CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 février 2024

.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 26 February 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 43537/22 Nana VEKUA against Georgia lodged on 2 September 2022 communicated on 6 February 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unfairness of the civil proceedings as a result of which the applicant’s property title to several residential buildings and a plot of land was revoked. In particular, in 2012 a criminal investigation was initiated into the circumstances of the applicant allegedly registering her property title to the impugned property in a fraudulent manner. While the investigation was discontinued on 17 May 2017 due to the expiration of the limitation period, the relevant prosecutorial decision concluded that the applicant had committed fraud by having used a false document to register her title. By a decision of 28 January 2020, the Poti City Court, acting at the request of the National Agency for State Property, revoked the applicant’s property title. The first instance court relied, among others, on the prosecutorial decision of 17 May 2017 and on the witnesses’ statements as reproduced therein. The court noted that it would treat the prosecutorial decision as proving the fact of the applicant having used a false document and the fact of fraud having been committed. The applicant lodged an appeal alleging, among others, that the first instance court, without examining the evidence on its own, had based its decision on the findings of facts set out in the prosecutorial decision of 17   May 2017, treating it essentially as res judicata . She also complained about a breach of the presumption of her innocence. On 20 July 2021 and 16   March 2022 respectively the Kutaisi Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Georgia confirmed the revocation of the applicant’s title. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention of the unfairness of the civil proceedings. She further alleges, in substance under Article 6 § 2, a breach of the presumption of her innocence and a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the fact that the civil courts based their decisions on the findings of facts set out in the prosecutorial decision taken in the discontinued criminal proceedings, render the proceedings unfair (see, mutatis mutandis, Fleischner v. Germany , no. 61985/12, 3 October 2019)?   2.     Having regard to the findings of the domestic civil courts and the wording of the relevant judgments, was the presumption of the applicant’s innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case (see Fleischner , cited above, and Farzaliyev v. Azerbaijan , no.   29620/07, 28 May 2020)?   3. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? If so, was that interference in compliance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1?