CASE OF GEORGIA v. RUSSIA (II)
Hearing: Georgia v. Russia (II)  (no. 38263/08) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2018-05-23 00:00:00)
Application no.: 38263/08
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2021-01-21 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0121JUD003826308
Respondent state: RUS
Articles of the Convention: 1;2;2-1;2-2;3;5;5-1;8;8-1;15;33;35;35-1;35-3-a;38;41;P1-1;P1-1-1;P1-2;P4-2;P4-2-1
Judges: Anatoly Kovler;Armen Harutyunyan;Dmitry Dedov;Ganna Yudkivska;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Karel Jungwiert;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Lemmens;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Peer Lorenzen;Robert Spano;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Yonko Grozev;Zdravka Kalaydjieva;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer;Tim Eicke
Strasbourg case-law cited: Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 88, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 IV;Amuyeva and Others v. Russia, no 17321/06, §§ 83-84, 25 November 2010;Ananyev and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012;Andreou v. Turkey (dec.), no 45653/99, 3 June 2008;Avşar v. Turkey, no 25657/94, §§ 413 416, ECHR 2001 VII (extracts);Banković and Others v. Belgium and Others (dec.) [GC], no 52207/99, ECHR 2001 XII;Bilgin v. Turkey, no 23819/94, 16 November 2000;Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, ECHR 2012 (extracts);Chiragov and Others v. Armenia [GC], no 13216/05, § 168, ECHR 2015;Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], no 25781/94, ECHR 2001-IV;Cyprus v. Turkey (just satisfaction) [GC], no 25781/94, § 43, ECHR 2014;Dulaş v. Turkey, no 25801/94, 30 January 2001;El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no 39630/09, ECHR 2012;Estamirov and Others v. Russia, no 60272/00, § 114, 12 October 2006;Georgia v. Russia (I) (just satisfaction) [GC], no 13255/07, § 20, 29 January 2019;Georgia v. Russia (I) [GC], no 13255/07, ECHR 2014;Gongadze v. Ukraine, no 34056/02, §§ 170-171, ECHR 2005 XI;Güzelyurtlu and Others v. Cyprus and Turkey [GC], no 36925/07, 29 January 2019;Hasan v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 29750/09, ECHR 2014;Idalov v. Russia [GC], no 5826/03, 22 May 2012;Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004-VII;Iljina and Sarulienė v. Lithuania, no 32293/05, § 47, 15 March 2011;İpek v. Turkey, no 25760/94, ECHR 2004 II (extracts);Ireland v. the United Kingdom, no 5310/71, Report of the Commission of 25 January 1976, Series B no 23 I, pp. 395-396;Isaak and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no 44587/98, 28 September 2006;Issa and Others v. Turkey, no 31821/96, 16 November 2004;Jaloud v. the Netherlands [GC], no 47708/08, ECHR 2014;Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, § 147, 24 February 2005;Kılıç v. Turkey, no 22492/93, §§ 64 and 77, ECHR 2000 III;Loizidou v. Turkey (fond), 18 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 VI;Loizidou v. Turkey (exceptions préliminaires), 23 March 1995, Series A no 310;M.C. v. Bulgaria, no 39272/98, § 149, ECHR 2003-XII;M.N. and Others v. la Belgium (dec.) [GC], no 3599/18, 5 March 2020;Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, no 22535/93, §§ 87 and 101, ECHR 2000 III;Medvedyev and Others v. France [GC], no 3394/03, ECHR 2010;Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Others v. Georgia, no. 71156/01, 3 May 2007;Menteş and Others v. Turkey, 28 November 1997, Reports 1997 VIII;Musayeva and Others v. Russia, no 74239/01, §§ 79-82, 26 July 2007;Mozer v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], no 11138/10, ECHR 2016;Pad and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no 60167/00, 28 June 2007;Selçuk and Asker v. Turkey, 24 April 1998, Reports 1998 II;Solomou and Others v. Turkey, no 36832/97, 24 June 2008;Yöyler v. Turkey, no 26973/95, 24 July 2003;Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 29392/95, §§ 73-75, ECHR 2001-V
External sources: The Hague Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 18 October 1907;Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional Protocol
Conclusion: Preliminary objections dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione loci;Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life;Article 2-2 - Use of force) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Liberty of person);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-{general} (Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement);No violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to education-{general} (Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to education);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case-{general} (Article 38 - Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities);Just satisfaction reserved (Article 41 - Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE