CASE OF GEORGIA v. RUSSIA (I)
Hearing: Georgia v. Russia (I) (no. 13255/07) Just satisfaction (Grand Chamber hearing, 2012-06-13 00:00:00)
Application no.: 13255/07
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2014-07-03 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0703JUD001325507
Respondent state: RUS
Articles of the Convention: 3;5;5-1;5-1-f;5-4;8;8-1;13;13+3;13+5-1;19;35;35-1;38;41;P1-1;P1-1-1;P1-2;P4-4;P7-1;P7-1-1
Judges: Anatoly Kovler;André Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Christos Rozakis;Corneliu Bîrsan;Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Françoise Tulkens;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Jean-Paul Costa;Josep Casadevall;Karel Jungwiert;Khanlar Hajiyev;Luis López Guerra;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Nicolas Bratza;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva
Represented by: MESKHORADZE L. 
Issue: Circular no. 0215 of 30.09.2006 of the Main Directorate of Internal Affairs of St Petersburg and the Leningrad Region ; Circular no. 849 of 29 September 2006 of the Ministry of the Interior of the Russian Federation ; Articles 18.8, 18.10 and 18.11 of the Code of Administrative Offences
Strasbourg case-law cited: Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 69, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 IV;Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012;Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 127, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 V;Čonka v. Belgium, no 51564/99, ECHR 2002 I;Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], no 25781/94, ECHR 2001 IV;Davydov and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 17674/02 and 39081/02, 1 July 2010;France, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands v. Turkey, nos. 9940 9944/82, decision of the Commission of 6 December 1983, § 19, DR 35;Georgia v. Russia (I) (dec.), no 13255/07, §§ 44-46 and 50, 30 June 2009;Gusinskiy v. Russia, no 70276/01, § 73, ECHR 2004 IV;Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy [GC], no 27765/09, ECHR 2012;Idalov v. Russia [GC], no 5826/03, 22 May 2012;Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no 48787/99, ECHR 2004 VII;Imakayeva v. Russia, no 7615/02, § 111, ECHR 2006 XIII (extracts);Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, Series A no 25;Janowiec and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09, ECHR 2013;Kalashnikov v. Russia, no 47095/99, ECHR 2002 VI;Khudoyorov v. Russia, no 6847/02, §§ 116 and seq., ECHR 2005 X (extracts);Lutsenko v. Ukraine, no 6492/11, § 105, 3 July 2012;M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no 30696/09, §§ 227 and 255, ECHR 2011;Mathew v. the Netherlands, no 24919/03, § 156, ECHR 2005 IX;Mudayevy v. Russia, no 33105/05, § 127, 8 April 2010;NA. v. the United Kingdom, no 25904/07, §§ 119-120, 17 July 2008;Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, § 147, ECHR 2005-VII;Niyazov v. Russia, no 27843/11, §§ 87 and seq., 16 October 2012;Nolan and K. v. Russia, no 2512/04, § 56, 12 February 2009;Saadi v. Italy [GC], no 37201/06, ECHR 2008;Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no 36378/02, 246 and 362, ECHR 2005 III;Solovyevy v. Russia, no 918/02, § 123, 24 April 2012;Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no 36760/06, § 168, ECHR 2012;Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom, nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07, § 230, 28 June 2011;Sultani v. France, no 45223/05, ECHR 2007 IV (extracts);Tymoshenko v. Ukraine, no 49872/11, § 294, 30 April 2013
External sources: Report of the Monitoring Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe – PACE Report;Information note of 1 November 2006 of the Federal Migration Service of the Russian Federation - HRW Report;Report of the International Federation for Human Rights - FIDH Report;Report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) on the Russian Federation of December 2001;Report to the Russian Government on the CPT’s visit to the Russian Federation from 2 to 7 December 2001, § 32, CPT/Inf (2003) 30
Conclusion: Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;Violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case-{general} (Article 38 - Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities);Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+5-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5 - Right to liberty and security);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Prohibition of torture);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 - Procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 7 - Expulsion of an alien;Lawfully resident);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property);No violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to education-{general} (Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to education);Just satisfaction reserved
Separate opinion: TRUE