Information Note on the Court’s case-law 120

June 2009

Georgia v. Russia (I) (dec.) - 13255/07

Decision 30.6.2009 [Section V]

Article 33

Inter-State application

Alleged pattern of official conduct by Russian authorities resulting in multiple breaches of Georgian nationals’ Convention rights: admissible

The application concerns events following the arrest in Tbilisi in September 2006 of four Russian service person nel on suspicion of espionage. In October 2006 the four servicemen were released by executive act of clemency. Eleven Georgian nationals were arrested on the same charges.

The applicant Government maintain that the reaction of the Russian authorities to th is incident amounted to a pattern of official conduct giving rise to specific and continuing breaches of the Convention and its Protocols. These breaches are said to derive from alleged harassment of the Georgian immigrant population in Russia together wit h widespread arrests and detention generating a generalised threat to security of the person and multiple interferences with the right to liberty on arbitrary grounds. The Georgian Government also complain of the conditions in which more than 2,000 Georgia ns had been detained. They assert that the collective expulsion of Georgians from the Russian Federation involved systematic and arbitrary interference with documents evidencing a legitimate right to remain, due process requirements and the statutory appea l process. In addition, closing the land, air and maritime border between the Russian Federation and Georgia, thereby interrupting all postal communication, frustrated access to remedies for the persons affected.

The applicant Government's complaints fall into four main categories: the arrest and detention of Georgian nationals in alleged violation of Article 5; those nationals’ conditions of detention in violation of Article 3; the expulsion measures taken against them, in breach of Article 4 of Protocol N o. 4 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7; and finally, the other measures which were allegedly in violation of the rights guaranteed by the Convention (Article 8 and Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1). Each of these Articles is invoked alone and in combina tion with Articles 13, 14 and 18 of the Convention.

The Russian Government denied the existence of an administrative practice targeted against Georgian nationals and challenged the content of the documents submitted by the Georgian Government, as well as t he conclusions of the reports by international organisations. The Russian Government argued that the Russian authorities had not adopted reprisal measures against Georgian nationals, but had merely continued to apply the ordinary law aimed at preventing il legal immigration, in compliance with the requirements of the Convention and the Russian Federation’s international obligations.

The Court first established the object of the application. It considered that its content and scope, and the written and oral s ubmissions by the Georgian Government, were sufficiently clear to allow a judicial examination under the Convention. In the opinion of the Court, the object of the application covered two different complaints: the allegations concerning the existence of an administrative practice and those concerning individual violations of the rights guaranteed by the Convention. Examining whether the allegations of the existence of an administrative practice had complied with Article 35 § 1 (admissibility criteria), the Court had regard to the evidence submitted by the parties and found that the allegations made by the Georgian Government could not be considered as being wholly unsubstantiated or that they lacked the requirements of a genuine allegation required by Articl e 33 of the Convention. As to whether these allegations complied with the six-month rule, the disputed events were said to have begun in Russia following the arrest on 27 September 2006 of four Russian officers in Georgia and the application was lodged wit h the Court on 26 March 2007. In so far as the Georgian Government had submitted additional evidence after that date, the question of the six-month rule was so closely related to that of the existence of an administrative practice that they had to be consi dered jointly during an examination of the merits of the case. As regards whether the allegations of individual violations of the rights guaranteed by the Convention had complied with Article 35 § 1, the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies was so c losely linked with that of the existence of an administrative practice that they had to be considered jointly during an examination of the merits of the case.

Admissible.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes