CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 octobre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 18 November 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 8090/09 Mevludi JIOSHVILI against Russia and 58 other applications communicated for information on 24 August 2011   The facts and complaints in these applications have been summarised in the Court’s decision, which is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Do the relatives of the deceased applicants in applications nos.   8912/09, 9239/09, 9913/09 and 16518/09 (see points 28, 36, 39 and 43 of the Appendix) have legal standing to pursue the proceedings before the Court?   2.     Did the applicants have “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the respective villages at the time they were forced to flee? If so, can they be considered the legal owners (or holders of other rights in rem ) of houses, land and other assets?   Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of their possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 owing to their alleged continued inability to access such possessions? If so, was that interference necessary?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family life and for their home, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, and/or of their right to liberty of movement, as guaranteed by Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, on account of their alleged inability to access the respective villages?   4.     Did the applicants – except those in applications nos.   14681/09, 19810/09, 45691/09 and 47954/09 – have access to an effective remedy at their disposal, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, in respect of the complaints under Article 8 of the Convention, Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 and/or Article 2 of Protocol No. 4?   5.     Did the applicants – except those in applications nos.   14681/09, 45691/09 and 47954/09 – suffer discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights, contrary to Article   14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention, Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 and/or Article 2 of Protocol No. 4?