FIFTH SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 35868\/10
\nBalo KERDIKOSHVILI
\nagainst Georgia<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 12\u00a0June\u00a02018 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Andr\u00e9 Potocki, President,
\nM\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits,
\nLado Chanturia, judges,
\nand Milan Bla\u0161ko, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 June 2010,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant, Mr Balo Kerdikoshvili, is a Georgian national who was born in 1948 and lives in Gori. He was represented before the Court by Ms\u00a0T. Abazadze of the Georgian Young Lawyers Association (GYLA) and Mr J. Clifford, Ms J. Gavron, Mr V. Grigoryan, Mr P. Leach, Ms\u00a0R.\u00a0Ramezaite, and Ms J. Sawyer of the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre (EHRAC).<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The Georgian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent, Mr B.\u00a0Dzamashvili, of the Ministry of Justice.<\/p>\n The circumstances of the case<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0On 24 March 2007 the applicant purchased a large amount of alcohol valued at 77,161 Georgian laris ((GEL), approximately 34,928\u00a0euros (EUR)) with an intention to resell it. The Financial Police seized the merchandise while it was being transported and transferred it for storage to a warehouse in Gori, pending the determination of the legality of the applicant\u2019s purchase. He was fined by the Gori Tax Inspection of the Revenue Service under the Ministry of Finances. The applicant\u2019s appeal against the latter was granted and the Gori Tax Inspection was ordered to return the applicant\u2019s possessions. The judgment was upheld by the courts of appeal and cassation and became final on 10 September 2008.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant\u2019s request to execute the judgment was refused by the Gori Tax Inspection on account of the alleged looting of the warehouse during the August 2008 armed conflict.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0On 21 April 2009 the applicant instituted civil proceedings to recover pecuniary damages related to the loss of his merchandise. His requests to be exempted from payment of the court fees on the grounds of his difficult financial situation were repeatedly rejected.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0On 1 December 2011 the civil proceedings instituted by the applicant were discontinued on the grounds that the applicant had failed to pay the court fees.<\/p>\n COMPLAINTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention about an impediment in his right of access to a court as a result of which he had been unable to recover his possessions in violation of Article 1 of Protocol\u00a0No. 1 to the Convention.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0The Government submitted that the present application had to be rejected as an abuse of the right of application because the applicant had knowingly failed to provide decisive facts for the examination of the case. In particular, the Government informed the Court that on 18 June 2012 the applicant instituted a new set of compensation proceedings against the Revenue Service as a result of which he successfully recovered, in full, the damages related to the loss of his merchandise. The final decision of the Supreme Court dated 13 February 2014 was executed on 18 September 2014 whereby GEL 77,161 (approximately EUR 34,928) was transferred to the applicant\u2019s bank account. The applicant\u2019s failure to inform the Court about these proceedings amounted, in the Government\u2019s view, to an abuse of the right of individual application within the meaning of Article\u00a035 \u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(a) of the Convention.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant, in reply, admitted not having informed the Court about the developments in his case. He argued that the oversight was attributable to his representative and that in any event, the amount of compensation awarded by the national courts was not sufficient to fully reimburse the damage suffered in view of the alleged loss of income he had sustained. He further submitted that the application was not inadmissible insofar as it concerned his right of access to a court under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that in general terms any conduct on the part of an applicant that is manifestly contrary to the purpose of the right of individual application as provided for in the Convention and that impedes the proper functioning of the Court, or the proper conduct of the proceedings before it, constitutes an abuse of the right of application (see Miro\u013cubovs and Others v. Latvia, no. 798\/05, \u00a7\u00a7 62 and 65, 15 September 2009).<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0Incomplete 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, for instance, Hadrabova v. the Czech Republic (dec.), nos. 42165\/02 and 466\/03, 25 September 2007). 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 47 \u00a7 7 (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 Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810\/10, \u00a7 28, 30 September 2014).<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that the applicant complained before the latter about his inability to recover his possessions on account of the domestic courts\u2019 refusal to consider his claim without him paying the court fees. Therefore the question of whether the domestic courts enabled the applicant to recover his possessions constitutes the core aspect of his complaints before the Court. Against this background and as it appears from the Government\u2019s submissions, which the applicant did not contest, the new set of compensation proceedings offered the applicant an uninhibited access to a court, the court fees were borne by the respondent party, and he recovered the full value of his merchandise.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant failed to furnish any valid, factually corroborated explanation as to why he did not inform the Court of these very significant developments concerning his application before the Court. While it is true that those new proceedings were initiated after the applicant had submitted his application before the Court, it has to be noted that the application was communicated to the parties on 25 April 2016 that is almost two years after the Supreme Court had issued its final decision on the matter and a year and a half since its full enforcement. The applicant thus failed to update the Court, in line with Rule 47 \u00a7 6 of the Rules of Court, about major developments regarding his case.<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the importance of that information for the proper determination of the present case, the Court finds that the either deliberate or negligent conduct of the applicant was contrary to the purpose of his right of individual application as provided for in Article 34 of the Convention (compare, amongst many other authorities, with Stojni\u0107 v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.), no. 24652\/09, \u00a7 23, 6 October 2015; S.C. S.E.A.C.I.D. S.R.L. v. Romania (dec.) [Committee], no. 55365\/09, \u00a7\u00a7 24-26, 21\u00a0February 2017; and Selina v. Lithuania (dec.) [Committee], no. 17969\/10, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a034\u201135, 5\u00a0September 2017).<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0The application must accordingly be rejected as abusive, pursuant to Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(a) and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n Declares the application inadmissible.<\/p>\n Done in English and notified in writing on 5 July 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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Andr\u00e9 Potocki
\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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n