SECOND SECTION
CASE OF TAGANOVA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA AND RUSSIA
(Applications nos. 18102/04 and 4 others)
 
JUDGMENT
This version was rectified on 21 January 2025
under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court. Art 56 • Declaration by Georgia upon ratification of the Convention with respect to Abkhaz territory not capable of restricting the Convention’s territorial application thereto • Art 57 • Georgia’s reservation in respect of Art 1 P1 not valid as Art 57 requirements not met
Art 1 • Jurisdiction of Russia and Georgia over Abkhazia • Effective control exercised by Russia over Abkhaz territory in view of strong Russian presence and Abkhaz authorities’ dependency on the Russian Federation • Responsibility of Russia for complaints concerning the Abkhaz authorities in relation to applicants nos. 2-6 • Positive obligations of Georgia with regard to Abkhazia, a part of its territory over which at the time it had no control • No responsibility on the part of Georgia as positive obligations satisfied
Art 1 P1 • Peaceful enjoyment of possessions • Art 8 • Home • Family life • Lack of access to properties and homes left behind in Abkhazia a continuing situation falling within Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis • Court competent to examine complaints in respect of Russia from the date it ratified the Convention (5 May 1998) up to the date it ceased to be a Party (16 September 2022) and in respect of Georgia as regards the complaints falling under Art 1 P1 from the date it ratified P1 (7 June 2022) and with regard to the remaining complaints from the date it ratified the Convention (20 May 1999) 
Art 35 § 1 • Exhaustion of domestic remedies • Lack of effective remedies in both Russia and Georgia with respect to complaints of applicants nos. 2-6 under Art 1 P1
Art 1 P1 • Peaceful enjoyment of possessions • Art 8 • Home • Family life • Applicants nos. 3-6 continuously deprived of access to, control, use and enjoyment of their property without any compensation and of access to their homes 
Art 1 P1 • Peaceful enjoyment of possessions • Art 8 • Home • Inability of applicant no. 2 to access his home in Abkhazia for a prolonged period of time until its return to him • Excessive individual burden • Inability to enjoy his home 
Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Access to court • Second applicant’s inability to have his dismissal from his job post examined by the de facto Abkhaz courts • Conclusions reached in Mamasakhlisi and Others v. Georgia and Russia applied • De facto Abkhaz courts could not qualify as a “tribunal established by law” • Situation in respect of the legal and judicial system in Abkhazia could not be attributed to Georgia
 
Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court. STRASBOURG
17 December 2024
 
FINAL
 
17/03/2025
 
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
THE FACTS
I. Events relating to the first and second applicants, Ms Taganova and Mr Esartia (nos. 18102/04 and 48656/06)
A. House at no. 185 Sukhumi Road
1. Actions pursued by the applicants before the de facto Abkhaz authorities
2. Actions pursued by the applicants before the Russian authorities
3. Actions pursued by the applicants before the Georgian authorities. 4. Further developments
B. The second applicant’s dismissal from his job
Actions pursued by the second applicant before the de facto Abkhaz authorities
II. Events relating to the third applicant, Ms Ketevan Mekhuzla (no. 5148/05)
A. Actions pursued by the applicant before the Georgian authorities
1. Before the administrative authorities
2. Before the courts
(a) At first instance
(b) At last instance
B. Further developments
III. Events relating to the fourth applicant, Ms Ksenia Sanaia (no. 26166/05)
IV. Events relating to the fifth and sixth applicants, Ms Suliko Dvali and Ms Marina Gogia (no. 42765/05)
V. Further developments concerning applications nos. 5148/05, 26166/05 and 42765/05
RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE
I. Reservation by Georgia
II. Declaration by Georgia
III. Georgian law on internally displaced persons
IV. Laws on occupied territories
V. Judgment of the Georgian constitutional court
VI. Right of property
VII. Legitimate courts of Abkhazia
VIII. Registration of property
A. Provisional registration of property
B. Resolution no. 400 on measures for declaring and inventorying real property located on occupied territories of Georgia
IX. Administrative decisions, acts or omissions
X. Compensation
XI. International material
THE LAW
I. Preliminary remarks
A. Temporal scope
B. Right to pursue the application on behalf of the second, third, fourth and fifth applicants
II. Joinder of the applications
III. Admissibility issues
A. Incompatibility ratione temporis of the applications with the Convention provisions
1. The parties’ positions
2. The Court’s assessment
(a) General principles
(b) Application to the present case
B. Incompatibility ratione materiae of applications nos. 5148/05, 26166/05 and 42765/05, brought against both Georgia and Russia, and application no. 48656/06, brought against Russia, with the Convention provisions
1. The parties’ positions
2. The Court’s assessment
(a) The first applicant
(b) The remaining applicants
C. Incompatibility ratione loci and ratione personae of the applications with the provisions of the Convention
1. The parties’ positions
2. The Court’s assessment
(a) The jurisdiction of Georgia
(b) The jurisdiction of Russia
3. Conclusion
D. Compliance with the six-month time-limit
1. The parties’ positions
2. The Court’s assessment
(a) General principles
(b) Application of those principles to the instant case
E. Exhaustion of domestic remedies
F. Alleged lack of substantiation of the applicants’ complaints in application no. 48656/06
1. Submissions by the Russian Government
2. Submissions by the applicants
3. The Court’s assessment
G. The matter allegedly being resolved in application no. 18102/04 and alleged lack of victim status in application no. 48656/06
Conclusion
IV. Alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol no. 1
A. Applications nos. 5148/05, 26166/05 and 42765/05, brought against both Georgia and Russia
1. Admissibility
2. Merits
(a) Submissions by the parties
(b) The Court’s assessment
B. Application no. 18102/04 (against Georgia) and no. 48656/06 (against Russia)
1. Admissibility
2. Merits
(a) Submissions by the parties
(b) The Court’s assessment
V. Alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention
A. The parties’ submissions
1. The applicants
2. The respondent Governments
B. The Court’s assessment
1. Applications nos. 5148/05, 26166/05 and 42765/05, against both Georgia and Russia
2. Application no. 48656/06, against Russia
VI. Alleged violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
VII. Alleged violation of Article 13 in conjunction with different articles of the Convention under which the applicants complained
VIII. Alleged violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol no. 1
IX. Application of Article 41 of the Convention
A. Damage
1. Claims by the applicants
(a) In respect of application no. 48656/06
(b) In respect of applications nos. 5148/05, 26166/05 and 42765/05
2. Submissions by the Russian Government
(a) As regards application no. 48656/06
(b) As regards applications nos. 5148/05, 26166/05 and 42765/05
3. The Court’s assessment
(a) As regards application no. 48656/06
(b) As regards applications nos. 5148/05, 26166/05 and 42765/05
B. Costs and expenses
1. The parties’ positions
(a) As regards applications nos. 5148/05, 26166/05 and 42765/05
(b) As regards application no. 48656/06
2. The Court’s assessment
C. Default interest
APPENDIX

In the case of Taganova and Others v. Georgia and Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Arnfinn Bårdsen, President,
 Saadet Yüksel,
 Lado Chanturia,
 Pauliine Koskelo,
 Jovan Ilievski,
 Davor Derenčinović,
 Gediminas Sagatys, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications against Georgia and Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”), namely no. 18102/04 lodged against Georgia and no. 48656/06 lodged against Russia by Mrs Galina Alekseevna Taganova and Mr Tariel Apolonovich Esartia, both Russian nationals (“the first and second applicants”); no. 5148/05 lodged against Georgia and Russia by Ms Ketevan Mekhuzla, a Georgian national (“the third applicant”); no. 26166/05 lodged against Georgia and Russia by Ms Ksenia Sanaia, a Georgian national (“the fourth applicant”); and no. 42765/05 lodged against Georgia and Russia by Ms Suliko Dvali and Ms Marina Gogia, both Georgian nationals (“the fifth and sixth applicants”), on the various dates indicated in the appended table;
the decisions to give notice to the Georgian and Russian Governments of the applications;
the parties’ observations;
the comments submitted under Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3 of the Rules of Court in respect of application no. 48656/06 by the Georgian Government, which was invited to intervene by the Vice‑President of the Section;
the decision of the President of the Section to appoint one of the elected judges of the Court to sit as an ad hoc judge in respect of Russia, applying by analogy Rule 29 § 2 of the Rules of Court (see Kutayev v. Russia, no. 17912/15, §§ 5-8, 24 January 2023);
Having deliberated in private on 26 November 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The applicants in applications nos. 18102/04 and 48656/06 complained primarily about their inability, over a prolonged period of time, to enjoy peacefully their home and movable property situated in Abkhaz territory, and to have access to a court in relation to that. The complaints in application no. 18102/04 (against Georgia) were made under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as well as under Articles 6 § 1, 13 and 14 of the Convention, while the complaints in application no. 48656/06 (against Russia) were made under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, and Articles 13 and 14 in conjunction with the above-mentioned provisions. 2. The applicants in applications nos. 5148/05, 26166/05 and 42765/05 (against both Georgia and Russia), who had been granted legal aid, complained about having been denied access to, and having been unable to enjoy, their homes located in Abkhaz territory. They invoked Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, and Articles 13 and 14 in conjunction with the above-mentioned provisions. 3. The Court notes that the term “Abkhazia” refers to the region in Georgia which is currently outside the de facto control of the Georgian Government. 4. Application no. 18102/04 was communicated to the Georgian Government on 28 February 2006. Applications nos. 5148/05, 26166/05 and 42765/05 were communicated to the Georgian and Russian Governments on 6 February 2007. Following an exchange of observations between the Georgian and Russian Governments, in 2008 the Georgian Government withdrew their observations in their entirety. Application no. 48656/06 was communicated to the Russian Government on 13 July 2016. On 15 September 2016 the parties were invited by the Court to submit their consolidated observations on the admissibility and merits of applications nos. 18102/04, 5148/05, 26166/05 and 42765/05, in the light of the questions that had been put to them in 2006 or 2007, taking into account possible subsequent factual and legal developments. 5. The applicants were represented before the Court by Mr P. Beria, Ms N. Katsitadze, Mr V. Vakhtangadze and Mr G. Mitrtskhulava, lawyers practising in Tbilisi; they were joined later by Mr Jarlath Clifford, Mr Philip Leach, Ms Joanne Sawyer and Ms Jess Gavron, lawyers from the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (“EHRAC”). 6. The Georgian Government were successively represented by their Agents, Ms E. Gureshidze, Ms I. Bartaia, Mr D. Tomadze, Mr L. Meskhoradze and Mr B. Dzamashvili, of the Ministry of Justice. 7. The Russian Government were successively represented by Mr P. Laptev, Ms V. Milinchuk, Mr G. Matyushkin and Mr M. Galperin, Representatives of the Russian Federation at the European Court of Human Rights. THE FACTS
8. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. Events relating to the first and second applicants, Ms Taganova and Mr Esartia (nos. 18102/04 and 48656/06)House at no. 185 Sukhumi Road

9. The first and second applicants were wife and husband, who were born in 1943 and 1948, respectively, and lived in Abkhazia. The second applicant, who was of Georgian ethnicity, acquired Russian nationality in 2000 at the latest. He died on 29 May 2012. His wife, the first applicant, informed the Court on 1 June 2012 that she wished to pursue the proceedings before the Court on his behalf as well. 10. On an unspecified date the second applicant’s parents built a house at no. 185 Sukhumi Road in the village of Psakhara (then known as Kolkhida), Gagra District, Abkhazia, Georgia. An extract of a record issued in 1969 by the Gagra local authorities indicated that on 5 June 1950 the authorities had designated 0.15 hectares of land in the local collective farm (колхоз) for the second applicant’s father’s use because he had been living and working there permanently. The second applicant and his parents lived in that house for an unspecified period of time. 11. According to the house’s “technical passport”, dated 13 October 1989, the second applicant and his father each owned half of that house; a note in the technical passport, made in a section called “special remarks”, read “old house suitable for demolition”. On 13 August 2002 the de facto Gagra municipal authorities issued the second applicant with a certificate confirming that he had been registered at no. 185 Sukhumi Road since 1 January 1977. 12. At some point in time the second applicant built a new house at no. 185a Sukhumi Road, on the same plot of land as the house described above. He started living in the new house in 1977 together with his family (at the time), having lived with them in the old house at no. 185 Sukhumi Street between 1975 and 1977. 13. In 1992, after sending his three children, his parents and his former wife away from Abkhazia following the outbreak of hostilities, the second applicant started living with the first applicant in the (old) house at no. 185 Sukhumi Road. At an unspecified date later that same year the applicants were thrown out of that house by Abkhaz fighters. A certificate issued to the first applicant on 12 February 2004 by the head doctor of Gagra Hospital indicated that she had been working at the hospital since 1992 and her salary at the time of issuing the certificate was 500 Russian roubles (RUB). 14. In 1992 the new house at no. 185a Sukhumi Road burned down, allegedly after being hit by a missile. 15. It would appear that the applicants then started using a house belonging to the second applicant’s son. The second applicant, who had left Abkhazia temporarily in 1993 to attend his mother’s funeral, returned to the village of Psakhara on an unspecified date thereafter. Apparently in his absence, the first applicant was thrown out of the house of the second applicant’s son, allegedly by individuals from the de facto Abkhaz administration, following which she started living in the hospital where she also worked. 16. The applicants married on 15 January 1998. Unlike thousands of Abkhaz residents of Georgian ethnic origin, they did not flee Abkhazia. 17. On an unspecified date before 1994, the house at no. 185 Sukhumi Road was given by the de facto Abkhaz authorities to a certain N.B., an ethnic Abkhazian. According to a certificate dated 4 August 2003, sent by the de facto Directorate of Municipal Affairs of Gagra to the de facto Gagra District Court, the house at no. 185 Sukhumi Road was (at that time) at the disposal of the Psakhara village administration. Actions pursued by the applicants before the de facto Abkhaz authorities
18. According to the applicants, at an unspecified point in time (in the early 1990s) they contacted the de facto Gagra city administration and complained that they were unable to live in their house at no. 185 Sukhumi Road. The administration replied, saying that since the house was not occupied, they could return to it. However, once the applicants moved into the house, individuals of Abkhaz origin who claimed to be the new owners turned up and forced them to leave. The de facto local administration and the police refused to intervene and advised them to apply to the courts. 19. According to the applicants, from 1994 onwards they submitted complaints to various de facto Abkhaz administrative bodies, as well as the de facto Gagra District Court, asking to have their house returned, that the second applicant be reinstated in his work post, and asserting that they were “victims of Abkhaz nationalism”. The complaints were not dealt with and the applicants were passed back and forth between the court and the administrative authorities. 20. The first applicant submitted copies of letters dated 1994, in which she had complained to the de facto Abkhaz Ministry of the Interior about being threatened by several individuals, some of whom she indicated by name, and being asked by them to leave the dwelling (not specified) in which she lived at the time; in those letters her address was indicated as no. 49/5 Abazgaa Street, Gagra, Abkhazia, Georgia. She also submitted copies of letters, dated 2002 and 2003, in which she (and the second applicant) had written respectively to the Human Rights Committee in Moscow, the Administration of the Russian President, as well as the de facto Abkhaz municipal administration and the de facto Gagra District Court in relation to her inability to live in the house at no. 185 Sukhumi Road; in those letters her address was indicated as being no. 49/5 Abazgaa Street, Gagra, Abkhazia, Georgia. The first applicant listed no. 49/5 Abazgaa Street, Gagra, Abkhazia, Georgia as her address also in a letter she wrote to the Court on 6 October 2006, complaining about the poor state in which the house at no. 185 Sukhumi Road had been returned to the second applicant and herself. A letter from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs of 2008, addressed to the applicants, indicated no. 49/5 Abazgaa Street, Gagra as their address. Another address, in Krasnodar Region, Russia, was indicated in two letters of 2009 addressed to the first applicant by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In a copy of the first applicant’s Russian passport issued in 2000, her address was in Vladimir Region, Russia. 21. On 26 September 2003 the applicants received an order of the de facto Gagra District Court, issued on 18 July 2003 by a single-judge formation, stating that their complaint “lodged against the Psakhara local administration with a view to recovering the right to housing” was inadmissible, on the grounds that they had not indicated the name and address of the respondent party. 22. That order could be appealed against to the de facto Supreme Court of Abkhazia within fourteen days of being issued. As this deadline had already expired by the time the applicants were notified of the order, they lodged an application for supervisory review with the de facto Supreme Court of Abkhazia. 23. On 4 December 2003, ruling on the application for supervisory review in the applicants’ presence, the de facto Supreme Court of Abkhazia took note of “the applicants’ right of ownership over a property in the village of Psakhara, Gagra, which they had been thrown out of (выгнали) by the municipal administration”, in the light of the case file. It then quashed the de facto Gagra District Court’s order of 18 July 2003 (see paragraph 21 above) and remitted the case to it for examination on the merits. The de facto Supreme Court of Abkhazia indicated that if, during the de facto Gagra District Court’s examination of the merits, the participation of other persons proved to be necessary for determining the applicants’ rights over the disputed property, that court would have to summon those persons as respondent parties of its own motion. 24. In a decision of 9 February 2004, Judge B. from the de facto Gagra District Court refused to examine the applicants’ case. The decision stated that in spite of several oral warnings, the applicants had not lodged their various claims and complaints separately, in accordance with specific provisions of the Abkhaz Code of Civil Procedure, and had not paid the State tax which was due (the amount in question was not indicated). The decision indicated that the applicants had fifteen days to remedy the flaws. An ordinary appeal against that order could be lodged with the de facto Supreme Court of Abkhazia within fourteen days of the order being issued. 25. On 12 February 2004 the applicants complained to the de facto Supreme Court of Abkhazia and the de facto Abkhaz Ministry of Justice about how much money (RUB 3,500) the Gagra District Court judge had (orally) told them would be needed for legal representation in respect of each of their several claims and complaints, in addition to the State tax due in respect of each of them. They emphasised that the first applicant received only RUB 500 per month and the second applicant was unemployed. The applicants also complained that they had been thrown out of their own house and their complaints had remained unexamined for ten years. On 4 May 2004 the de facto Supreme Court of Abkhazia replied that in order to properly initiate proceedings, the applicants had to comply with the instructions given by the de facto Gagra District Court. 26. In the meantime, on 26 April 2004 the president of the de facto Gagra District Court had replied to a request sent by the de facto Abkhaz Ministry of Justice in connection with the applicants’ case, stating that on 9 February 2004, in accordance with the law, it had been decided not to examine the applicants’ case; he referred to the reasons detailed in paragraph 24 above. The letter further stated that the applicants were legally entitled to resubmit their complaint to the court and had to comply with the conditions set out in Articles 134 and 135 of the Abkhazian Code of Civil Procedure. 27. On 8 June 2004 the second applicant contacted the de facto Abkhaz President and the de facto mayor of the Gagra municipality, complaining that his house had been put up for sale by the municipality and requesting its return. 28. On 27 October 2004 the applicants complained to the head of the de facto Gagra municipal administration and to the de facto Gagra District Court, emphasising that they had been denied justice. Actions pursued by the applicants before the Russian authorities
29. According to the applicants, in 2004 they wrote to the President of the Russian Federation, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation, complaining that they could not have their house returned to them. They received several replies from those authorities, in essence indicating that their requests had been forwarded to the competent body. 30. On one occasion, in a letter of 30 June 2009, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs replied as follows to the first applicant’s request for assistance:
“The complexity of your problem lies in the fact that, bearing in mind the long-term absence of property owners who left Abkhazia during the Abkhaz-Georgian conflict in 1992-1993 and did not make the appropriate regular payments, the Abkhaz authorities enacted a number of laws and regulations providing for the confiscation of abandoned living quarters and their transfer into the possession of Abkhaz citizens.”
31. The Russian Government, in their submissions made in November 2016 on the admissibility and merits of the applications, informed the Court that in view of the great number of property-related complaints which Russian public authorities had received from Russian nationals in Abkhazia, Russia and Abkhazia had agreed to set up a Commission for the Protection of the Property Rights of Russian Citizens in Abkhazia (“the Property Commission”). The Property Commission, whose work aimed to resolve such property-related issues, had been operating in Abkhazia since 2010 with the support of the Russian embassy there. 32. According to the Russian Government, the first applicant applied to the Property Commission in 2012, and the Property Commission, having found that the accompanying documents submitted by her were not sufficient, advised her to bring judicial proceedings instead. In June 2016 the first applicant instead submitted a complete set of documents to the Property Commission, and in October 2016 the Russian embassy in Abkhazia informed her that her case was pending before the Property Commission. In addition, the different Russian authorities approached by the first and second applicants replied to their numerous enquiries and complaints, keeping the applicants informed of “the practical actions taken to address their property problems”. 33. According to the Georgian Government, electronic media sources reported that the Property Commission had adopted a decision in Sukhumi in December 2010 to reject applications relating to property rights lodged by Russian citizens of Georgian ethnicity. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Georgia and the Minister of Reintegration of Georgia strongly criticised that, stating that this was the continuation of a policy of ethnic cleansing of Georgians in Abkhazia and the Russian Federation was violating international human rights; they also emphasised that until all internally displaced persons (IDPs) and refugees returned to Abkhazia, the process of the return of property could not be viewed as lawful. On 13 January 2011 the Georgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement condemning the discrimination against ethnic Georgians and the violation of their property rights in occupied Abkhazia. 34. The Georgian Government further submitted that on 31 January 2011 the de facto Abkhaz president had stated that Georgians could return their properties left in Abkhazia only in the event that the Georgian Government paid 13 billion United States dollars (USD) in compensation for the damage inflicted during the Georgian-Abkhazian war in 1992-1993. According to him, the Property Commission, co-chaired by himself and the Ambassador of the Russian Federation, had been working on the matter of abandoned properties in Abkhazia. Representatives of the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation and the General Prosecutor’s Office of Abkhazia were participating in the work of that commission. Actions pursued by the applicants before the Georgian authorities
35. On 25 March 2004 the applicants turned to M.C., the legitimate head of the Service for the Protection of the Rights of Internally Displaced Persons from Abkhazia, located in Tbilisi, asking for assistance with restoring their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property. In letters of 14 April 2004 and 11 April 2006, M.C. asked the representative of the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG) and the Head of the UN Human Rights Office Abkhazia, Georgia (HROAG) to provide the applicants with help in restoring their rights. 36. In a letter of 19 May 2006, M.C. also requested assistance from the HROAG in progressing the applicants’ request, and on 13 June 2006 he was informed in reply that HROAG representatives had met with the applicants in order to discuss their case. 37. In the meantime, in the spring of 2004 the applicants had written to the then Georgian President, asking for assistance. While they claimed that they had received a reply stating that their house would be returned to them within a month, in reality nothing materialised. 38. On 31 January 2007 the father of the second applicant submitted a declaration to the Georgian embassy in Ukraine in which he stated that the house at no. 185 Sukhumi Road in the village of Psakhara was his property. He attached a plan of the plot of land, a record from the register of households, a note in his Soviet passport and a building plan of the house. He referred to the second applicant as a family member. That declaration was subsequently recorded by the Ministry for Internally Displaced Persons from the Occupied Territories, Accommodation and Refugees of Georgia (“the Ministry for Displaced Persons”; more information about the Ministry’s role in the context of provisional registration of property located in Abkhazia can be found in paragraphs 140-143 below). Further developments
39. In June 2006 the first applicant wrote to a certain K.A. of the de facto Gagra municipal administration, complaining that for many years she and her husband, the second applicant, had had no access to the house at no. 185 Sukhumi Road. She stated that the explanation which they had been given by the head of the de facto administrative authorities had been that for years the applicants had failed to pay “rent for the land”. She claimed that the de facto authorities should have been aware that doctors, like her husband, were exempt from taxes, and in any event, he should have been notified first. 40. In August 2006 the de facto local authorities returned the house situated at no. 185 Sukhumi Road in the village of Psakhara to the applicants. The official explanation, which they received in a letter of 22 August 2006 of the head of the de facto administration of Psakhara village, was that a lease agreement concluded in 1996 between the (de facto) local administration and a certain N.B. had come to an end in August 2006. That letter also stated that the lawful owner of the house was the second applicant who “had been living in Gagra since 1992 uninterruptedly”. According to the applicants, everything in the house had been taken and it was uninhabitable. 41. In a letter of 18 July 2007, in the context of application no. 18102/04, the applicants informed the Court that the house was again being taken away from them. The Georgian Government informed the Court that following the requests made to the HROAG and the UNOMIG for assistance in restoring the applicants’ property rights, on 16 August 2007 a HROAG representative had reported that during a meeting with the applicants on 9 August 2007 it had been confirmed that they had returned to their house on 8 September 2006, following the decision of the de facto Gagra administration. However, N.B., the third party mentioned above, had challenged that decision; the applicants continued to live in the house while his complaint was pending. 42. In a letter of 5 May 2008, in the context of application no. 18102/04, the applicants informed the Court that their house was being taken away from them. 43. In letters of 5 March 2009, 19 April 2010 and 20 October 2010, the applicants informed the Court that they had not received any response to their numerous complaints addressed to the Russian and Abkhaz authorities in connection with their unlawful de facto eviction. The second applicant’s dismissal from his job
44. In June 1993 the second applicant was removed from his post at the hospital by an order of the then hospital director. According to the applicants, his dismissal was part of a general wave of dismissals of medical staff of Georgian origin. Actions pursued by the second applicant before the de facto Abkhaz authorities
45. According the applicants, from 1994 onwards the second applicant submitted complaints to various de facto Abkhaz authorities, asking to be reinstated in his post and asserting that he was a “victim of Abkhaz nationalism”. 46. In particular, on 13 May 2004 he complained to the de facto Gagra District Court of his unlawful dismissal, asking to be reinstated in his post and for compensation in respect of pecuniary damage, to be calculated from 1992. He also asked that the State tax be waived in his case, since he was unemployed and had no other income. It would appear that no action was taken in respect of that complaint. 47. On 19 May 2004 the second applicant complained to the de facto Supreme Court of Abkhazia and the de facto Abkhaz Ministry of Justice that the de facto Gagra District Court had denied him justice, and he asked to be reinstated in his post. No information on any follow-up to that complaint has been provided to the Court. Events relating to the third applicant, Ms Ketevan Mekhuzla (no. 5148/05)
48. In 1948 the third applicant settled in Sukhumi, Abkhazia, Georgia with her husband. She died in 2011 and Mr Badri Mekhuzla, born on 28 May 1949, informed the Court of her death and expressed a wish, as her son, to pursue the application before the Court in his late mother’s stead. Mr Badri Mekhuzla did not submit initially a birth certificate or an heir’s certificate proving that he was Ms Ketevan Mekhuzla’s legal heir. On 26 July 2024 he sent a copy of a decision by a Georgian court, delivered on 19 March 2024, confirming that he was the heir of the estate of his mother, namely the third applicant. 49. In 1953 the third applicant and her husband built a house at no. 7 Tavadze Street in Sukhumi. 50. In 1960 the third applicant began working as a nurse at Sukhumi Hospital. In 1971 her husband died. 51. A decision of the Executive Committee of Sukhumi City Council (“the Sukhumi City Council”), dated 31 January 1990 and entitled “On the registration of irregularly built constructions”, recorded that the Sukhumi City Council had granted the third applicant ownership rights over a house; the two-storey house had been built before September 1974 without the requisite permits and its address (in Sukhumi) was illegible. 52. After Sukhumi was occupied by separatists and their supporters, on 4 October 1993 the third applicant was forced to leave the city out of fear for her life. On her arrival in Tbilisi she joined her family, with whom she then lived in rented accommodation for years. 53. The third applicant had displaced person status within the meaning of the Internally Displaced Persons and Refugees Act of 28 June 1996 (“the 1996 IDPs Act”, see paragraphs 100-101 below). According to her, after the mass exodus of the Georgian population from Abkhazia in 1993, her house was occupied by ethnic Abkhaz people. She heard that an Abkhaz family had taken over her house and had subsequently sold it. 54. The third applicant’s identity card, issued by the Georgian authorities on 3 May 1999 and submitted to the Court, indicates no. 7 Tavadze Street, Sukhumi as her permanent address. 55. An identity card in the name of Badri Mekhuzla, born on 28 May 1949 (see paragraph 48 above), issued by the Georgian authorities on 10 December 2001 and submitted to the Court, indicates no. 7 Tavadze Street, Sukhumi as his permanent address. 56. Along with their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application, the representatives of the third applicant submitted a statement by Mr Badri Mekhuzla, whom they stated was the third applicant’s son. His identity card number matched the one issued on 10 December 2001 (see paragraph 55 above). The statement by Badri Mekhuzla, dated 27 January 2017, contained a description of the property at no. 7 Tavadze Street, Sukhumi, in particular the fact that the house had its own central heating system and was decorated with expensive wooden furniture. He also explained how he had continued to live in that house after the death of his father in 1971 – initially with his sister and mother, the third applicant, and later with his wife and children, in addition to his mother. 57. Furthermore, Mr Badri Mekhuzla submitted that he had rented a factory which had produced sparkling drinks, where he had made non ‑alcoholic drinks that he had developed. In the Gulripshi municipality, he had grown kiwi on a 14-hectare plot of land, peaches on a 10-hectare plot of land and lemons on a 4-hectare plantation, as well as two different types of grapes. His family also had a plot of land in Zemo Eshera measuring 600 sq. m. 58. In addition, he stated that his family had rented four of their six rooms in the house to tourists during the summer season, and from autumn to spring they had rented those rooms to students. He claimed that the family’s annual income had been RUB 8,000-9,000. His mother’s monthly salary, that of his wife and his own had been RUB 90, RUB 140 and RUB 340 respectively. The monthly income from the production of non‑alcoholic drinks had been RUB 14,000. The family had also had savings in a bank. Actions pursued by the applicant before the Georgian authoritiesBefore the administrative authorities

59. On 15 November 2004 the third applicant applied to the National Public Registry Agency (NPRA) in Tbilisi for registration of her title to the house in Sukhumi, in accordance with the 1997 Civil Code of Georgia (see paragraph 123 below). 60. On 25 November 2004 the NPRA rejected her application (for more information about the NPRA see paragraph 135 below). The NPRA indicated that, having been set up on 1 June 2004 as a body attached to the Georgian Ministry of Justice, it was currently registering all rights with the assistance of the local and regional departments. Owing to the “well‑known events in Abkhazia”, no local or regional department of this kind had been set up in Sukhumi. Consequently, ownership rights in respect of properties left behind in that region could not be registered. 61. The third applicant did not challenge that rejection. Before the courts
(a)   At first instance
62. In the meantime, on 18 November 2004 the third applicant had lodged an “application for recognition of a legally significant fact” (under Article 312 of the Georgian Code of Civil Procedure) with the Sukhumi District and City Court exiled in Tbilisi (for more related information, see paragraphs 120‑122 below). In those non-contentious proceedings, she had requested that the court legally recognise her ownership of the house in Sukhumi, which she stated had been appropriated by an ethnic Abkhaz family in the meantime. 63. The Sukhumi District and City Court exiled in Tbilisi noted that the applicant had produced “all the requisite documents certifying that she had been the owner of the property since 1 January 1990 and her ownership had been duly registered at the time”. However, reiterating that Sukhumi was “not a territory controlled by Georgia and that Georgia could not exercise its jurisdiction there”, the court confirmed that it was unable to identify “the ethnic Abkhaz person who lived in the applicant’s house or the ethnic Abkhaz person to whom this property had been sold”. 64. The Sukhumi District and City Court exiled in Tbilisi also observed that the applicant’s representative before the court did not have authority to act on her behalf, and that the requisite State tax had not been paid. The court declared the application inadmissible on 25 November 2004. (b)   At last instance
65. On 13 December 2004 the third applicant appealed against the decision of 25 November 2004 of the Sukhumi District and City Court exiled in Tbilisi. 66. In a final decision of 6 January 2005, the High Court of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia (“the HCARA”) upheld the findings of the Sukhumi District and City Court exiled in Tbilisi (a lower court) that it was not possible to grant ownership rights in respect of a property in non‑contentious proceedings, but only to confirm property rights which had been granted by a competent body and where documents relating to those rights had been lost. The HCARA also held that the situation in Abkhazia had neither deprived IDPs of their property nor invalidated their property rights. Further developments
67. On 25 January 2007 the third applicant made a declaration in relation to her property in Abkhazia before the Ministry for Displaced Persons, thus completing the first step towards having her immovable property in Abkhazia recorded in a database. In accordance with Decree no. 124 of 14 February 2006 of the President of Georgia, the Ministry was the body responsible for setting up and maintaining that database of IDPs’ properties, with a view to their provisional registration with the NPRA (more information about the Ministry’s role in the context of provisional registration of property located in Abkhazia can be found in paragraphs 140-143 below). Events relating to the fourth applicant, Ms Ksenia Sanaia (no. 26166/05)
68. The fourth applicant, Ms Ksenia Sanaia, was a Georgian national born in 1914. At the time of lodging her application she lived in Tbilisi. She died on 6 December 2006. Her son, Goliap Sanaia, born on 14 August 1936, informed the Court that he wished to continue the application brought by his late mother; on 3 July 2007 a Chamber of the Court allowed him to do so. Goliap Sanaia died on 21 January 2020. His wife, Larissa Sanaia, born in 1946 and married to him since 17 June 1967 (as evidenced by a marriage certificate), expressed a wish to pursue the application. 69. The fourth applicant married E.S. in 1935, as recorded in their marriage certificate, and settled with him in Gagra, Abkhazia, Georgia in 1946. 70. In 1948 they began building a house at no. 12 Sabcho Street, Gagra, which they completed in 1958. As Gagra was a seaside resort on the Black Sea, the fourth applicant and her husband rented rooms in their house to tourists. They also had a citrus plantation which provided an additional source of income. 71. In 1968 the fourth applicant’s husband died. 72. When separatists and their supporters occupied Gagra in October 1992, the fourth applicant and her children’s families were forced to leave the city. According to her, homes belonging to local people were visited by Abkhaz separatist forces, Russian soldiers and Chechen mercenaries, who gunned down any ethnic Georgians they came upon. 73. After her arrival in Tbilisi on an unspecified date in 1992 or 1993, the fourth applicant lived in a rented flat with her children. She had displaced person status within the meaning of the 1996 IDPs Act, and was a category 1 disabled individual. 74. As far as she knew, her house had been assigned to a family of Armenian ethnic origin as reward for one of the family members having actively fought alongside the separatists. 75. A copy of an entry in the register of the Technical Inventory Bureau of the Gagra Municipal Executive Board, dated 8 September 1960, indicated that the fourth applicant’s husband, E.S., was registered at no. 12 Sabcho Street, Gagra. A copy of an entry in the same register, dated 17 January 1972, indicated that the fourth applicant herself lived in a house at no. 12 Sabcho Street, Gagra. A copy of the fourth applicant’s Soviet passport bore a stamp of the Internal Affairs Department of the Abkhaz Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, dated 23 June 1992, indicating that her address was no. 12 Sabcho Street, Gagra. Her identity card, issued by the Georgian authorities on 26 November 2001, indicated no. 12 Sabcho Street, Gagra as her permanent address. 76. On 4 May 2006 the fourth applicant had her property recorded in the database maintained by the Ministry for Displaced Persons, which was a necessary legal condition for provisional registration in the Public Registry (more information about the Ministry’s role in the context of provisional registration of property located in Abkhazia can be found in paragraphs 140‑143 below). Events relating to the fifth and sixth applicants, Ms Suliko Dvali and Ms Marina Gogia (no. 42765/05)
77. The fifth applicant, Ms Suliko Dvali, died on 19 June 2021. The sixth applicant, Ms Marina Gogia, who is the fifth applicant’s daughter (as evidenced by a birth certificate), expressed a wish to pursue the application on her behalf as well. 78. The fifth applicant and her husband settled in Sukhumi, Abkhazia, Georgia in 1954. They initially lived on Mataradze Street. 79. In the 1980s the fifth applicant and her husband built a house at no. 4 Lakerbaia Street, Sukhumi and the family moved into it in 1989. As Sukhumi was a seaside resort, they rented the first floor to a tourist office. A citrus plantation around the house provided an additional source of income for the family. 80. A copy of a housing registration certificate, dated 13 September 1989 and bearing a stamp of the Internal Affairs Department of the Sukhumi regional authorities, indicated that the fifth applicant was registered at no. 4 Lakerbaia Street. The fifth applicant’s identity card, issued on 26 February 2001, indicated no. 110 Mataradze Street, Sukhumi as her permanent address (see paragraph 78 above). 81. The fifth applicant also submitted copies of two documents, both of which were dated 10 June 1993. One of the documents was entitled “Certificate concerning the right to inherit by law”. Its first paragraph stated that in accordance with Article 544 of the Civil Code of the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic, the fifth applicant, registered at Mataradze Street, Sukhumi had inherited her late husband’s property. The second paragraph read “The inherited property in relation to which the present certificate has been issued comprises one-half of the money deposited in the State Savings Bank”, then indicated a specific account number and the amount of money in that account. The second document was entitled “Certificate concerning the right to ownership of the matrimonial assets, issued to the surviving spouse”. In its first paragraph, a notary from the State notary office certified that the fifth applicant was the surviving wife of her late husband, who had passed away on 9 October 1992, and that she owned half of the matrimonial assets acquired by the spouses during the marriage. The second paragraph read “The matrimonial assets in respect of which the present certificate attests Ms Suliko Dvali’s right of ownership comprise one-half of the money deposited in the State Savings Bank”, then indicated a specific account number and the amount of money in that account. 82. In 1978 the sixth applicant, Ms Marina Gogia, married L.J. and moved to the village of Pshapi in Gulripshi Region, Abkhazia, Georgia. The couple built a house at no. 30, Cul-de-sac 10, Tbilisi Road, Pshapi, Gulripshi Region, Abkhazia, Georgia. The sixth applicant worked as a manager at the Sukhumi Central Savings Bank and her husband was a road infrastructure manager in Gulripshi Region. They put up twelve greenhouses containing lemon trees on their land, from which they collected an additional source of income for the family. 83. The sixth applicant produced a certificate, dated 17 May 1988 and signed by the director of the kolkhoz (collective farm) of the village of Pshapi, indicating that her husband had 0.15 hectares of land in the village. 84. She also submitted a copy of her own Soviet passport, in which a stamp dated 1976 indicated that she was registered as living on Mataradze Street in Sukhumi, and another stamp dated 7 June 1988 indicated that she was registered as living in the village of Pshapi in Gulripshi Region. A copy of her identity document issued in 2005 indicated Pshapi village in Gulripshi Region as her permanent address. 85. The sixth applicant also submitted the following: a copy of a decision of the Executive Committee of the Gulripshsky Regional Council of People’s Deputies, dated 28 August 1979, which indicated that the council in question had authorised her husband to build a house on a plot of land which he already had; a copy of a letter from the chairman of the Executive Committee of the Pshapshsky Rural Council of Workers’ Deputies no. 5, dated 2 April 1979, in which he asked the head of the region to create a cadastral plan of the land of the sixth applicant’s husband; a barely legible copy of the plans of a two‑storey house, from which the address of the house cannot be made out (the plans are dated 28 October but the year is unclear, and the fifth applicant’s mother-in-law is named as the owner of the house); and a copy of a certificate (справка) dated 16 March 1988 in which the chair of the Pshapi village council certified that the sixth applicant’s husband “live[d] in the village of Pshapi in Gulripshi Region and [was] the head [of the family] after the death of his mother”, who was named. 86. The fifth and sixth applicants also submitted some witness statements from neighbours, who confirmed that they had lived in the vicinity of the applicants’ houses located at 4, Lakerbaia Street, Sukhumi and no. 30, Cul‑de-sac 10, Tbilisi Road, Pshapi, Gulripshi Region. 87. The husbands of the fifth and sixth applicants died in 1992 and 1993, respectively. 88. When separatists and their supporters occupied Sukhumi in September 1993, the fifth and sixth applicants were forced to leave the city. After their arrival in Tbilisi, the fifth applicant, who had displaced person status within the meaning of the 1996 IDPs Act, lived in a rented flat with the sixth applicant. Financial difficulties forced them to change their accommodation frequently. 89. According to the fifth and sixth applicants, after the mass exodus of ethnic Georgians from Abkhazia, their houses were occupied by persons of non-Georgian ethnic origin. As far as they knew, their houses had been assigned to families of Abkhaz ethnic origin. 90. On 6 October 2006 the fifth applicant made a declaration before the Ministry for Displaced Persons, thus completing the first step towards having her immovable property in Abkhazia recorded (see also on that point paragraphs 67 and 76 above). The sixth applicant did the same on 27 August 2007 (more information about the Ministry’s role in the context of provisional registration of property located in Abkhazia can be found in paragraphs 140‑143 below). Further developments concerning applications nos. 5148/05, 26166/05 and 42765/05
91. On 22 September 2022 the Georgian Government informed the Court of the following factual developments. On 6 August 2018 the Government had adopted Resolution no. 400 on measures for declaring and inventorying real property located on occupied territories of Georgia. The purpose of that resolution was to protect the property rights of IDPs from the occupied territories of Georgia, as provided for under international law and the Georgian Constitution (see also paragraphs 145-151 below). 92. In accordance with the resolution, the NPRA, acting on requests by the third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants or their successors, had “thoroughly declared and inventoried their respective immovable properties”. The Government asserted that “upon restoration of jurisdiction of Georgia over Abkhazia, the applicants/their successors would be equipped with legally valid real-estate ‘certificates’, documenting their inherent rights over the property, which forms part of their complaint before the Court”. The Government provided copies of the following documents in support of their submissions. 93. The first document was a certificate issued by the NPRA on 28 October 2021 indicating that a house situated at no. 7 Tabadze Street, Sukhumi had been recorded in the names of five individuals, the first of whom was Mr Badri Mekhuzla, holder of an identity card whose number matched the one submitted by the third applicant’s representatives (see paragraphs 48 and 56 above). The certificate stated that it was a document identifying real estate situated on the occupied territories; it also comprised identification data relating to the property in question which were cadastral in nature, including numbers identifying the relevant city zone, sector, quarter and individual lot. The certificate also referred to a declaration request linked to that property which had been registered by the authorities on 25 January 2007 (see paragraph 67 above). 94. The second document was a certificate issued on 29 October 2021 by the NPRA indicating that a house situated at no. 12 Sabcho Street, Gagra had been recorded in the names of four individuals, the first of whom was Mr Goliap Sanaia (see paragraph 68 above) and the second of whom was Ms Larissa Sanaia, who was the holder of an identity card whose number matched the one submitted to the Court by Goliap Sanaia’s wife after his demise (ibid.). The certificate stated that it was a document identifying real estate situated on the occupied territories; it also comprised identification data relating to the property in question which were cadastral in nature, including numbers identifying the relevant city zone, sector, quarter and individual lot. The certificate also referred to a declaration request linked to that property which had been registered by the authorities on 4 May 2006 (see paragraph 76 above). 95. The third document was a certificate issued on 28 October 2021 by the NPRA indicating that the house at no. 30, Cul-de-sac 10, Tbilisi Road in the village of Pshapi, Gulripshi Region had been recorded in the names of three individuals: the second person named was Ms Marina Gogia, the sixth applicant, and the other two people were her children. The certificate stated that it was a document identifying real estate situated on the occupied territories; it also comprised identification data relating to the property in question which were cadastral in nature and included numbers identifying the relevant city zone, sector, quarter and individual lot. The certificate also referred to a declaration request linked to that property which had been registered by the authorities on 27 August 2007 (see paragraph 90 above). 96. The Government initially specified that, as regards the fifth applicant, the NPRA had not yet inventoried her property in Abkhazia because her heirs had not submitted an inheritance certificate as requested; they provided a letter to that effect from the NPRA. The Government added that, once the successor to the fifth applicant had submitted the necessary documentation in accordance with domestic law, the State authorities would complete the declaration and inventory process. On 7 December 2023 the sixth applicant informed the Court that on 27 September 2023 the Ambrolauri District Court recognized the receipt of inheritance by herself over her late mother’s property (the fifth applicant). RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE
Reservation by Georgia
97. A reservation contained in the instrument for ratification of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, namely Resolution no. 1243[1] of the Georgian Parliament of 27 December 2001 on the ratification by Georgia of Protocol No. 1, reads as follows, as far as applicable:
“The Parliament of Georgia declares that:
1. Article 1 of the Protocol shall not apply to persons who have or will obtain status of ‘internally displaced persons’ in accordance with ‘the Law of Georgia on Internally Displaced Persons’ until the elimination of circumstances motivating the granting of this status (until the restoration of the territorial integrity of Georgia). In accordance with the aforementioned law, Georgia assumes responsibility to ensure the exercise of rights over property that exist on the place of permanent residence of internally displaced persons after the reasons mentioned in Article 1, paragraph 1, of this law have been eliminated ...”
98. Protocol No. 1 to the Convention entered into force in respect of Georgia on 7 June 2002. Declaration by Georgia
99. A declaration contained in paragraph 8 of the instrument of ratification (see paragraph 97 above) reads as follows:

“Georgia declares, that due to the existing situation in Abkhazia and Tskhinvali region, Georgian authorities are unable to undertake commitments concerning the respect and protection of the provisions of the Convention and its Additional Protocols on these territories. Georgia therefore declines its responsibility for violations of the provisions of the Protocol by the organs of self-proclaimed, illegal, forces on the territories of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali region until the possibility of realization of the full jurisdiction of Georgia is restored over these territories.”
Georgian law on internally displaced persons
100. From its enactment on 28 June 1996, the Internally Displaced Persons and Refugees Act of 28 June 1996 (“the 1996 IDPs Act”) provided that the Ministry for Displaced Persons, together with other agencies of central government and local authorities, was responsible for the practical implementation of the rights conferred upon IDPs by the Act (sections 5(2) and 8). Section 9 further specified that the State guaranteed the protection of IDPs’ rights. 101. Section 7(1) of the 1996 IDPs Act provided as follows:
“If IDPs return to their places of permanent residence after the reasons enumerated in section 1 of this Law have ceased to exist, [the following shall occur]. (a) The relevant bodies of executive authorities and local self-government, including the Ministry for Refugees and Accommodation [the Ministry for Displaced Persons], shall secure the exercise of their [the IDPS’] constitutional rights; create the necessary socio-economic living conditions for safety at their places of permanent residence; return to [them] their legal heritage [and] personal assets, including [homes] and land in the condition they are in at that time; and guarantee the return and repair of damaged [homes] to citizen[s]. Compensation for damage, after the amount [of damage] has been estimated, shall be processed by the local self-government bodies in accordance with the rules established by the government. (b) The amount of damage and the rules on the payment of compensation shall be established by the relevant bodies of the executive authorities.”
102. On 18 December 2001 section 7 was amended as follows:
Section 7(2) and (3)
“2. The State shall provide internally displaced persons with temporary accommodation. 3. Housing disputes shall be settled in court. Moreover, pending the restoration of the State’s jurisdiction over the whole of the territory of Georgia, internally displaced persons shall not be evicted from dwellings in which they have been collectively housed, except where
(a) an agreement has been concluded with the internally displaced persons concerned;
(b) the internally displaced persons have been offered another appropriate dwelling which will not represent a worsening of their existing housing situation;
(c) a natural disaster has occurred and appropriate compensation has been provided;
(d) the dwelling in question has been unlawfully occupied by the internally displaced persons.”
103. Section 7, as worded above, remained in force until 6 April 2005. On that date, an amendment to the 1996 IDPs Act removed the above‑mentioned provisions from section 7 and incorporated them – with some, mostly textual, corrections – into section 5(4). 104. Section 6(1) of the new IDPs Law (“the 2014 IDPs Act”), which was enacted on 1 March 2014 and repealed the 1996 IDPs Act, provides as follows:
“1. An internally displaced person (IDP) is a citizen of Georgia or a stateless person with a status in Georgia who has been forced to leave his or her permanent place of residence because the occupation of [that] territory by a foreign country, aggression, an armed conflict, global violence and/or a massive violation of human rights posed a threat to his or her life, health or freedom or that of a member of his or her family, and/or who, for any of the above reasons, cannot return to his or her permanent place of residence.”
105. Section 15 of the 2014 IDPs Act provides as follows:
“1. The State recognises the right to restitution of the immovable property of an IDP left behind in [that person’s] permanent place of residence, and the hereditary nature of this right. 2. The State shall take all possible measures to protect the immovable property owned and/or possessed by an IDP, which that IDP has had to leave behind for the reasons referred to in section 6(1) of this Act, from theft, destruction, wilful and other forms of unlawful use and misappropriation. 3. When the reason[s] referred to in section 6(1) of this Law have ceased to exist and an IDP returns to [his or her] permanent place of residence, the State shall take all possible measures to ensure that the immovable property owned and/or possessed by the IDP which he or she was forced to leave behind is returned to its legal owner and possessor. 4. The right provided for in subsection 1 of this section shall be retained even if the IDP has been provided with long-term accommodation.”
106. Section 18(2) of the 2014 IDPs Act provides:
“If an IDP returns to his or her permanent place of residence after the reason[s] referred to in section 6(1) of this Act have ceased to exist, the Ministry [for IDPs] and other State institutions, within the limits of the powers granted by the legislation of Georgia, shall
(a) ensure that an IDP exercises the rights granted by the Constitution of Georgia and this Act;
(b) take measures to create social, economic and legal conditions necessary for an IDP to live safely in his or her permanent place of residence;
(c) take all necessary measures to ensure that private propert[ies], including [homes] and smallholding[s], [are] returned to IDP[s] or to [their] legal heir[s] in the condition [they are] in [at that time], and restore demolished building[s] as far as possible and ensure that [they are] returned to the[ir] owner[s]; [and]
(d) coordinate the process of compensating for the damage sustained once the limited amount has been determined.”
Laws on occupied territories
107. A decree of the Georgian Parliament of 20 March 2002 on the unlawful misappropriation of State property and private property belonging to refugees and internally displaced persons in Abkhazia declared all actions by the illegitimate de facto Abkhaz authorities and all public, civil and international legal instruments issued by them null and void, as well as all civil-law transactions concluded after 14 August 1992 relating to the appropriation of State property and private property belonging to refugees and IDPs in Abkhazia. 108. Section 5(1) of the Law of Georgia on Occupied Territories, enacted on 23 October 2008, provides as follows:
“(1) Any transaction relating to real property that is concluded within the occupied territories in violation of the legislation of Georgia shall be considered null and void from the moment it is concluded and shall have no legal effect;
(2) The right of property shall be protected within the occupied territories and shall be governed by the legislation of Georgia.”
Judgment of the Georgian constitutional court
109. On 16 November 2004 the Georgian Constitutional Court delivered a judgment in a case in which a third party had challenged the constitutionality of the above-mentioned reservation and declaration by the Georgian Parliament (see Anzor Tevzaia v. the Parliament of Georgia, No. 1/5/224, judgment of the Constitutional Court of 16 November 2004). 110. In particular, the appellant, a displaced person within the meaning of the 1996 IDPs Act, complained that the parliamentary resolution of 27 December 2001 on the ratification by Georgia of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, in particular as regards the reservation and declaration (see paragraphs 97 and 99 above), was contrary to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The appellant complained that the State had used a territorial criterion to exclude all displaced persons from the benefit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 111. The four-judge bench of the Constitutional Court remained divided as to whether the impugned resolution was compatible with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 112. In particular, two of the judges considered that the State’s inability to exercise its jurisdiction in the conflict zones in question did not mean that it could give this situation, however serious, precedence over its obligations, which were an inherent feature of any sovereign State. The Georgian State’s inability to honour its obligations in the territories in question did not allow it to declare itself exempt from those obligations. The State might possibly be considered to be exempt from responsibility for violations of the rights of individuals in these regions, but the positive obligation not to abandon its nationals to their fate constituted an indispensable value for the State. In the case at hand, the State had recognised the property rights of the displaced persons but had declared itself temporarily unable to protect them, thus leaving them outside the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution. Such an indefinite postponement by the State of its respect for the property rights of displaced persons could not be seen as an attempt to honour its positive obligations. If the State declared itself exempt from its responsibilities in the regions in question, those zones would become lawless – a situation which would be unacceptable. 113. According to the other two judges, the State had not sought to restrict the property rights of displaced persons by means of the reservation and declaration at issue, but had quite simply affirmed its powerlessness in a specific situation. It was the factual situation, not the State, which was restricting those persons’ rights. To rebuke the State for being objectively unable to ensure respect for the property rights of displaced persons would be to overlook the facts of the situation, and would in no way provide those persons with an effective means of exercising their rights. The State was doing everything in its power at national and international level to restore its jurisdiction throughout the territory. Section 7 of the Displaced Persons Act made it clear that the State recognised property rights, but blunt reality obliged it to declare that it was powerless to protect the property left behind by displaced persons in their places of residence. The State’s postponement of the protection of those rights could not be classified as interference with displaced persons’ property rights. Accordingly, the lack of protection of displaced persons’ right to respect for their property was due to factual reality rather than any failure by the State to respect this right. 114. Given the equal number of votes, the appeal was dismissed under section 21(6) of the Constitutional Court Act. Right of property
115. Before the enactment of the Civil Code of Georgia in 1997 (“the 1997 CCG”), the right of property was regulated by the Civil Law Code of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Georgia of 26 December 1964 and the Housing Code of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Georgia of 4 June 1983. 116. At the material time, the relevant provisions of the above-mentioned Civil Law Code read as follows:
Article 10
“In accordance with the law, a citizen may have personal property. [He or she also] has the right to use a house and other property, to receive property by means of inheritance and to transfer it by means of a will ...”
 Article 91
“A citizen’s personal property may include property intended to satisfy his or her material and cultural needs.”
117. Article 8 of the Housing Code (see paragraph 115 above) provided that “homes which constitute[d] citizens’ personal property belong[ed] to the housing fund for individuals” (as opposed to State or cooperative housing funds). 118. On 15 July 1993 the Law on the Right to Property was enacted. It regulated issues related to the creation, exercise, protection and termination of property rights. 119. On 26 June 1997 the 1997 CCG was enacted. It guarantees the right of property and comprehensively regulates property, family and personal relations. Legitimate courts of Abkhazia
120. The Government of Georgia submitted that they have maintained legitimate courts of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia for the purpose of ensuring the effective protection of the rights of IDPs and the guarantees set out in the legislation of Georgia. Those courts are “in exile” and are located in Tbilisi and Zugdidi. They exercise their jurisdiction not only over IDPs, but also persons residing in Abkhazia. 121. Article 439 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides:
“Until the jurisdiction of Georgia is fully restored in the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia, the violated and disputed rights and legitimate interests of internally displaced persons shall be ensured by the courts of the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia in accordance with their territorial jurisdiction, in compliance with the requirements of Chapter III of the Civil Procedure Code of Georgia, provided that the defendant [in question] is also an internally displaced person.”
122. According to the Georgian Government, by maintaining legitimate courts of Abkhazia, they have provided IDPs with guarantees that they will have unimpeded access to the courts for the effective protection of their rights. Registration of property
123. The registration of real estate was defined by the Law of Georgia on Land Registration of 14 November 1996 (“the 1996 Land Registration Act”) and the 1997 CCG, both of which aimed to ensure the stability of civil transactions, the protection of the rights of third parties, and the principle of transparency. 124. At the material time, section 2 of the 1996 Land Registration Act defined the notion and aims of registration as follows:
“The State registration (hereinafter referred to as land registration) of the right to land is an integral part of the land cadastre and includes essential data on the legal status, borders, quality and quantity of a plot of land and the immovable property related to it. The aim of land registration is the State recognition and approval of [a person’s] entitlement to rights over a plot of land and the immovable property related to it, and the transfer, restriction and abolition of [those] rights.”
125. The procedure for registering property in the Public Registry was carried out only after a right of ownership had been acquired in accordance with the principles of private law. Registration only constituted State recognition and approval of the fact that a transaction had taken place. 126. The legislation provided for a different procedure with respect to property rights which had arisen before the enactment of that Act. In particular, in accordance with section 2(4) of the 1996 Land Registration Act:
“Rights to land and to the immovable property related to the land which arose before the enactment of this Act shall be subject to mandatory State registration in accordance with the requirements of this Act. Rights which arose following the enactment of this Act shall be valid after State registration.”
127. According to the Georgian Government, the 1996 Land Registration Act did not regulate the consequences of not registering a right to immovable property which had arisen before the adoption of that Act, and did not call into question a person’s right to property in the event that their real estate had not been registered. 128. On 28 December 2005 the Law on the registration of rights over immovable property (“the 2005 Registration Act”) was enacted. It repealed the 1996 Land Registration Act. In accordance with section 15 of the new Act, rights over immovable property could be registered in the Public Registry on a provisional basis, in order to ensure the registration of such rights. Furthermore, provisional registration prevented the registration of any other rights over the same property (see more about provisional registration in paragraphs 137-144 below). Provisional registration ceased to have effect after rights registered on a provisional basis had been fully registered. Section 33(2) of the 2005 Registration Act, as amended on 11 May 2007, provided that transactions concluded before the entry into force of the 1997 CCG, but not registered, constituted grounds for registering the property rights over the immovable property in question. 129. The 2005 Registration Act did not lay down any time-limits for registration or attach any consequences to non-registration. 130. On 19 December 2008 the Law on the Public Registry (“the 2008 Public Registry Act”) was enacted; it repealed the 2005 Registration Act. The 2008 Public Registry Act recognises that rights over immovable property which arose before the entry into force of the 1997 CCG are a precondition for registration, and sets no time limit for the registration of such rights. Under section 35 of the transitional and final provisions of the 2008 Public Registry Act, transactions concluded before the entry into force of the 1997 CCG and not registered by the relevant registration body within the time frames determined by the legislation in force at that time serve as a basis for the registration of a right over immovable property. 131. In accordance with Article 1513 of the 1997 CCG, a transitional provision, the person in possession of a property is presumed to be its owner (presumption of ownership). At the same time, this rule does not apply in cases when the nature of ownership can be identified by reference to the Public Registry (Article 158). The Public Registry is a collection of data on the creation and introduction of changes to rights over immovable and intangible property and the termination of such rights, as well as on the abandonment and introduction of changes to rights over immovable property (Article 311). In accordance with this rule, registration itself is linked to the existence of a document which proves that a property right exists. Therefore, if there is a document which proves that a property right exists, then the property right exists. Registration in the Public Registry is for the sole purpose of protecting such rights, including the interests of an acquirer, within the law. 132. Article 185 of the 1997 CCG generally emphasises the role of registration and is linked to the accuracy of the records of the Public Registry. 133. Article 184 of the 1997 CCG expressly sets out a procedure for abandoning ownership rights over immovable property – unless a person has a declaration entered in the Public Registry relinquishing his or her ownership rights over immovable property and registers that declaration, he or she does not abandon those rights:
“The relinquishment of an ownership right over immovable [property] or another right (related to [that property]) requires a declaration by the entitled person relinquishing this right and the registration of [that declaration] in the Public Registry. The declaration shall be filed with (the agency that maintains) the Public Registry. The declaration on the [entitled person’s] relinquishment of the right shall become effective only after [that declaration] has been filed.”
134. According to the Georgian Government, the registration of immovable property in the Public Registry did not, in itself, create a person’s right to property. It only recognised and confirmed an ownership right over immovable property – an inalienable personal right guaranteed by the Constitution, international agreements and the laws of Georgia. 135. The National Public Registry Agency (the NPRA), a public-law entity under the Ministry of Justice of Georgia, was established by the Law of Georgia on the State Registry of 1 June 2004. The Charter of the Public Registry was approved by Order no. 835 of the Minister of Justice of Georgia of 19 July 2004. Subsequently, the Law on the State Registry and the Charter were repealed on 27 April 2016 and 16 May 2016 respectively. A new Charter of the Public Registry was adopted under Order no. 134 of the Ministry of Justice of Georgia of 3 May 2016. In accordance with that Charter, the main function of the NPRA is the registration of property rights, the establishment of a unified registry and the creation of a cadastral database of immovable property. 136. According to the Georgian Government, despite the existence of the legislative basis, the NPRA is currently unable to fulfil its obligations throughout the territory of Georgia. The Charter of the Public Registry of 19 July 2004, approved by the Minister of Justice of Georgia, and the current Charter of 3 May 2016 provide for the opening of registration offices in the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia (regional offices in Sokhumi, Gagra, Gudauta, Gulripshi, Ochamchire and Gali). However, owing to the occupation by Russia, the NPRA is prevented from operating there. Without access to or effective authority over the territory concerned, the NPRA cannot ensure the collection, retention or analysis of accurate data and records. It is therefore deprived of the material on the basis of which an accurate and authentic register can be established and maintained and is unable to open registration offices in the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia (or in Tskhinvali Region), and it is not possible for it to accomplish its responsibilities on the ground in any other way. Provisional registration of property
137. The Georgian Government submitted that, in accordance with the general legislation on registration of property, valid identification documents and cadastral information have to be presented to the NPRA. Identification documents and cadastral data relating to property located in Abkhazia were destroyed during the conflict or left behind by those who fled. In order for the registration of such property to be valid, it is necessary to carry out on‑the‑spot checks to avoid the infringement of the rights of third parties or situations where people who are not the rightful owners of property claim rights over it, thus putting the rights of potential buyers at risk. 138. For those reasons, registration of the property rights of IDPs is somewhat different from the type of registration used in respect of the rest of the population. In order to strike a fair balance between the interests of different individuals, the NPRA carries out provisional registration. 139. Provisional registration of property belonging to IDPs was initially provided for in the following instruments: Decree no. 124 of the President of Georgia on the measures to be taken with regard to recording property rights over immovable property located in the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali Region, issued on 14 February 2006; Decree no. 255 of the President of Georgia on the approval of rules for the provisional registration of immovable property located in the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali Region, issued on 8 April 2006; and Order no. 30 of the Minister for IDPs on the approval of rules for the recording of immovable property located in the Autonomous Republic of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali Region, issued on 31 March 2006. Subsequently, such provisional registration was regulated by Decree no. 326 of the President of Georgia on the approval of the rules on the provisional registration of immovable property located in the occupied territories of Georgia, issued on 21 June 2011. 140. Section 4(3) of Decree no. 255 provided that an interested person should enclose with his or her application for provisional registration the record certificate for the property in question and the cadastral plan issued by the Ministry for Displaced Persons, as well as one document from a list proving his or her rights over that immovable property. Furthermore, section 8(5) of the decree provided that where data obtained by aerial photography and sent by the Ministry for Displaced Persons were available, the NPRA would issue a cadastral plan and the record of provisional registration at the request of the interested person. As regards Decree no. 326, under its section 2(4), the Ministry for Displaced Persons prepares cadastral plan drawings by processing data received through aerial and space photography, and sends them to the NPRA together with a declaration so that the immovable property can be registered on a provisional basis. 141. The purpose of the rules on provisional registration is to record real estate located in the occupied territories of Georgia and register rights over that property. Under the rules on provisional registration, the NPRA can register property rights on the basis of valid identification documents submitted by applicants, accompanied by specific declarations. The data contained in the declarations submitted by applicants, together with supporting documents, are used by the Ministry for Displaced Persons to create cadastral measurement plans. 142. Since January 2017 the Ministry for Displaced Persons has recorded 67,000 immovable properties located in the occupied territories by entering them into a database. Once that Ministry sends documents relating to the declared immovable property to the NPRA, the NPRA ensures that the property is registered on a provisional basis. In addition, the NPRA ensures the creation and updating of the cadastral database of immovable property located in the occupied territories of Georgia. 143. Provisional registration is a basis for full registration in the Public Registry after the full restoration of Georgia’s jurisdiction over the occupied territories. The Georgian Government submitted that upon Georgia’s de facto jurisdiction over Abkhazia being restored, Georgian citizens will have legally valid and technically approved documents relating to real estate in the Georgian and Abkhazian languages, confirming their rights over their property. On the basis of such documents, property-related issues will be regulated and IDPs will be resettled in their habitual places of residence. 144. The NPRA will be able to fully register property in the parts of Abkhazia currently beyond the control of the central government, after verifying the relevant archival documents locally and accurately verifying the location, boundaries, area and purpose of the property. Resolution no. 400 on measures for declaring and inventorying real property located on occupied territories of Georgia
145. On 6 August 2018 the Government adopted Resolution no. 400 on measures for declaring and inventorying real property located on occupied territories of Georgia (“the resolution”). It provides for a two-step process: (1) the filing of declarations (supported by evidence) with the Ministry for Displaced Persons; and (2) the sending by the Ministry for Displaced Persons of the declarations which it has accepted and approved to the NPRA, which in turn makes relevant “records”. 146. Under section 1 of the resolution, the management of declarations is handled by the Ministry for Displaced Persons, which identifies the declared property on the basis of information provided by the individual concerned. The Ministry for Displaced Persons creates and maintains an electronic cadastral system and a database of the declarations filed with it. The NPRA also maintains a database of all documents forwarded to it by the Ministry for Displaced Persons, and ensures public access to the information. 147. Section 2 lists the information which has to be provided to the Ministry for Displaced Persons by the individual concerned. That includes identification data, proof of residence, identification of a permanent registered address, proof of ownership, and information relating to family members. 148. Under section 3, if a property is claimed by more than one person, the NPRA can amend the information in its records until the matter is finally resolved. 149. Section 4(1) of the resolution provides that the recording (or inventorying) of immovable property by the NPRA is the basis for the full registration of such property with the NPRA once Georgia’s jurisdiction has been fully restored in respect of the occupied territories. Furthermore, under section 4(2), no contract may be concluded in relation to a property which has not been fully registered (after jurisdiction has been restored). The recording or inventorying of property does not create a right to compensation vis-à-vis the State (section 4(3)). 150. In accordance with section 5(1), declarations filed with the Ministry for Displaced Persons before the adoption of this resolution must be sent to the NPRA. Under section 5(2), following the entry into force of this resolution, declarations must be filled in and forwarded to the NPRA, together with the relevant cadastral plans. 151. This procedure also applies to people who have “neutral IDs or travel documents”, that is, people with no passports or nationality. Administrative decisions, acts or omissions
152. Article 2 § 1 (d) of the General Administrative Code of Georgia (“the GAC”) defines an individual administrative decision as follows:
“[A] decision by an administrative body under administrative law which establishes, modifies, terminates or confirms the rights and obligations of a person or a limited group of persons. The decision of an administrative body to refuse to address an issue raised by an applicant which is within its competence, and any document issued or confirmed by an administrative body that may have legal consequences for a person or a limited group of persons, shall also be deemed an individual administrative decision”. 153. Article 180 of the GAC provides that “an act by an administrative body must be appealed against within one month from the day when an interested party becomes aware that the act has been performed or that there has been a failure to perform the act”. 154. In accordance with Article 177 § 3 of the GAC, “an act by an administrative body which is not connected to the issuance of an administrative decision shall be appealed against in the manner determined by this chapter”. 155. Article 24 of the Administrative Procedure Code of Georgia (hereinafter “the APC”) provides that:
“1. An action may be brought to require [a person] to perform or abstain from performing an act which is not connected to the issuance of an individual administrative decision. 2. An action may be brought if an administrative body’s performance of or refusal to perform an act directly and immediately (individually) prejudices the legal rights or interests of the claimant.”
Compensation
156. Article 207 of the GAC provides:
Application of the Civil Code of Georgia to compensation for damage caused by administrative bodies
“Unless otherwise provided for in this Code, damage caused by an administrative body shall be compensated for in accordance with the Civil Code of Georgia.”
157. Article 208 of the GAC provides:
Special procedure for the liability of State or local self-government bodies
“1. The State shall be liable for damage caused by a State administrative body and its officials or other public servants in the course of discharging their official duties ...”
158. Article 992 of the 1997 CCG provides:
Concept
“A person who unlawfully, intentionally or negligently causes damage to another person shall compensate the injured party for the damage.”
159. Article 1005 of the 1997 CCG provides:
Liability of the State for damage caused by its officials
“If an official breaches his or her official duty in relation to other persons, [either] intentionally or by gross negligence, then the State or the body for which the official works shall pay for the damage caused. If the damage is caused intentionally or by gross negligence, the official and the State shall be jointly and severally liable.”
International material
160. The UN Principles on Housing and Property Restitution for Refugees and Displaced Persons (Commission on Human Rights, Sub‑Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, 28 June 2005, E/CN.4/Sub.2/2005/17, Annex), known as the Pinheiro Principles, are the most comprehensive standards on this subject. The aim of these principles, which are based on existing international human rights and humanitarian law, is to provide States, UN agencies and the broader international community with international standards and practical guidelines on how best to address the complex legal and technical issues surrounding housing and property restitution. More information about the content of the principles has been summarised in the Court’s judgment in Chiragov and Others v. Armenia ( [GC], no. 13216/05, § 98, 16 June 2015). 161. On 13 October 2022 the European Union issued a statement on the 56th round of the Geneva International Discussions. It contained the following passages:
“1. The European Union welcomes the 56th round of the Geneva International Discussions (GID) that was held in Switzerland on 5 October 2022. This was the first GID round held since December 2021. Nevertheless, the channels of communication between the Co-Chairs and the respective participants remained operational during this period. 2. As mandated by the EU-mediated Six-point Agreement of 12 August 2008 and the Implementing Measures of 8 September 2008, the GID process continues to serve as the only platform where consequences of the conflict, including issues related to the implementation of the Six-point Agreement and its Implementing Measures, are addressed. This includes discussions on core issues, such as non-use of force and international security arrangements, as well as internally displaced persons and refugees. 3. The European Union expresses its concern with regard to the severe and lasting impact this conflict has on the overall security situation in conflict-affected regions of Georgia, as well as on the civilian population. The EU is concerned about the continued illegal Russian military presence and activities in Georgia. We are also concerned about Russia’s attempts to de-facto integrate Georgia’s regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia/Tskhinvali region into Russia’s regulatory and security space, as well as the ongoing ‘borderisation’ activities, the restrictions on movement of civilians across the administrative boundary lines and the arbitrary detentions of Georgian citizens. 4. The EU calls on Russia, as a party to this conflict, to recommit itself to respecting Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognised borders and to fulfil its obligations under the EU-mediated agreement of 12 August 2008 and its subsequent implementing measures of 8 September 2008 in full and without further delay. The EU also urges Russia to ensure the proper follow‑up of the landmark judgement of 21 January 2021 of the European Court of Human Rights in the case Georgia vs Russia.”
162. Council of Europe bodies have repeatedly addressed issues concerning the restitution of property to internally displaced persons (IDPs) and refugees. The following resolution is of particular relevance in the context of the present case:
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) Resolution 1708 (2010) on solving property issues of refugees and displaced persons
“... 3. The destruction, occupation and confiscation of abandoned property violate the rights of the individuals concerned, perpetuate displacement and complicate reconciliation and peace-building. Therefore, the restitution of property – that is, the restoration of rights and physical possession in favour of displaced former residents – or compensation, are forms of redress necessary for restoring the rights of the individual and the rule of law. 4. The Parliamentary Assembly considers that restitution is the optimal response to the loss of access and rights to housing, land and property because, alone among forms of redress, it facilitates choice between three ‘durable solutions’ to displacement: return to one’s original home in safety and dignity; local integration at the site of displacement; or resettlement either at some other site within the country of origin or outside its borders.”
163. The Parliamentary Assembly then referred to Council of Europe human rights instruments, in particular the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Social Charter and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, and to the UN Pinheiro Principles, and called on member States to take the following measures:
“9. In the light of the above, the Assembly calls on member states to resolve post-conflict housing, land and property issues of refugees and IDPs, taking into account the Pinheiro Principles, the relevant Council of Europe instruments and Recommendation Rec(2006)6 of the Committee of Ministers. 10. Bearing in mind these relevant international standards and the experience of property resolution and compensation programmes carried out in Europe to date, member states are invited to:
10.1.  guarantee timely and effective redress for the loss of access and rights to housing, land and property abandoned by refugees and IDPs without regard to pending negotiations concerning the resolution of armed conflicts or the status of a particular territory;
10.2.  ensure that such redress takes the form of restitution in the form of confirmation of the legal rights of refugees and displaced persons to their property and restoration of their safe physical access to, and possession of, such property. Where restitution is not possible, adequate compensation must be provided, through the confirmation of prior legal rights to property and the provision of money and goods having a reasonable relationship to their market value, or other forms of just reparation;
10.3.  ensure that refugees and displaced persons who did not have formally recognised rights prior to their displacement, but whose enjoyment of their property was treated as de facto valid by the authorities, are accorded equal and effective access to legal remedies and redress for their dispossession. This is particularly important where the affected persons are socially vulnerable or belong to minority groups;
...
10.5.  ensure that the absence from their accommodation of holders of occupancy and tenancy rights who have been forced to abandon their homes shall be deemed justified until the conditions that allow for voluntary return in safety and dignity have been restored;
10.6.  provide rapid, accessible and effective procedures for claiming redress. Where displacement and dispossession have taken place in a systematic manner, special adjudicatory bodies should be set up to assess claims. Such bodies should apply expedited procedures that incorporate relaxed evidentiary standards and facilitated procedure. All property types relevant to the residential and livelihood needs of displaced persons should be within their jurisdiction, including homes, agricultural land and business properties;
10.7.  secure the independence, impartiality and expertise of adjudicatory bodies, including through appropriate rules on their composition that may provide for the inclusion of international members. ...”
164. The decision of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe of 2 May 2018 on the conflict in Georgia reads as follows:
“The Deputies
1.  recalled their decisions on ‘The Council of Europe and the conflict in Georgia’ of 29 and 30 April and 2 May 2014 (1198th meeting), 12 May 2015 (1227th meeting), 4 May 2016 (1255th meeting) and 3 May 2017 (1285th meeting); reiterated the unequivocal support of the Council of Europe member States for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia within its internationally recognised borders;
2.  stated that the conclusion and implementation of so-called treaties on alliance and strategic partnership/integration between the Russian Federation and Georgia’s regions of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia and the recent ratification by the Russian State Duma of a so-called agreement on the incorporation of military units of the Tskhinvali region of Georgia into the armed forces of the Russian Federation, as well as the recent opening of so-called customs points in the Georgian regions of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia aimed at the integration of these regions respectively into the customs sphere of the Russian Federation, impede the peaceful conflict resolution, undermine the ongoing efforts to strengthen security and stability in the region, constitute repeated violations of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia and have no legal validity; reiterated that any illegal act aimed at changing the status of the Georgian regions will have no legal effect; reiterated that any illegal act by the Russian Federation aimed at changing the status of the Georgian regions, including through issuing passports and establishing a so-called status of foreign residents, have no legal effect and further complicate the situation on the ground; called upon the Russian Federation to stop and reverse this process and to comply with its international law obligations and commitments, including under the EU mediated 12 August 2008 Ceasefire Agreement, in particular with regard to the withdrawal of military forces and allow the establishment of international security mechanisms on the ground;
3.  stated that Georgia, as the only sovereign State under international law over its regions of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia, is still prevented from exercising legitimate jurisdiction over these regions due to the continuous impediments put by the Russian Federation, including its continuing military presence therein;
4.  deeply regretted that despite the constant calls upon the Russian Federation to reverse this process, it continues installing razor and barbed wire fences and other artificial obstacles along the administrative boundary lines (ABLs) dividing families and communities, violating human rights and fundamental freedoms, complicating the settlement of the conflict involving two member States; expressed their concern that the closure of ‘crossing points’ across the ABL of the Georgian region of Abkhazia is detrimental for freedom of movement and livelihood of the local residents and further deteriorates the humanitarian situation on the ground;
5.  underlined the efforts of Georgia to reach out to the residents of its regions of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia by enhancing humanitarian activities; expressed appreciation for the various initiatives taken by Georgia in this respect, inter alia, through providing education opportunities and free medical service to the residents of these regions; welcomed the new peace initiative of the Government of Georgia entitled ‘A step to a better future’, as a vivid sign of Georgia’s firm commitment to promote confidence and interaction between the societies split by the dividing lines;
6.  expressed profound concern that the human rights situation in the Georgian regions of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia has been further deteriorating, including with regard to the right to education in native language, the right to freedom of movement, the right to property, and the right to liberty and security; expressed serious concern at the discrimination based on ethnic grounds; expressed concern that IDPs and refugees continue to be deprived of the right to return to their places of origin in a safe and dignified manner;
7.  expressed grave concern over the detention of three Georgian citizens Mr Archil Tatunashvili, Mr Levan Kutashvili and Mr Ioseb Pavliashvili in Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia and the subsequent death of Mr Archil Tatunashvili in custody; condemned the fact that handing over his body became a topic for negotiations, which lasted almost one month; expressed concern over obstacles to the freedom of movement of Mr Levan Kutashvili and Mr Ioseb Pavliashvili, who were allowed to cross into Tbilisi Administered Territory after considerable delay;
8.  expressed grave concern over impunity around the killing of an unarmed Georgian civilian on 19 May 2016 in the village of Khurcha;
9.  expressed concern at the razing of intentionally damaged houses belonging to IDPs in Eredvi village, Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia, in violation of property rights;
10.  bearing in mind that human rights and fundamental freedoms shall be protected by all relevant States Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights in the Georgian regions of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia, called on the authorities exercising effective control:
-  to create conditions allowing for the voluntary, safe and dignified return of IDPs and refugees, and to protect their property rights;
-  to guarantee and implement the right to education in schools and preschools, including education in the native language in Georgia’s regions of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia;
-  to remove any impediment, restriction or limitation to the right to freedom of movement across the ABLs, including for medical and education purposes; to cease arbitrary detention of persons, including in the context of so-called ‘illegal border crossing’ and to re-open ‘crossing points’;
-  to ensure that residents of the Georgian regions concerned are not subject to discrimination on any including ethnic ground and are prevented from holding Georgian passports;
-  to investigate allegations of human rights violation and ensure appropriate follow‑up in accordance with the European standards on human rights;
-  to prevent further deterioration of monuments belonging to the cultural heritage throughout Georgia’s regions of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia;
11.  deeply regretted that neither the Commissioner for Human Rights, the monitoring bodies, nor the Secretariat delegation preparing the Secretary General’s consolidated reports have been granted access to the Georgian regions concerned; invited the Secretary General to engage in a dialogue with the Russian Federation and Georgia to this end; called on the Russian Federation to secure immediate and unrestricted access to the territories beyond the control of the Government of Georgia to the Council of Europe bodies;
12.  encouraged the Secretary General to continue the submission of his biannual consolidated reports on the conflict in Georgia to the Committee of Ministers.”
165. The Resolution of the European Parliament of 14 June 2018 on Georgian occupied territories 10 years after the Russian invasion and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Resolution on Ten Years After the August 2008 War in Georgia are along the same lines as the decision of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe of 2 May 2018 (cited in the previous paragraph). They are available on the internet. 166. In a report of July 2017 entitled “Human Rights in Abkhazia Today”, the former Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe, acting as an independent expert for the European Union, together with another expert, stated:
Executive summary
“... Most ethnic Georgians (with the exception of Gali returnees) have been unable to return, and their right to the property they had left behind is often violated.
... Property issues
Property issues and property rights are among the most sensitive problems in Abkhazia at present. Property rights of ethnic Georgians displaced from Abkhazia are one of the key issues that will need to be addressed as part of a comprehensive conflict settlement.
... In the wake of the conflict, a tumultuous, controversial and unregulated process of arbitrary property acquisitions started. Many Abkhaz took hold of property left behind by ethnic Georgians but also by others.
... The property and accommodation rights of many were violated in the process. Ethnic Georgians (with the exception of those who have returned to Gali) are still deprived of the right to return, and in the majority of cases also of their right to the property they had left behind.”
THE LAW
Preliminary remarksTemporal scope

167. The Court notes that the facts giving rise to the alleged violations of the Convention occurred prior to 16 September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a Party to the Convention. The Court therefore decides that it has jurisdiction to examine the present applications in so far as they concern Russia (see Fedotova and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 40792/10 and 2 others, § 73, 17 January 2023, and Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia (dec.) [GC], nos. 8019/16, 43800/14 and 28525/20, § 389, 25 January 2023). There is no temporal bar to the examination of the applications in respect of Georgia. Right to pursue the application on behalf of the second, third, fourth and fifth applicants
168. The second applicant died on 29 May 2012. The first applicant expressed her wish to pursue the application in his stead (see paragraph 9 above). The Russian Government submitted that she had no standing to act on her late husband’s behalf and pursue his application (no. 48656/06) before the Court, because she had not proved that she was his legal heir. 169. The third applicant died in 2011. Her son, Mr Badri Mekhuzla, asked the Court if he could pursue the application in his late mother’s stead (see paragraph 48 above). 170. The fourth applicant died on 6 December 2006. Her son, Mr Goliap Sanaia, informed the Court in a letter of 19 March 2007 that he intended to pursue the application before the Court as the deceased’s heir. On 3 July 2007 a Chamber of the Court allowed Mr Goliap Sanaia to pursue the application in lieu of his late mother. Mr Goliap Sanaia died on 29 January 2020 and his wife, Ms Larisa Sanaia, expressed a wish to continue the application (see paragraph 68 above). 171. The fifth applicant died on 16 June 2021. Her daughter, the sixth applicant, expressed a wish to continue to pursue the application in her late mother’s stead (see paragraph 77 above). 172. As the Court observed in Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania ([GC], no. 47848/08, § 137, ECHR 2014), where an applicant has died after lodging an application, it has accepted that his or her next of kin or heir may, in principle, pursue the application, provided that he or she has sufficient interest in the case (see, for instance, the widow and children in Raimondo v. Italy, 22 February 1994, § 2, Series A no. 281‑A, and Stojkovic v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 14818/02, § 25, 8 November 2007; the parents in X v. France, 31 March 1992, § 26, Series A no. 234-C; the nephew and potential heir in Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000‑XII; and the unmarried or de facto partner in Velikova v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 41488/98, ECHR 1999-V; and contrast the universal legatee not related to the deceased in Thévenon v. France (dec.), no. 2476/02, ECHR 2006-III; the niece in Léger v. France (striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, § 50, 30 March 2009; and the daughter of an original applicant in a case concerning non-transferable rights under Articles 3 and 8 where no general interest was at stake in M.P. and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 22457/08, §§ 96-100, 15 November 2011). 173. Cases before the Court generally also have a moral or principled dimension, and persons close to an applicant may thus have a legitimate interest in obtaining a ruling even after that applicant’s death (see, among other authorities, Hristozov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 47039/11 and 358/12, § 73, ECHR 2012 (extracts)). 174. In the instant case, the requests (listed above) to pursue the proceedings were submitted by individuals who are very close relatives of the deceased applicants and can thus claim to have a legitimate interest in obtaining a ruling even after their death. Bearing in mind the above, as well as the passage of time since the applications were lodged, the Court finds that, in the circumstances, it would be contrary to the Court’s mission if it were to refrain from ruling on the applications submitted by the deceased applicants on the sole ground that, owing to their condition and advanced age, they did not have the strength or the time to await the outcome of the proceedings before it (compare, mutatis mutandis, Mamasakhlisi and Others v. Georgia and Russia, nos. 29999/04 and 41424/04, § 241, 7 March 2023). 175. The Court accordingly accepts that the first applicant, who has been the wife of the second applicant since 1998 (see paragraph 10 above), has standing to pursue the application in his stead. The Court further finds that a number of elements in the file (see paragraphs 48, 55-56 and 93 above) are sufficient to show that Mr Badri Mekhuzla is the third applicant’s son and therefore has standing to pursue the application on her behalf. In addition, the Court finds that Ms Larissa Sanaia, wife of the late Mr Goliap Sanaia, who was authorised by the Court to pursue the application in his late mother’s stead (the fourth applicant), has standing to continue to pursue the application after Mr Goliap Sanaia’s demise (see paragraphs 68 and 94 above). Lastly, the Court finds that the sixth applicant, who is the fifth applicant’s daughter (see paragraph 77 above), has standing to pursue the application in her late mother’s stead. Joinder of the applications
176. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to order their joinder (Rule 42 § 1 of the Rule of Court). Admissibility issues
177.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 1
Outcome: violation