CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 novembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 24 November 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 32118/23 LTD NARIKALA against Georgia lodged on 11 August 2023 communicated on 4 November 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the recognition of the applicant company’s title to a plot of land in Tbilisi in 2009, and its subsequent partial revocation in 2020. The first-instance and appeal courts considered that the initial recognition of the title was erroneous and that the public interest in protecting the designated land outweighed the applicant’s private property interests. Without providing any further reasoning or considering alternatives, such as providing the applicant with an alternative plot of land or compensation, they upheld the revocation decision. On 22 February 2023 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law as inadmissible. The decision was served on the applicant company on 12 April 2023. The applicant company complained under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention that it had been unlawfully and disproportionately deprived of the land. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1?   2.     If so, was that interference in the public interest, in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, and did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant company, within the meaning of that provision (see Zela v. Albania , no. 33164/11, § 95, 11 June 2024; Romankevič v. Lithuania , no. 25747/07, §§ 38-39, 2   December 2014; Rysovskyy v. Ukraine , no.   29979/04, §§ 70-71, 20   October 2011; Eka Mikeladze and Others v.   Georgia   [Committee], nos. 29385/11, 19372/12, 29533/13, and 73699/13, 25 November 2021; and Khundadzeebi v. Georgia [Committee], no.   12549/11, 14 December 2023)?