Communicated on 30 May 2017

FIFTH SECTION

Application no 56006/11 GEORGIA RED CROSS SOCIETY against Georgia lodged on 31 August 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant organisation, the Georgia Red Cross Society, is a legal entity registered in Georgia.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant organisation, may be summarised as follows.

From 1932 the applicant organisation owned a house located at 4 M. Abashidze Street, Batumi (hereinafter “the real estate”).

On 19 May 2006 the applicant organisation asked for the real estate to be registered as its property in the Land Register.

On 29 June 2006 the Land Registry refused the applicant organisation ’ s request on the grounds that the real estate had already been registered as State property under Decree no. 137 of the Batumi City Hall in September 2004 (hereafter “the Decree”) and a certificate issued by the Ministry of Finance and Economics of the Ajarian Autonomous Republic in 2005 (hereafter “the 2005 certificate”).

On 4 December 2006 the applicant organisation brought an action in the Batumi City Court against the Ministry of Finance and Economics, Batumi City Hall and the Land Registry. It asked that (i) the Decree and the 2005 certificate be declared null and void and (ii) the real estate be registered in its name.

By a decision of 17 March 2008 the Batumi City Court declared Decree no. 137 and the 2005 certificate null and void. In this respect, the court noted that the disputed property constituted the applicant organisation ’ s property on the basis of a legal document dating back to 1932. However, the court refused to register the real estate in the applicant organisation ’ s name because there existed another certificate issued by the Ministry of Finance and Economics on 5 October 2007 (hereafter “the 2007 certificate”), which stated that disputed property constituted State property.

After lodging unsuccessfully a number of administrative appeals, seeking the declaration of the 2007 certificate as null and void, the applicant organisation brought an action in the Batumi City Court. He argued that, since the real estate constituted its property, which fact had been acknowledged by the final and enforceable decision of 17 March 2008, the 2007 certificate, which interefered with its property rights, was unlawful. By a decision of 27 August 2010 the City Court dismissed the applicant organisation ’ s action as inadmissible for being time-barred.

The applicant appealed. On 29 November 2010 the Kutaisi Court of Appeal dismissed that appeal and upheld the first-instance court decision of 27 August 2010.

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. On 7 March 2011 the Supreme Court of Georgia declared that appeal inadmissible.

COMPLAINT

The applicant organisation complains that by not registering the real estate as its property in the Land Register, the State interfered unjustifiably with its rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the fact that the applicant organisation ’ s court action against the 2007 certificate was rejected as inadmissible for being time-barred, can the applicant be said to have exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, for the purposes of its complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

2. Can the real estate in question be said to constitute the applicant organisation ’ s existing possession within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

3. If so, having regard to the domestic authorities ’ refusal to record the real estate in the applicant organisation ’ s name in the Land Register, has there been a breach of the latter ’ s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?