European Court of Human Rights

SECOND SECTION

FINAL DECISION

Application no. 21121/03
by Suliko MIKELADZE and Others
against Georgia

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 24 June 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Françoise Tulkens, President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
András Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Işıl Karakaş, judges,
and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 June 2003,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the absence of those of the applicants in reply,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants, Mr Suliko Mikeladze (“the first applicant”), Mr Joni Mikeladze (“the second applicant”) and Mr Aslan Bezhanidze (“the third applicant”), are Georgian nationals who were born in 1966, 1974 and 1959 respectively and live in the Ajarian Autonomous Republic, Georgia (“the AAR”). They were represented before the Court by Mr Zaza Khatiashvili, a lawyer practising in Tbilisi. The Georgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Besarion Bokhashvili of the Ministry of Justice.

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

In a decision of 8 April 2002, the Supreme Court of the AAR (“the SCAAR”) authorised the local government to expropriate 0,25 hectare of land, a house with a surface of 153,4 m² and a cowshed of 12 m² from the first applicant and 0,14 hectare of land from the third applicant. The house was co-owned by the second applicant, the first applicant’s nephew. The expropriation was justified by the Presidential ordinance of 20 March 2002 endorsing the project of construction of a highway between the cities of Batumi and Kobuleti. The decision of 8 April 2002 envisaged the payment of compensation in accordance with an Act of 23 July 1999 regulating the modalities of the expropriation of private property in the public interest (“the Act of 23 July 1999”).

The first and third applicants appealed against the decision of 8 April 2002 to the cassation court, challenging the lawfulness and necessity of the expropriation. Simultaneously, they started negotiations with the local authorities over what should be the reasonable amount of compensation (“the compensation dispute”). According to the conclusions of two experts, dated 2-3 May 2002, one from the Batumi botanic garden and another from the Expertise and Research Centre of the Ministry of Justice, the real value of the first and third applicant’s lands were 22,844 and 13,029 Georgian laris¹ respectively (EUR 9,899 and 5,646). The first applicant’s house was valued at EUR 5,621. The experts further concluded that the third applicant would require EUR 153 for the relocation of his parents’ graves from the disputed land. In the course of the negotiations, the authorities offered the first and second applicants a plot of land similar to that under expropriation, as well as monetary compensation for the house. However, the latter refused the offer, claiming a global sum of EUR 97,000.

The applicants then referred the compensation dispute to the SCAAR which delivered a decision on 8 May 2002. The first and third applicants were entitled to EUR 9,899 and 5,850, corresponding, in the court’s view, to the actual value of the expropriated land at the material time and of the fruit harvest which was expected to be collected later that year. The first and second applicants were also entitled to EUR 7,900 as compensation for their house. The amount of EUR 586 was further attributed to the third applicant for the relocation of his parents’ graves.

All three applicants appealed to the cassation court, claiming that the compensation amounts were insufficient. They complained that the expert conclusions of 2-3 May 2002 were not correct since they had been based on a 1983 price guide. They submitted the Land Registry’s letter of 7 June 2002, which stated that the agency did not possess information concerning the real price of the land per square meter in the region in question. They also produced a letter from the Ministry of Taxes and Income, dated 14 June 2002, which stated that the price of land per square meter in that region varied between 9 and 11 EUR. A similar calculation was made in the Ministry of Defence’ expert report of 20 June 2002. The applicants also complained that the compensation for only one annual harvest was insufficient, the SCAAR failing to take into account that the expropriated land had been used exclusively for fruit farming – the only source of income for their households.

On 24 January 2003 the Supreme Court of Georgia dismissed the applicants’ cassation appeals. It held that the expropriation had been in accordance with the then existing legislation. The compensation was reasonable, since it corresponded to the real market value of the disputed property and was based on the experts’ conclusions, the accuracy of which could not, in the circumstances, be questioned. The applicants’ claim that the expropriated farm land had been their only source of income was dismissed as manifestly ill founded.

As disclosed by the case file, the compensation set by the SCAAR decision of 8 May 2002 was paid to the applicants shortly after the final resolution of the dispute.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained under Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the deprivation of their property.

THE LAW

On 30 January 2007 the Court decided to give notice to the Government of the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and to examine the merits of the case at the same time as its admissibility under Article 29 § 3 of the Convention.

On 18 July 2007 the Government’s observations of 7 June 2007 were sent to the applicants’ representative, who was requested to submit by 17 September 2007 any observations in reply, together with any claims for just satisfaction. No reply was forthcoming.

By a letter dated 4 March 2008, sent by fax and registered post, the Court reminded the applicants’ representative that the period allowed for submission of the observations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. His attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. The applicants’ representative received the Court’s letter by post on 24 March 2008 but never replied.

In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case.

In view of the above, the Court considers it appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens Registrar President