FIFTH SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Applications nos. 64623\/12 and 64819\/12
\nNugzar KHUTSISHVILI and LLC KARTU MSHENEBELI against Georgia
\nand GEORGIAN DREAM against Georgia<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 2\u00a0October 2018 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary, President,
\nL\u04d9tif H\u00fcseynov,
\nLado Chanturia, judges,
\nand Milan Bla\u0161ko, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 26 September 2012 and 28 September 2012 respectively,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The three applicants in the present case are, Mr Nugzar Khutsishvili, a Georgian national who resides currently in Tbilisi (\u201cthe individual applicant\u201d), Kartu Mshenebeli LLC, a private company registered under Georgian laws (\u201cthe applicant company\u201d), and Georgian Dream, a political party registered and based in the respondent State (\u201cthe applicant party\u201d). They were all represented before the Court by Ms A. Kakhniauri, a lawyer practising in Tbilisi. Further details regarding the applicants are set out in the appendix.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The Georgian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent, Mr B. Dzamashvili, of the Ministry of Justice.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0On 9 February 2012 the individual applicant, who at that time was a deputy director of the applicant company, made a donation to the applicant party of 20,000 Georgian laris (GEL) (approximately 9,200\u00a0euros (EUR) at the material time).<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0By a decision of 27 February 2012, the competent State agency found all three applicants liable for serious breaches of the relevant domestic legislation on funding of political parties. The applicants were issued administrative fines of GEL 200,000 (approximately EUR 92,000 at the material time) each.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants challenged the imposed fines, but the Tbilisi City Court, by its decisions of 12 and 15 March 2012, confirmed the validity of the administrative sanctions. On 27 March and 2 April 2012 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants\u2019 appeals, finally terminating the dispute. Shortly afterwards, the applicants duly paid the imposed fines.<\/p>\n COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the imposition of the administrative fines had constituted a disproportionate interference with their property rights.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0Each of the applicants complained about the imposition of the administrative fine in the amount of GEL 200,000. The cited Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cEvery natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and sub to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.<\/p>\n The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest…\u201d<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0The parties\u2019 submissions<\/strong><\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0On 18 October 2017 notice of the applications was given to the Government.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0On 9 March 2018 the Government informed the Court that in 2013 all of the applicants had received back from the State the amounts they had been made to pay as administrative fines. Notably, on 19 December 2012 an Act on the exemption from certain forms of administrative liability, including those relating to breaches of the legislation on funding of political parties, had been enacted and granted retroactive effect. Consequently, the individual applicant, the applicant company and the applicant party had recovered GEL 200,000 each from the State budget on, respectively, 10 and 14\u00a0January and 15 July 2013.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0In the light of the afore-mentioned legal and factual developments, the Government did not deem it necessary to submit observations on the admissibility and merits, as the matter giving rise to the applications had been fully resolved at domestic level.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0On 22 March 2018 the Court transmitted the Government\u2019s letter of 9\u00a0March 2018 to the applicants\u2019 representative. Among other issues, the applicants were invited to explain the reasons for their omission to inform the Court of the reimbursement of the administrative fines. In that respect, the applicants\u2019 attention was brought to the Court\u2019s well-established case-law, according to which a failure by an applicant to update the Court on major factual developments could be qualified as an abuse of the right of individual application, within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention (see Bekauri v. Georgia (preliminary objection), no.\u00a014102\/02, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a021-25, 10 April 2012). The applicants were also invited to comment on the question of whether or not the matter giving rise to their applications can be considered to have been resolved at the domestic level.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants replied on 20 April 2018. They confirmed that in January and July 2013 the respondent State had paid back the fines to them on the basis of the relevant administrative amnesty law (see paragraph 11\u00a0above). Nevertheless, they disagreed with the Government that the matter had been resolved at domestic level since the latter had never acknowledged a violation of the relevant provisions of the Convention. As regards the question as to why they had omitted to update the Court of those important factual developments, the applicants stated that, in their opinion, it was the Government\u2019s role to keep the Court informed of such developments.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0The Court\u2019s assessment<\/strong><\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0The Court considers that it is not necessary to determine whether or not the matter giving rise to the applications has been resolved at domestic level within the meaning of Article 37 \u00a7 1 (b) of the Convention, as the applications are in any event inadmissible for the following reasons.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0It reiterates that, according to Rule 47 \u00a7 7 (former Rule 47 \u00a7 6) of the Rules of Court, applicants, acting in person or through their legal representatives, are under the continuous obligation to keep the Court informed of all important circumstances regarding their pending applications (see, for example, Bekauri, cited above, \u00a7 21). Incomplete and therefore misleading information may amount to an abuse of the right of application, especially if the information concerns the very core of the case and no sufficient explanation is given for the failure to disclose that information (see, amongst many others, Hadrabova v. the Czech Republic\u00a0(dec.), nos.\u00a042165\/02 and 466\/03, 25 September 2007, and Pirtskhalaishvili v.\u00a0Georgia (dec.), no. 44328\/05, 29 April 2010). The same applies if new, important developments have occurred during the proceedings before the Court and where, despite being expressly required to do so by Rule\u00a047\u00a0\u00a7\u00a07\u00a0(former Rule 47 \u00a7 6) of the Rules of Court, the applicant has failed to disclose that information to the Court, thereby preventing it from ruling on the case in full knowledge of the facts (see, for instance, Gross\u00a0v.\u00a0Switzerland [GC], no. 67810\/10, \u00a7 28, 30\u00a0September 2014,and also Kerdikoshvili v. Georgia (dec.) [Committee], no.\u00a035868\/10<\/a>, \u00a7\u00a012, 12\u00a0June 2018).<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0Turning to the circumstances of the present cases, the Court notes that their subject matter was the imposition upon the applicants, in February 2012, of the administrative fines in the amount of GEL 200,000 each. The applications were lodged in September 2012 with the purpose of contesting these fines as disproportionate interferences with the applicants\u2019 property rights. However, only a few months after the introduction of their applications the Act of 19 December 2012 was adopted with retroactive effect, exempting the applicants from the relevant administrative liability. Consequently, in January and July 2013 each of the applicants successfully claimed back the fines from the State on the basis of that Act\u00a0(see paragraphs 11and 14above). All these factual developments were of significant nature as they related to the very core of the applications. Nevertheless, the applicants failed to inform the Court of these key developments, which amounts to a breach of their procedural obligation under Rule 47 \u00a7 7 of the Rules of Court (see Bekauri, cited above, \u00a7 21). As a result of that omission, the Court was prevented from conducting a proper preliminary assessment of the admissibility aspect of the applications on 18\u00a0October 2017 (see paragraph 10above). Furthermore, in view of the content of the applicants\u2019 letter of 20 April 2018, the Court considers that they failed to give any justifiable reason for their serious omission\u00a0(see paragraph\u00a014above).<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the importance for the proper determination of the present case of the information that the applicants withheld from it, the Court finds that their conduct was contrary to the purpose of their right of individual application as provided for in Article 34 of the Convention\u00a0(compare, amongst many other authorities, with Stojni\u0107 v.\u00a0Bosnia andHerzegovina (dec.), no. 24652\/09, \u00a7 23, 6 October 2015;Ronly\u00a0Holdings LTD. v. Georgia (dec.) [Committee], no.\u00a041444\/05, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a016\u201122, 7\u00a0November\u00a02017, and Selina v. Lithuania (dec.) [Committee], no.\u00a017969\/10, \u00a7\u00a7 34\u201135, 5\u00a0September 2017).<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0Accordingly, the cases must be rejected as abusive, pursuant to Article\u00a035 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n Declares the applications inadmissible.<\/p>\n Done in English and notified in writing on 25 October 2018.<\/p>\n Milan Bla\u0161ko\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary
\nDeputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n