9483/09, MEGRELISHVILI v. ROSJA - Decyzja Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka
Decyzja Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka z dnia 15 września 2020 r. 9483/09
Application no. 9483/09
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 15 September 2020 as a Committee composed of:
Aleš Pejchal, President,
Tim Eicke, judges,
and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 February 2009,
Having regard to the decision of 24 August 2011 to give notice of the application to the Russian Government ("the Government") for information,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
1. The applicant, Mr Teimuraz Megrelishvili, is a Georgian national, who was born in 1951 and lives in Tbilisi.
2. He submitted various complaints in the context of events relating to the conflict in August 2008 (see Dzhioyeva and Others v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 24964/09, 20548/09 and 22469/09, § 14, 20 November 2018).
3. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that on an unspecified date in August 2008 he was beaten by Russian and Ossetian fighters near the village of Abisi (undisputed Georgian territory). He also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of the destruction of his home and other property in the village of Avlevi (undisputed Georgian territory), and under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention of having had his freedom of movement restricted. The applicant also relied on Article 13 of the Convention, alleging the absence of an effective remedy in respect of his complaints.
4. To support his claims, the applicant submitted to the Court an identity card indicating Tbilisi as his permanent place of residence, a handwritten note from a Tbilisi-based doctor dated 25 August 2008 indicating that the applicant had suffered a head injury on 16 August 2008 "in the village of Avlevi", and a technical passport for a tractor.
A. General considerations
5. The Court has already dealt with similar complaints and made findings regarding the issue of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and a duty incumbent on applicants to substantiate their grievances by supplying evidence in support of their claims in the previous cases against Georgia which concerned events relating to the conflict of August 2008 (see Dzhioyeva and Others v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 24964/09, 20548/09 and 22469/09, §§ 23-30, 20 November 2018; Naniyeva and Bagayev v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 2256/09 and 2260/09, §§ 19–26, 20 November 2018; and Kudukhova v. Georgia (dec.), nos. 8274/09 and 8275/09, §§ 21-28, 20 November 2018). These considerations also apply in the present case.
6. In particular, the Court would reiterate that it is not a tribunal of facts and cannot, without appropriate assistance on the part of the applicants, establish the factual account of complex events, such as situations of armed conflict (see Naniyeva and Bagayev, cited above, § 39).
B. Complaint under Article 3 of the Convention
7. The Court acknowledges that the applicant's allegations are of a serious nature. However, in support of his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention alleging that he had been beaten by the Russian and Ossetian fighters near the village of Abisi the applicant submitted a medical note issued by a Tbilisi-based doctor (see paragraph 4 above) which stated that he had received a head trauma "in the village of Avlevi", rather than the village of Abisi. No further documents are available regarding either the circumstances in which the trauma may have been inflicted, or persons involved in the incident, if any had taken place. More importantly, while the applicant provided evidence of his permanent residence in Tbilisi, he did not submit any evidence that he had owned any property in the relevant village, or that he had any other links with it, to make out a cogent argument about his whereabouts at the material time. Moreover, there is no sufficient indication that the diagnosis described in the medical note had been related to the events of the conflict.
8. Because the applicant failed to provide the Court with convincing prima facie evidence that the hostilities took place in his proximity with such intensity and in a manner that would raise an issue under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court finds his complaint to be unsubstantiated.
9. Accordingly, it follows that this part of the application must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
C. Complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4
10. The Court reiterates that it was for the applicant to provide sufficient prima facie evidence in support of his complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention about the alleged destruction of property and limitation of his freedom of movement in the context of the events related to the conflict. Furthermore, the Court will have particular regard to the fact that the village of Avlevi is located on the undisputed Georgian territory (see paragraph 3 above), with no apparent limitations on the freedom of movement
11. Against this background, the Court notes that no evidence to demonstrate ownership of property, its destruction, or any link with the relevant village was submitted. Nor did the applicant provide any specific explanation as to why no documentation at all could be adduced (see, mutatis mutandis, Lisnyy and Others v. Ukraine and Russia (dec.), nos. 5355/15, 44913/15 and 50853/15, §§ 27-30, 5 July 2016; and Dzhioyeva and Others, cited above, § 30).
12. The Court therefore finds that these complaints are unsubstantiated and must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
D. Complaint under Article 13 of the Convention
13. As regards Article 13 of the Convention, this provision only applies to "arguable" complaints (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000–XI). Considering the Court's conclusions regarding the above complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention (see paragraphs 9 and 12 above), it follows that the remainder of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected under Article 35 § 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 8 October 2020.