| Applicant name | TAGANOVA AND OTHERS |
| Applicant type | 8 |
| Number of applicants | natural person |
| Country | GEORGIA AND RUSSIA |
| Application no. | 18102/04 5148/05 26166/05 42765/05 48656/06 |
| Date | 17/12/2024 |
| Judges | Arnfinn Bårdsen, President, Saadet Yüksel, Lado Chanturia, Pauliine Koskelo, Jovan Ilievski, Davor Derenčinović, Gediminas Sagatys |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | violation |
| Reason | no legitimate purpose |
| Type of privacy | relational privacy; economic privacy |
| Keywords | eviction |
| Facts of the case | All applicants claimed (except in the context of application no. 18102/04) that their inability to return to their houses situated in Abkhazia also involved a continuing violation of their right to respect for their home and family life, as well of their right not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment. They relied on Articles 8 and 3 of the Convention. |
| Analysis | For the same reasons as those presented under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court finds that the fact that the applicants were denied access to their homes constitutes an unjustified interference with their right to respect for their home and family life. 374. Accordingly, the Court concludes that there has been a continuing breach of the applicants’ rights under Article 8 of the Convention. The Court considers that there is no material difference in the nature of each respondent State’s responsibility under the Convention in respect of the various complaints made in the present case. Thus, for the reasons given in respect of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the Court finds that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention by Georgia. However, the Court finds that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention by the Russian Federation.the Court notes that he was registered at the old house at no. 185 Sukhumi Road in 1977. Indeed, he lived in the old house for an unspecified period of time after it had been built and at least between 1975 and 1977, and the old house was built on the same plot as the new house . In 1977 he moved to the new house with his then family and lived in it between 1977 and 1992, when the new house was destroyed. In 1992 he moved to the old house at no. 185 Sukhumi Road with the first applicant. Even though later that year he was forced to leave the old house at no. 185 Sukhumi Road, the Court finds on the basis of all related information in its possession that the second applicant could claim that the old house in question had been his home before his de facto eviction from it in 1992. The Court notes that this complaint is neither manifestly ill‑founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible. The Court thus finds that his inability to enjoy it between 5 May 1998 (when Russia ratified the Convention) and August 2006 constitutes an interference with his right to respect for his home, for which no justification has been provided by the respondent Russian Government. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the second applicant as regards his right to home. |
| Other Article violation? | P1-1 |
| Damage awarded | Holds (a) that the Russian Federation is to pay the applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts: (i) EUR 25,000 (twenty-five thousand euros) to the second applicant, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage; (ii) EUR 35,000 (thirty-five thousand euros) to each of the third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage; (iii) EUR 18,000 (eighteen thousand euros) jointly to all applicants, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses, to be paid directly to the applicants’ legal representatives, namely into the bank account of the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre; |
| Documents | Judgment |