CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 décembre 2011

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2D3BC823 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 147 December 2011 Georgia v. Russia (II) (dec.) - 38263/08 Decision 13.12.2011 [Section V] Article 33 Inter-state case Alleged pattern of official conduct by Russian authorities resulting in multiple breaches of Georgian nationals’ Convention rights: admissible   As in the case of Georgia v. Russia (I) , which is currently pending before the Grand Chamber (application no. 13255/07, Information Note nos. 120 and 125 ), the application was lodged in the context of the armed conflict between Georgia and the Russian Federation in August 2008 following an extended period of ever-mounting tensions, provocations and incidents that opposed the two countries. The applicant Government submitted that, in the course of indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks by Russian forces and/or by the separatist forces under their control, hundreds of civilians were injured, killed, detained or went missing, thousands of civilians had their property and homes destroyed and over 300,000 people were forced to leave Abkhazia and South Ossetia. In their submission, these consequences and the subsequent lack of any investigation engaged Russia’s responsibility under Articles   2, 3, 5, 8 and   13 of the Convention, Articles   1 and   2 of Protocol No.   1 and Article   2 of Protocol No.   4. The respondent Government denied the allegations and argued that the Russian armed forces had acted in defence of the civilian population of South Ossetia. They also raised a series of preliminary objections: that the alleged violations did not fall within the “jurisdiction” of the Russian Federation for the purposes of Article   1 of the Convention; that the application was incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention as it concerned an international armed conflict more appropriately governed by the rules of international humanitarian law; that the Court was precluded from examining the application because the Georgian Government had already lodged a similar application with the International Court of Justice (ICJ); that domestic remedies available in Russia had not been exhausted; and that the six-month time-limit had not been complied with in respect of certain complaints. The Court, by a majority, dismissed the Russian Government’s objection concerning the allegedly similar application lodged with the ICJ, after noting that that court had declined jurisdiction in a judgment of 1   April 2011 and that, in any event, the Convention rule precluding the Court from dealing with applications already submitted to another international body applied only to individual, not Inter-State, applications. The Court also dismissed the objection relating to the six-month time-limit after noting that the application had been lodged less than six months from the start of the impugned events on 7   August 2008. Also by a majority, the Court joined to the merits the questions whether the alleged violations fell within Russia’s “jurisdiction” and whether the application was compatible ratione materiae with the Convention. The questions of the application of and compliance with the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies were so closely related to that of the alleged existence of an administrative practice that they too were joined to the merits. Conclusion : admissible (majority).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes