally complain that their inability to access their property freely has been in breach of their right of liberty of movement, as guaranteed by Article 2 of Protocol No.   4. They further complain about the lack of an effective domestic remedy at their disposal for their complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article   2 of Protocol No.   4, as required by Article 13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the facts of which the applicants complain in the present cases occur within the jurisdiction of Russia? Have the Russian authorities been involved, directly or indirectly, in setting up and/or maintaining the barbed wire fences referred to by the applicants?   2.     Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see also Aksoy v.   Turkey , 18   December 1996, §§ 51-53, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 ‑ VI)?   3.     Did the applicants have “possessions” within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1? If so, can they be considered the legal owners (or holders of other rights in rem ) of the relevant plots of land?   4.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1? If so, was that interference justified in terms of this provision?   5.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to liberty of movement, as guaranteed by Article   2 of Protocol No.   4?   6.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   APPENDIX Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of birth Place of residence Represented by 31726/14 Mekarishvili and Others v. Russia 11/04/2014 Aleksandre MEKARISHVILI 1933, Dvani Village   Tsitsino MURACHASHVILI 1958, Dvani Village   Tristan MAMAGULASHVILI 1961, Dvani Village   Davit CHUKHRUKIDZE 1965, Dvani Village   Mariam KOKOSHVILI 1957, Dvani Village   Givi MAKHACHASHVILI 1941, Dvani Village   Leri KAULASHVILI 1963, Dvani Village   Ramaz MEDOIDZE 1964, Dvani Village   Murtaz MAMAGULASHVILI 1969, Dvani Village   Zaal AKHALKATSI 1963, Dvani Village   Robinzon KOPADZE 1937, Dvani Village   Ivane KOPADZE 1962, Dvani Village   Merab MEKARISHVILI 1961, Dvani Village   Vasil MAKHACHASHVILI 1968, Dvani Village   Nodar MAMAGULASHVILI 1954, Dvani Village   Gugula KOPADZE 1954, Dvani Village   Akaki MAMAGULASHVILI 1961, Dvani Village   Zaur MAMAGULASHVILI 1959, Dvani Village   Noshrevan KOKOSHVILI 1937, Dvani Village Ms   N.   Jomarjidze of the Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association (GYLA);   Ms J. Evans, Ms   J.   Gavron, and Mr   P.   Leach of the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC).       [1] The term “South Ossetia” refers to the region of Georgia which is beyond the de facto control of the Georgian government.