CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 14 octobre 2025

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Legal summary October 2025 Georgia v. Russia (IV) - 39611/18 Judgment 14.10.2025 [Section II] Article 41 Just satisfaction Award of non-pecuniary damages to applicant Government, for the benefit of identified victims of multiple Convention violations found in the principal judgment   Facts – By principal judgment of 9   April 2024 (see Legal Summary ), the Court held that there had been various administrative practices on the part of the Russian Federation stemming from the “borderisation” between the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and the Georgian government-controlled territory, in violation of Articles 2, 3, 5 §   1 and 8 of the Convention as well as Article   1 of Protocol No.   1, Article   2 of Protocol No.   1 and Article   2 of Protocol No.   4 to the Convention. The question of the application of Article   41 was reserved. Law – (1) Jurisdiction – As the facts giving rise to the Convention violations had taken place before 16   September 2022, the date on which the Russian Federation ceased to be a Party to the Convention, the Court had jurisdiction to deal with the claims for just satisfaction under Article   41. (2) Claims for just satisfaction – The Court examined only the applicant Government’s claims relating to the violations found in the principal judgment and in respect of which it appeared the alleged victims had not lodged individual applications with the Court. Furthermore, the applicant Government had submitted a detailed list of alleged victims of the breaches of Article   2, Article   3, Article   5 §   1, Article   8, Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 and, for all but one claim, under Article   2 of Protocol No.   1. While there was no detailed list of alleged victims in respect of the latter claim, the Court found that the group of alleged victims of that breach was nonetheless “sufficiently precise and objectively identifiable”. Just satisfaction had thus not been sought to compensate the State for a violation of its rights, but rather for the benefit of individual victims. That being the case, and in so far as those alleged victims were concerned, the applicant Government were entitled to make a claim under Article   41, and granting just satisfaction in the present case would be justified. In accordance with the principles and the methodology applied in Georgia v.   Russia (I) ( just satisfaction ) [GC], the Court examined the groups of alleged victims of the violations found in the principal judgment, to ensure that the factual submissions of the applicant Government had been plausible and their claims adequately substantiated. It based its findings solely on the documents submitted to it by the applicant Government, the content of which was to be considered unchallenged in the absence of any documents or comments submitted in response by the respondent Government. The Court thus drew inferences from the latter’s failure to participate in the proceedings. It held unanimously as follows: – List of fifty-one alleged victims of the administrative practice in breach of Article   2 (substantive and procedural) of the use of force against ethnic Georgians by Russian or de facto Abkhaz and South Ossetian agents at the administrative boundary line (ABL) or after an arrest for a “border violation”, and the incidental loss of life of ethnic Georgians while trying to cross the ABL by alternative routes: In the principal judgment, the Court had found that at least twenty incidents fell within the scope of the present case and that the Russian Federation had also failed to comply with its procedural obligation under Article   2 to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into those incidents. The applicant Government had failed to demonstrate that the number of victims had been higher than the number indicated by the Court. Therefore, for the purposes of awarding just satisfaction, at least twenty ethnic Georgians were victims of that administrative practice. It awarded the applicant Government a lump sum of EUR   1,300,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained by those victims. – List of 166 alleged victims of the administrative practice of ill-treatment by Russian or de facto Abkhaz and South Ossetian agents of ethnic Georgians: the Court had found in the principal judgment that at least fifty incidents fell within the scope of the present case and that the Russian Federation had failed to comply with its procedural obligation under Article   3 to carry out an adequate and effective investigation into those incidents. However, the applicant Government had demonstrated that the actual number of victims of had been higher – at least seventy-six. Therefore, for the purposes of awarding just satisfaction, at least seventy-six ethnic Georgians had been victims of that administrative practice. The Court awarded the applicant Government a lump sum of EUR   1,976,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained by those victims. – List of 2,587 alleged victims of the administrative practice of unlawful detention of ethnic Georgians by Russian or de facto Abkhaz and South Ossetian agents for a “border violation”: one of the incidents included in that list had taken place after 16 September 2022 and thus fell outside the temporal scope of the case. In view of the general numerical framework on which the Court had relied in its principal judgment to conclude that there had been a violation of Article   5 §   1, the Court considered that, for the purposes of awarding just satisfaction, at least 2,586 ethnic Georgians had been victims of that administrative practice. The Court had further held that the general conditions of detention in this context had been contrary to Article   3. It awarded the applicant Government a lump sum of EUR 5,172,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained by those victims. – List of sixty-four alleged victims of the administrative practice of unlawful restrictions on the day-to-day freedom of movement of ethnic Georgians across the ABL: the applicant Government had sufficiently substantiated their claim. Therefore, the Court considered that at least sixty-four ethnic Georgians had been victims of that administrative practice and awarded the applicant Government a lump sum of EUR   320,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained by the victims. – List of 32,488 alleged victims of the administrative practice contrary to Article   8 and Article   1 of Protocol No.   1, involving unlawful restrictions on ethnic Georgians’ access to their homes, land, other property, cemeteries and families: the Court had found in Georgia v.   Russia (II) ( just satisfaction ) [GC] that the Russian and the de facto Abkhaz and South Ossetian authorities had prevented the return to those regions of some 23,000 ethnic Georgians. Although the applicant Government had also claimed in that case that the number had been significantly higher, there was no reason to decide otherwise in the present case. Furthermore, there was no reason to doubt that the access of those persons had been restricted because of their inability to return to those regions. Therefore, at least 23,000 ethnic Georgians had been victims of that administrative practice. The Court awarded the applicant Government a lump sum of EUR   224,250,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained by those victims. – Claim in respect of alleged victims of the administrative practice contrary to Article   2 of Protocol No.   1: it appeared from the materials cited in the principal judgment as well as other available materials that the transition of Georgian schools to Russian as the language of instruction had been completed in Abkhazia in 2022 and in South Ossetia in 2023 and more than 4,000 schoolchildren had been concerned. Therefore, at least 4,000 ethnic Georgians had been victims of that administrative practice and the Court awarded the applicant Government a lump sum of EUR 20,000,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained by those victims. The Court observed that the Committee of Ministers continued to supervise the execution of the Court’s judgments against the Russian Federation which was required, pursuant to Article   46 §   1 of the Convention, to implement them, despite the cessation of its membership of the Council of Europe. In accordance with the Court’s case-law, it must be left to the applicant Government, under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers, to set up an effective mechanism to distribute the above-mentioned sums to the individual victims while having regard to the indications given by the Court,   within eighteen months from the date of the payment by the respondent Government or within any other period deemed appropriate by the Committee of Ministers. (See Cyprus v.   Turkey [GC], 25781/94 , 10   May 2001; Georgia v.   Russia (I) (just satisfaction) [GC], 13255/07, 31   January 2019, Legal Summary ; Georgia v.   Russia (II) (just satisfaction) [GC], 38263/08, 28   April 2023, Legal Summary ; Georgia v.   Russia (IV) , 39611/18, 9   April 2024, Legal Summary )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. To access legal summaries in English or French click here . For non-official translations into other languages click here .