| Applicant name | GEORGIA |
| Applicant type | Interstate complaint |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | RUSSIA |
| Application no. | 38263/08 |
| Date | 28/04/2023 |
| Judges | Síofra O’Leary, President, Georges Ravarani, Marko Bošnjak, Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, Pere Pastor Vilanova, Arnfinn Bårdsen, Krzysztof Wojtyczek, Yonko Grozev, Armen Harutyunyan, Georgios A. Serghides, Tim Eicke, Jovan Ilievski, Jolien Schukking, Lado Chanturia, Ivana Jelić, Raffaele Sabato, Lorraine Schembri Orland |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | No Violation |
| Reason | – |
| Type of privacy | Locational privacy |
| Keywords | – |
| Facts of the case | This only concerns a judgment on just satisfaction |
| Analysis | The Court reiterates that some of the applicant Government’s just-satisfaction claims do not relate to any of the violations found in the principal judgment. The Court did not find in the principal judgment that there had been an administrative practice contrary to Article 8 of the Convention and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as regards any acts of the destruction of property other than the torching and looting of houses after the cessation of hostilities. The Court dismisses by nine votes to eight the remainder of the applicant Government’s claims for just satisfaction. The dissenting judges refer inter alia to ARtilce 8 ECHR: ‘Within the just satisfaction proceedings the applicant Government submitted to the Court a list of 1,960 individual victims of the following categories: first, individual victims of violations of Article 3 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the ‘buffer zone’ (1,408 persons); and second, individual victims of violations of Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 who did not hold the status of internally displaced persons (552 persons). The list contains surnames, names, dates of birth, identity numbers, as well as an indication of the Convention rights that had been violated (Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). Additionally, the applicant Government submitted numerous statements of witnesses, who confirmed the facts of torching and looting of the houses of some of the persons on the list. [] Lastly, we would argue that, regrettably, it seems to have escaped the attention of the majority that the right of the 1,408 victims to respect for their home under Article 8 of the Convention, as well as their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, would not be practical and effective but only theoretical and illusory if they were not granted just satisfaction. In any event, it would not be fair and equitable for the victims if the respondent State were to be able to benefit from the administrative practice of torching and looting their houses and from any possible consequential difficulty or uncertainty of proof, by not being ordered to pay any award of just satisfaction to the victims.’ |
| Other Article violation? | Yes, many |
| Damage awarded | – None with respect to Artilce 8 ECHR |
| Documents | Judgment |