FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 2452/10 Giorgi LAZARASHVILI against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 15 September 2020 as a Committee composed of:

Aleš Pejchal , President, Pauliine Koskelo, Tim Eicke, judges , and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 December 2009,

Having regard to the decision of 24 August 2011 to give notice of the applications to the Russian Government (“the Government”) for information,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1 . The applicant, Mr Giorgi Lazarashvili , is a Georgian national, who was born in 1943 and lives in Gori. He was represented before the Court by Ms T. Gabisonia , a lawyer practising in Tbilisi.

2 . The applicant 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).

COMPLAINTS

3 . The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention about the damage to his home and farm in the village of Khviti (undisputed Georgian territory), and having had his car stolen. He also complained under Article 5 of the Convention of having been detained in Tskhinvali on 16 October 2008. To support his claims, he submitted a certificate of ownership for his car.

THE LAW

4 . 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 8275/0 9, §§ 21-28, 20 November 2018). These considerations also apply in the present case.

5 . 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) .

6 . In the light of the above, the Court considers that it was for the present applicant to submit documents showing that the property allegedly destroyed or damaged was his possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and, at the same time, that the property suffered damage as a result of the relevant events (see Dzhioyeva and Others , cited above, § 32) . Furthermore, the Court will have particular regard to the fact that village concerned is located on the territory of Georgia to which the applicant must have unlimited access (see paragraph 4 above).

7 . Against this background, the Court notes that the applicant, represented by a lawyer, did not submit any evidence to demonstrate that his property had been affected by the events of the conflict (see paragraph 3 above).

8 . As regards the applicant ’ s submission under Article 5 of the Convention, he submitted no evidence to substantiate this complaint, and gave no explanation in that regard (see Dzhioyeva and Others , cited above, § 30).

9 . As regards Article 13 of the Convention, this provision only applies to “arguable” complaints (see KudÅ‚a v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000 ‑ XI). Accordingly, and given the Court ’ s conclusion regarding Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 5 of the Convention, the complaint under Article 13 is likewise inadmissible.

10 . Consequently, the Court considers that the application is unsubstantiated and must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, in accordance with 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 .

Renata Degener Aleš Pejchal Deputy Registrar President