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 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sFF075836 { margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; 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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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. 60403/14 Otari BIRTVELISHVILI against Russia and 8 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     A list of the applicants, all of them Georgian nationals, and the relevant details of the applications 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 Atotsi was concerned, the construction intensified in February 2014. 4.     Plots of land owned by the applicants, varying in size from 0.3 to 2.2   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’ village, dividing their lands, resulting in the applicants’ inability to use their property. 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?     APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by 1 60403/14 Birtvelishvili v. Russia 07/08/2014 Otari BIRTVELISHVILI 1967, Atotsi Village Mr L. Chincharauli 2 60412/14 Birtvelishvili v. Russia 07/08/2014 Grigol BIRTVELISHVILI 1970, Atotsi Village Mr L. Chincharauli 3 60415/14 Birtvelishvili v. Russia 07/08/2014 Tamaz BIRTVELISHVILI 1988, Atotsi Village Mr L. Chincharauli 4 60421/14 Karapetovi v. Russia 07/08/2014 Ramaz KARAPETOVI 1984, Atotsi Village Mr L. Chincharauli 5 60429/14 Karapetovi v. Russia 07/08/2014 Giorgi KARAPETOVI 1970, Atotsi Village Mr L. Chincharauli 6 60440/14 Birtvelishvili v. Russia 07/08/2014 Tina BIRTVELISHVILI 1933, Atotsi Village Mr L. Chincharauli 7 60447/14 Bolotashvili v. Russia 07/08/2014 Konstantine BOLOTASHVILI 1937, Atotsi Village Mr L. Chincharauli 8 60451/14 Giorgadze v. Russia 07/08/2014 Giorgi GIORGADZE 1982, Atotsi Village Mr L. Chincharauli 9 60458/14 Karapetovi v. Russia 07/08/2014 Khvicha KARAPETOVI 1979, Atotsi Village Mr L. Chincharauli   [1] The term “South Ossetia” refers to the region of Georgia which is beyond the de facto control of the Georgian government.