| Applicant name | Georgia |
| Applicant type | Inter-state |
| Number of applicants | 1 |
| Country | Russia |
| Application no. | 39611/18 |
| Date | 09/04/2024 |
| Judges | Arnfinn Bårdsen, President, Jovan Ilievski, Egidijus Kūris, Pauliine Koskelo, Lado Chanturia, Lorraine Schembri Orland, Davor Derenčinović |
| Institution | Court |
| Type | Judgment |
| Outcome Art. 8 | Violation |
| Reason | No legal basis |
| Type of privacy | Locational privacy |
| Keywords | Restriction freedom movemvent |
| Facts of the case | T he applicant Government further complained that the restrictions on freedom of movement into and out of Abkhazia and South Ossetia obstructed the access of ethnic Georgians from both sides of the ABL to homes, land and other property and cemeteries. They added that the restrictions on freedom of movement also separated families. In this connection, they alleged that there had also been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. |
| Analysis | The Court finds that the incidents to which the international materials refer are sufficiently numerous and interconnected to amount not merely to isolated incidents or exceptions but to a pattern or system. Taking into account the regulatory nature of the impugned measures and their general application to all people concerned, the Court considers that the “official tolerance” element of the administrative practice has also been established beyond reasonable doubt. Turning to the compatibility of that practice with Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court has already held that the de facto authorities of Abkhazia and South Ossetia could not order “lawful arrest” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 . For the same reasons, the Court considers that an interference by those authorities with a right protected by Article 8 of the Convention or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 could not be lawful either. |
| Other Article violation? | Holds that there has been a violation of the substantive and procedural limbs of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention; Holds that there has been a violation of Articles 5 § 1 and 8 of the Convention, Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4; Holds that it is not necessary to examine whether there has been a violation of Articles 13, 14, 18 and 38 of the Convention; |
| Damage awarded | Holds that the question of the application of Article 41 is not ready for decision |
| Documents | Judgment |