Communicated on 9 November 2015

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 74019/12 Paul ELIAURI and others against Georgia lodged on 14 November 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. All applicants were represented before the Court by Grégory Thuan Dit Dieudonne , a lawyer practicing in Strasbourg.

2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

3. In 1996-97, while serving the mandatory military service at the Lilo border guards unit in Tbilisi, all applicants developed serious radiation lesions due to exposure, without their knowledge, to a radioactive substance over the course of a relatively long period (between sixty and three hundred days). Subsequently the applicants were provided with free emergency medical treatment for their radiation lesions, including the treatment at different hospitals in France, Germany, and Russia. It was established from the early stages that, apart from the lesions, due to their long exposure to the radioactive substance, the applicants ’ internal organs and systems were also affected. In the subsequent years the applicants developed different health conditions and were classed as disabled with varying degrees of incapacity.

4. On 31 May 2002 the Tbilisi District Court finding in favour of the applicants, ruled that the Ministry of Defence, the Department of the State Border Guards, the Ministry of Health, and the Ministry of Environmental Protection had to jointly cover the applicants ’ anticipated medical expenses. While amounts to be paid to each applicant were individually determined, the overall sum of these amounts stood at 4,549,627 United States dollars (“USD”). On 26 July 2002 the same court issued the respective writ of execution and the Execution Department of the Ministry of Justice then opened the enforcement proceedings.

5. On 12 March 2003 the Supreme Court of Georgia, upholding the applicants ’ award, slightly modified the lower court ’ s decision and ruled that only the Ministry of Defence and the Department of the State Border Guards could be held responsible to pay the awarded sum to the applicants. The judgment of 31 May 2002 thus became final and enforceable.

6. From 2004 to 2009 the State made payments to the applicants in instalments the overall sum of which constituted USD 1,310,500 while the rest of the aforementioned award was still outstanding.

7. As of December 2012 the State negotiated with the applicants the schedule of payment of the outstanding sum of USD 3,239,127 and started to make payments according to the agreed schedule. On 29 May 2013 the final payment was made to the applicants. According to the applicants, during these negotiations they also requested the payment of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages emanating from the delayed enforcement of the judgment debt, but in vain.

8. On 20 August 2013, confirming the full payment of the judgment debt, the applicants informed the Court that they still wished to maintain the present application.

COMPLAINTS

9. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the delays in enforcement of the judgment debt against the State violated their rights to a fair trial and peaceful enjoyment of possessions.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Given the fact that the judgment debt has been fully paid to the applicants by 29 May 2013, m ay they still claim to be victims of violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention?

In this respect, did the applicants request any type of damages, pecuniary or non-pecuniary, from the domestic authorities, including during their negotiation with the Government over the payment schedule in December 2012, for the delay in the enforcement of the judgment of 31 May 2002? If not, what can be a significance of such a lack of action at the domestic level on behalf of the applicants for the purposes of their victim status in the current proceedings before the Court?

2. Given the delay in the full payment of the judgment debt, have the applicants ’ rights to enforcement of a binding judgment and to peaceful enjoyment of possessions respected in the present case, in accordance with relevant principles under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

Appendix

N o

First name LASTNAME

Birth date

Nationality

Place of residence

Paul ELIAURI

17/12/1974

French

Paris

Nodari ADUASHVILI

30/05/1977

French

Mantes la Jolie

Zurab BALAMTSARASHVILI

29/10/1974

Georgian

Tbilisi

Goderdzi CHAKHUNASHVILI

01/12/1976

Georgian

Village Salkhino

Gela GELASHVILI

03/03/1974

Georgian

Telavi

Levani GOGIA

19/12/1977

Georgian

Senaki

David INDUASHVILI

16/08/1978

Georgian

Tbilisi

Nugzar SHARABIDZE

19/03/1978

Georgian

Tbilisi

Otar SURMANIDZE

26/02/1978

Georgian

Village Pirosmani

Kakhaber TSIKORIDZE

16/12/1975

Georgian

Kutaisi

Zurab VARSIMASHVILI

28/03/1977

Georgian

Dusheti