Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)106

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Kharitonashvili against Georgia

(Application No. 41957/04, judgment of 10/02/2009, final on 10/05/2009)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concern the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (violation of Article 6§1) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgment, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of
- individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

- general measures preventing similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix) that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

DECIDES to close the examination of this case.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)106

Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the cases of
Kharitonashvili against Georgia

Introductory case summary

The case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings regarding an eviction (violation of Article 6§1). More than eight years and eleven months elapsed before the first-instance court addressed the merits of the case. The European Court noted that according to the case-file the proceedings were still pending before the Tbilisi City Court when it was considering its judgment.

The European Court considered that the main problem in this case is the domestic courts’ failure to take effective steps to discipline the parties and ensure the well-organised conduct of the proceedings.

I.	Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses	Total	
-	3 200 EUR	36 EUR	3 236 EUR	
Paid on 28/07/2009	

b) Individual measures

The Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damages.

The Georgian authorities have indicated that the domestic proceedings are concluded. The Tbilisi court delivered its decision on 29 April 2008. The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision and the Court of appeal delivered its judgment on 11 November 2008. No appeal to the Court of Cassation was lodged against this judgment within the prescribed time-limit of ten days and the judgment is therefore final.

Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

II.	General measures

The violation found by the Court in this case is isolated: to date, the European Court has communicated no further application concerning the excessive length of proceedings to the Georgian government.

It should nonetheless be noted that since the facts at the origin of this case, the law has been changed to make it possible to ensure that that civil proceedings are conducted in a well-organised way.

a) Legislative changes

The Code of Civil Procedure, as amended on 3 January 2008, lays down time-limits and procedures.

Civil courts consider eviction cases within a maximum of a month of introduction (Article 59§3).

During the preparatory phase, the judge fixes a 14-day time-limit for the defendant to submit information; in complex cases, the limit is 21 days (Article 201§1). Such delay may only be extended in circumstances provided in the Code, such as illness, the death of a relative or any other particular, objective circumstance which makes participation in the trial impossible against the will of the person concerned (Article 215§3).

The judge may reject requests by parties which in his view run the risk of unduly prolonging the proceedings (Article 215§3).

Consideration of a case may only be postponed in circumstances provided by law, i.e., to allow procedural acts such as the pursuit of a friendly settlement, the preparation of expert reports or on-the-spot visits, etc., and that only for a reasonable time determined by the judge on the basis of the parties’ arguments and of the proceedings as a whole. Parties are under an obligation to help ensure that cases are examined within the time-limits set by law (Article 216§1).

When courts request the production of documents or expert reports from physical or legal persons, they establish time-limits which take account of the individual circumstances of each case. Failure to respect such limits incurs a fine of 150 laris. The levying of the fine does not dispense the person responsible from producing the requested documentation. In case of further failure to deliver the material, the fine is tripled (Article 136).

b) Publication / dissemination of the European Court’s judgments

The judgment of the European Court was translated and published in the Official Gazette No.80, dated 11/11/2009.

The judgment also appears in a journal entitled The judgments of the European Court of Human Rights against Georgia, published in 2010 by the Human Rights Centre of the Supreme Court of Georgia. This work is a collection of the judgments delivered by the European Court of Human Rights against Georgia between 2004 and 2010, and it has been distributed to the domestic courts, whose awareness of the issue of length of proceedings has been raised.

III.	Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that no individual measure is required apart from the payment of the just satisfaction, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Georgia has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention