FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF CHAKVETADZE v. GEORGIA
(Application no. 55949/10)
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
This version was rectified on 16 November 2022 
under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court. STRASBOURG
22 September 2022
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Chakvetadze v. Georgia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,
 Lado Chanturia,
 Arnfinn Bårdsen, Judges,
and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 55949/10) against Georgia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Georgian national, Mr Zurab Chakvetadze (“the applicant”), on 9 September 2010;
the decision to give notice to the Georgian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 1 September 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The present application principally concerns the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the delay in the enforcement of a judgment in his favour. THE FACTS
2. The applicant was born in 1948[1] and lives in Tbilisi. He was represented by Mr I. Kandashvili, a lawyer practising in Tbilisi. 3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr B. Dzamashvili, of the Ministry of Justice. 4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 5. On 25 December 2008 police officers stopped the applicant in a street in Tbilisi and conducted a body search. According to the search report, a tablet of Subutex (the brand name for an opioid called buprenorphine) and a bullet were seized from the applicant. That same day, following a search in the applicant’s apartment, police found heroin, a bullet and cash in the amount of 230,050 United States dollars (USD). The cash was seized as evidence and deposited with the National Bank of Georgia. The applicant was charged with unlawful acquisition and possession of narcotic substances and ammunition. 6. On 23 September 2009 the Tbilisi City Court acquitted the applicant on the heroin charge and convicted him of unlawful acquisition and possession of narcotic substances and ammunition in so far as the Subutex tablet and the bullet (see the previous paragraph) were concerned. He was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment and a fine in the amount of 352,000 Georgian laris (GEL – approximately USD 212,385). As regards the cash seized from his home (USD 230,050), the applicant submitted during the proceedings, relying on various witnesses, that part of it – USD 70,000 – had been sent to him by a friend based in the United States for safekeeping and another part – USD 150,000 – had been given to him by a friend with the aim of starting a business venture. The remaining sum of USD 10,050 had constituted his personal savings. Taking note of those submissions and the relevant witness statements but without elaborating on the question of the alleged shared ownership of the seized cash, the trial court noted that the cash was not linked to the criminal proceedings against the applicant and ordered its return to him, unless he wished to use it for paying the criminal fine. 7. On 4 December 2009 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal stated that the purpose of the sentence would be best served by maintaining only the criminal fine of GEL 352,000 (approximately USD 212,385) that had been imposed by the lower court. It ordered the applicant’s immediate release. The Supreme Court rejected an appeal on points of law by the applicant as inadmissible on 12 March 2010. 8. On 14 April 2010 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal issued two writs of enforcement. The first one concerned the criminal fine imposed on the applicant, while the second one related to the return by the police of the cash seized during the search of the applicant’s apartment. The latter writ of enforcement was forwarded to the relevant police department. On the same day the appellate court informed the applicant that the police had been instructed to enforce the decision in so far as the order relating to the return of the cash was concerned. 9. On 25 April 2010 the National Bureau of Enforcement invited the applicant to voluntarily pay the criminal fine (see paragraph 7 above), together with the fee for enforcement, set at a flat rate of 7% of the enforceable amount. Thus, the applicant was to pay GEL 24,640 (approximately USD 14,867) as the enforcement fee. On 30 April 2010 the applicant gave a certain J.Kh. a power of attorney instructing the latter to (a) receive, as per the writ of enforcement issued by the Tbilisi Court of Appeal, the money seized from the applicant’s apartment; (b) transfer USD 220,000 to the bank accounts of the individuals noted by the applicant to have been the owners of the part of the seized cash (see paragraph 6 above); and (c) use the remaining USD 10,050 to partly cover the criminal sanction imposed on the applicant. J.Kh.’s request addressed to the investigator based on the mentioned power of attorney was apparently left unanswered. On 3 May 2010, taking the view that the applicant had failed to pay the fine voluntarily, the National Bureau of Enforcement requested him to submit a list of all his assets to commence the compulsory execution of the judgment. On 7 May 2010 the applicant replied noting that he had not yet received the money seized from his apartment. Reiterating his submissions concerning the shared ownership of the cash (see paragraph 6 above), he gave details of bank accounts of individuals he claimed were the owners of the respective sums, and stated that the enforcement bureau could proceed with the partial enforcement of the criminal sanction in respect of his own share of the seized cash (USD 10,050). 10. On several occasions in May 2010 the applicant applied to the police, in person and in writing, requesting them to comply with the writ of enforcement issued by the Tbilisi Court of Appeal and to return the seized cash. He complained to the Tbilisi City prosecutor about the delay in enforcement. It does not appear that the applicant received a response to either of his requests. 11. On 30 November 2011 the police applied to the National Bank of Georgia, requesting that the seized cash be released to them. The amount in question was returned to the police on the same day. The police then asked the applicant to go to the police station to receive the cash. Once the report on the return of the cash was signed by the applicant, a bailiff of the enforcement bureau appeared at the station and seized the entire amount of the cash, for the purpose of enforcing the criminal fine and the related enforcement fee (see paragraph 9 above). The applicant claimed before various domestic authorities that the cash was never returned to him, physically, before its seizure by the bailiff. The excess amount of GEL 4,714 (approximately USD 2,800) which remained after the payment of those sums was returned to the applicant on 4 February 2012, following several requests made by the applicant to that effect. The alleged owners of the part of the cash (see paragraphs 6 and 9 above) do not appear to have complained regarding the use of the seized cash for the payment of the criminal fine and the related enforcement fee. 12. On 31 December 2011 the applicant initiated proceedings against the National Bureau of Enforcement, challenging the enforcement of the criminal fine against him. Among other things, he stated that the enforcement of the final judgment in his favour had been delayed for almost two years. While it was seemingly finally enforced on 30 November 2011, that had been a sham transaction. In particular, while the applicant was made to believe that the due sum was being finally returned to him, right after he signed the relevant report and before actually taking hold of the seized cash, the enforcement bureau officials burst in the room, seizing the sum. In protest, he refused to sign the relevant report in respect of the compulsory enforcement of the criminal fine. The applicant stated that he had been unable to pay the criminal fine voluntarily because of the delay in the return of the seized cash to him. He also alleged that the imposition of a 7% enforcement fee had been unlawful and unfair, given that his inability to pay the fine voluntarily had been a direct result of the authorities’ failure to return to him in due time the cash seized from his home. On 27 April 2012 the Tbilisi City Court rejected the applicant’s claim as unsubstantiated. The court explained that, pursuant to section 38 of the Enforcement Proceedings Act of 1999 (see paragraph 13 below), payment of the impugned enforcement fee had been required from the moment the applicant was presented with the relevant writ of enforcement in April 2010 (see paragraph 9 above). Therefore, there had been no legal basis to annul that fee. The applicant appealed, additionally arguing that the time-limit for voluntarily complying with the enforcement writ issued in respect of the criminal fine must have started to run from 30 November 2011 (the date when the seized cash was formally returned to him). The Tbilisi Court of Appeal reviewed the lower court’s reasoning and the applicant’s arguments and upheld the Tbilisi City Court’s findings in full on 4 July 2012. On 11 February 2013 the Supreme Court rejected an appeal on points of law by the applicant as inadmissible. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK
13. The Enforcement Proceedings Act of 16 April 1999, as in force at the material time, read in its relevant parts as follows:
Section 38
“(1)  The fee for the enforcement (hereinafter ‘the fee’) of decisions given by courts or other authorised bodies [or] officials is a compulsory payment for the services of the National Bureau of Enforcement (inclusive of value-added tax) which shall be deposited in the account of the National Bureau of Enforcement.              
... (11)  The fee shall not be collected in advance ... In the enforcement of criminal fines ... the fee shall be 7% of the enforceable amount ..., which shall be charged to the debtor upon commencement of the enforcement proceedings.”
THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION AND ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
14. The applicant complained that there had been an unjustifiably lengthy delay by the authorities in the enforcement of a final judgment in his favour, in breach of his right of access to a court guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and of his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The relevant parts of the provisions relied on by the applicant read as follows:
Article 6
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
AdmissibilityThe parties’ submissions

15. The Government submitted that by having failed to institute judicial proceedings aimed at ensuring the enforcement of the judgment in his favour, either under civil tort law or under administrative-law provisions, the applicant had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies. They further submitted, in so far as the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was concerned, that the applicant had failed to demonstrate his victim status on account of the allegedly shared ownership over the contested sum. 16. In response, the applicant reiterated, without further elaboration, that there had been a violation of his rights.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 6
Outcome: violation