CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 septembre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 20 September 2017   FIFTH SECTION Application no 25601/12 Lali KHIZANISHVILI and Giorgi KANDELAKI against Georgia lodged on 20 April 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicants, Ms Lali Khizanishvili (hereinafter “the first applicant”) and Mr Giorgi Kandelaki (hereinafter “the second applicant”) are Georgian nationals who were born in 1963 and 1955 respectively and live in Tbilisi. They are represented before the Court by Ms L. Mukhashavria, a lawyer practising in Tbilisi. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. On 31 October 2003 the applicants, along with several other individuals, acquired ownership of commercial premises situated in Tbilisi near the entrance to Gotsiridze metro station on a plot of land measuring 154 sq. m (hereinafter “the commercial premises”). The total area of the commercial premises was 494 sq. m, of which the first applicant’s property measured 76.82 sq. m (45.8 sq. m on the basement level and 31.02 sq. m on the ground floor), and the second applicant’s property measured 40.74 sq. m (25.67 sq. m on the basement level and 15.07 sq. m on the ground floor). On 30 January 2007 the Supervision Service of Tbilisi City Hall (“the Supervision Service”) demolished the building without any lawful basis. On 27 February 2007 the applicants initiated judicial proceedings, contesting that the Supervision Service had demolished their assets unlawfully and claiming damages. In particular, the first applicant claimed the equivalent of 256,268 United States dollars (USD – approximately 193,400 euros (EUR)) in the national currency, plus the equivalent of USD   1,600 (approximately EUR 1200) per month in the national currency from 1   February 2007 until the judgment was finally enforced. The second applicant claimed the equivalent of USD 163,340 (approximately EUR   123,300) in the national currency, plus the equivalent of USD 950 (approximately EUR 720) per month in the national currency from 1   February 2007 until the judgment was finally enforced. The applicants requested an expert report in order to calculate the market value of the commercial premises. The expert report, dated 25 January 2009, stated that the overall market value of the basement floor and the ground floor of the commercial premises, measuring 229.73 sq. m, was USD 760,000 (approximately EUR 585,300): the basement floor was worth USD 200,000 (approximately EUR 154,000) and the ground floor was worth USD 560,000 (approximately EUR 431,200). According to an expert report ordered by the Tbilisi City Court (“the City Court”) and issued on 30 October 2008, the market value of the applicants’ plot of land, measuring 154 sq. m, was 50,820 Georgian laris (GEL – approximately EUR 27,900). As for the value of the building, excluding the value of the plot of land on which it had stood, the market value of the first applicant’s property was GEL 187,501.74 (approximately EUR 103,000), and the market value of the second applicant’s property was GEL   133,862.20 (approximately EUR 73,500). On 9 November 2009 the City Court allowed the applicants’ claim in part and granted them damages as follows: the first applicant was granted GEL 187,501 (approximately EUR 74,400) and the second applicant was granted GEL 133,862 (approximately EUR 53,100), plus the equivalent of USD 550 (approximately EUR 370) per month in the national currency from 1 February 2007 until the judgment was finally enforced. The applicants were not compensated for the land, on the ground that they had not been deprived of it. On 21 January 2011 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal overturned the first instance court judgment and granted the applicants reduced damages: USD   1,536.40 for the first applicant (approximately EUR 1,130), and, for the second applicant, USD 814.80 (approximately EUR 600) plus the equivalent of USD 550 (approximately EUR 400) per month in the national currency from 1 February 2007 until the end of the existing contract. The court based its decision on an expert report produced by a panel of experts dated 13 December 2010. The panel had been asked to evaluate the overall value of construction material left after the demolition of the commercial premises, not the market value of the commercial premises in question. As a result of the expert examination, the overall value of the construction material left after the demolition of the commercial premises was found to be USD 9,880 (approximately EUR 7,280). The appellate court shared that conclusion and determined that the overall value of the demolished commercial premises was USD 9,880 (approximately EUR 7,280): USD 20 (approximately EUR 15) per sq. m. The appellate court disregarded a linguistic expert report which stated that the panel had been asked to determine the value of the material left after the demolition, not the market value of the commercial premises. It should be noted that the City Court determined the “market value of the commercial premises in question”, but the appellate court determined the “value of the demolished commercial premises”. The applicants appealed against the Court of Appeal decision, but on 12   September 2011 the Supreme Court of Georgia declared their appeals inadmissible. On 21 October 2011 the decision of the Supreme Court was served on the parties. COMPLAINT The applicants complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the State unlawfully demolished their commercial premises and did not provide them with adequate compensation. QUESTION Have the applicants been deprived of their possessions in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?   In particular, did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy , [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V)?