CEDH · PRESS;ADMISSIBILITYDECISIONS;ENG — 3 juillet 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s3DCF6A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:17pt } .s3D964D38 { margin-top:17pt; margin-bottom:17pt } .s1F58F73B { margin-top:17pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s9AE6264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   543 03.07.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   ADMISSIBILITY DECISION GEORGIA v. RUSSIA (I)   The European Court of Human Rights has declared admissible the application lodged in the case of Georgia v. Russia (I) (application no. 13255/07). The Court’s admissibility decision in no way prejudges the merits of the Georgian Government’s complaints. The Court will deliver its judgment at a later date. (The decision is available in English and in French .). The case concerns the alleged harassment of the Georgian immigrant population in the Russian Federation following the arrest in Tbilisi on 27 September 2006 of four Russian service personnel on suspicion of espionage against Georgia. On 26 March 2007 the Georgian authorities lodged with the Court’s Registry an application against the Russian Federation under Article 33 (Inter-State cases) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Georgian Government maintained that the reaction of the Russian authorities to the incident in September 2006 had amounted to an administrative practice of the official authorities giving rise to specific and continuing breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights and its Protocols under the following provisions: Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment), Article 5 (right to liberty), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), Article 18 (limitation on the use of restrictions on rights) of the Convention; Articles 1 (protection of property) and 2 (right to education) of Protocol No. 1; Article   4 (prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens) of Protocol No. 4 and Article 1 (procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens) of Protocol No. 7. These breaches were said to have derived, in particular, from widespread arrests and detention of the Georgian immigrant population in the Russian Federation creating a generalised threat to security of the person and multiple, arbitrary interferences with the right to liberty. The Georgian Government also complained of the conditions in which “at least 2,380 Georgians” had been detained. They asserted that the collective expulsion of Georgians from the Russian Federation had involved a systematic and arbitrary interference with these persons’ legitimate right to remain in Russia – a right duly evidenced by regular documents – as well as with the requirements of due process and statutory appeal process. In addition having closed the land, air and maritime border between the Russian Federation and Georgia, thereby interrupting all postal communication, had allegedly frustrated access to remedies for the persons affected.   The Russian Government contested the Georgian Government’s allegations. They stated that the events surrounding the arrest in Tbilisi of four Russian officers and their subsequent release had no relation, either chronologically or in substance, with the events described by the Georgian Government in their application. The Russian authorities had not adopted reprisal measures against Georgian nationals, but had merely continued to apply the ordinary law aimed at preventing illegal immigration, in compliance with the requirements of the Convention and the Russian Federation’s international obligations. In particular, the end of 2006 had not been marked by an increase in the number of administrative expulsions of Georgian nationals who had breached the regulations governing residence on Russian territory.   The Court first established the object of the application. It considered that its content and scope, and the written and oral submissions by the Georgian Government, were sufficiently clear to allow a judicial examination under the Convention. In the opinion of the Court, the object of the application covered two different complaints: the allegations concerning the existence of an administrative practice and those concerning individual violations of the rights guaranteed by the Convention.   Examining whether the allegations of the existence of an administrative practice had complied with Article 35 § 1 (admissibility criteria), the Court had regard to the evidence submitted by the parties and found that the allegations made by the Georgian Government could not be considered as being wholly unsubstantiated or that they lacked the requirements of a genuine allegation required by Article 33 of the Convention. It pointed out, however, that the examination of all the other questions concerning the existence and scope of such an administrative practice, as well as its compatibility with the provisions of the Convention, related to the merits of the case and could not be examined at the admissibility stage. As to whether these allegations had complied with the six-month rule, the Court noted that the disputed events were said to have begun in Russia following the arrest on 27 September 2006 of four Russian officers in Georgia and that the application was lodged with the Court on 26 March 2007. In addition, and in so far as the Georgian Government had submitted additional evidence after that date, the Court found that the question of the six-month rule was so closely related to that of the existence of an administrative practice that they had to be considered jointly during an examination of the merits of the case.   As regards whether the allegations of individual violations of the rights guaranteed by the Convention had complied with Article 35 § 1, the Court also found that the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies was so closely linked with that of the existence of an administrative practice that they had to be considered jointly during an examination of the merits of the case.   ***   The decision is available today on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.