The case of Lisi Lake alienation has been appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, against Georgia. The former owner of the Lisi lake's 63.5 Ha nonagricultural land and buildings adjacent to them, businessman Ramaz Akhvlediani and the head of the organization "Young Barristers", Ramaz Akhvlediani's lawyer, Archil Kaikatsishvili said at a shared briefing.
According to the "Young Barristers", the state of Georgia has failed to protect Ramaz Akhvlediani's right to property, as well as, the right to a fair trial, which are strengthened by the European Convention, moreover, the national courts have ruled based on inadequate evidences; The Prosecutor's Office of Georgia due to untrustworthy and insufficient criminal proceedings, has failed to investigate, qualify, give summarize judgment and identify a person as a victim in order to afford him with relevant procedural rights.
Ramaz Akhvlediani, indeed, requests the ECHR to determine the alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1, alleged violation of Article 6 §1; and Article 6 §3(d) and alleged violation of Article 14 of the European Convention with regard to Article 3 of the European Convention.
"We are talking about a very difficult case, which is an eminent example of the systemic crimes committed during the previous government's rule. But more painful is to perceive and assimilate the fact that the restoration of justice didn't affect Ramaz Akvlediani. Georgian government has failed to uphold the rule of law in the case of Lisi Lake alienation. However, in this regard, we still do have hope that the faith in government will not completely be drained out. The state of Georgia will have to take legal and moral responsibility before Mr. Akhvlediani at the ECHR. The European Court of Human Rights will discuss what financial sanctions should be imposed on Georgia. We are really sorry for the objective reality - what the government will have to pay to Mr. Akhvlediani for the Lisi lake alienation, is in fact owned by Mamuka Khazaradze, who is yet covered up in politics, but in the end knows the exact price of the betrayal of a business partner. We are launching a new advocacy process for the Lisi Lake alienation and anyone who has participated in the violation of Mr. Akhvlediani's rights will be legally responsible for that. Ramaz Akhvlediani has restored the rights of water use at Lisi lake last year. This struggle will also go through a path full of resistance, but it will definitely end in an eminent victory. I promise this to the public." - said Archil Kaikatsishvili.
Based on the decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia, dating May 16, 2019 (which has been handed to the party on July 23, 2019), Ramaz Akhvlediani's cassation appeal has been rejected because of the statute of limitation. Maia Vachadze, the judge, left the president's, Mikheil Saakashvili's order in force and against Ramaz Akhvlediani's will the company of Mamuka Khazaradze, "Lisi Lake Development" has recognized as the owner of 63.5 hectares of nonagricultural land within the building and structures located adjacent to Lisi lake.
On November 4, 2006, Ramaz Akhvlediani was forced to file a statement on the behalf of the Tbilisi City Hall and the Government, fully acknowledging the fact that he failed to fulfill his obligations based on the 1999 Lease agreement and the Presidential Decree dating July 14 2006, requesting to cancel the agreement, by which he was able to redeem the buildings located near the lake. Moreover, In a letter, Ramaz Akhvlediani denied the right to own 63.5 Hectares of nonagricultural land (which was handed to him by the President's decree) and the buildings, which he already redeemed from the Ministry of Economy. On November 10, 2006, on the sixth day of the mentioned announcement, Mikheil Saakashvili issued a new decree and confiscated the property acquired in 1999 and transferred it to the owner by the president himself in 2006. Later, the confiscated property was transferred to Ramaz Akhvlediani's business partner, Mamuka Khazaradze.
The court indicated that the President's decree should be appealed by the interested party within the one month of its publication. Moreover, the court explained that the systematic offense isn't credible - as no continuity of forcing has been established, because the property was transferred directly to Ramaz Akhvlediani under certain conditions, exactly four months before to the November 4, 2006, based on the statement of the same President, under the same authority and the government. However, the party reiterates that the court's ruling conflicts with the decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of Georgia, dating 2 March 2017 (the case of TV Company Rustavi 2) and the same judges' decision, dating 25 January 2018, Case: ბს-236-234(კ-16), where the court linked the statute to limitation to a massive change in political space and its appeal to the competent authority, and set the deadline of one month for submission of the impugned act from the exact date of its handing and not the date of its issuance.
Judges: Maia Vachadze, Nugzar Skhirtladze and Vasil Roinishvili in the process of assessing the timings of the impugned and appealed act, in another case, clearly stated that submitting an act in accordance with the rule of law is the act's only way to become effective and therefore, it can be appealed from that time. In the case of Ramaz Akhvlediani, the same judges ruled against it, as Ramaz Akhvlediani appealed the impugned act within the one month after the act had been handed to him. That provided the beneficial findings in favour of Mamuka khazaradze's business partner, as well as, enough opportunity to unconditionally repeal the impugned act, however, the three judges deliberately chose to remain silent.
The Supreme Court of Georgia gave the decision without assessing the circumstances of Ramaz Akhvlediani's compliance with the President's order, dating July 14 2006. If the legal qualification of this circumstance was presented, the court wouldn't be able to escape the reality and the fact, that Ramaz Akhvlediani has faithfully fulfilled his obligations - therefore, this would be an undeniable factual circumstance for the case. Moreover, this fact would directly annul the 4 November 2006 statement, where Ramaz Akhvlediani was forced to concess and give the property to the state, for failing to fulfill the organizational obligations. In the end, the court would be obliged to consider a decision against the free will, as well as, on the fact of illegally conceding the property.
The courts have substantially infringed Ramaz Akhvlediani's rights and made numerous inaccurate findings on the arguable circumstances - As if Ramaz Akhvlediani had never been the owner of the disputed land located near Lisi Lake, there was no sale agreement with the state regarding the said property and no real estate payment was made. With full responsibility we declare, that all of this without evaluating is presented in the case, which makes the Court's decision quite unthinkable. Therefore, it is impossible for the decision to claim to be legal. Moreover, there is also a lack of moral reasoning presented in the Court's discussion, that Ramaz Akhvlediani did not even have at least a "legitimate expectation" of getting effective ownership of the disputed property, which can't be even reasonably criticized.
Accordingly, there is a clear perception left that the Georgian court infringed Ramaz Akhvlediani's right to a fair trial. The decision doesn't totally cover the handwriting of the independent judges. it is all in the context of political events and therefore, even they deliberately avoid naming Mamuka Khazaradze in many parts of the discussions, using the special term and calling him "Business partner", when talking about Khazaradze.
To note out, an awkward circumstance is also created. The judgment's resolution says that Ramaz Akhvlediani's appeal should be considered partly, Tbilisi Court of Appeals March 13 2018 ruling should be annulled and new ruling should be made. Ramaz Akhvlediani's lawsuit should be rejected due to the statute of limitation. Therefore, 2 circumstances are unclear - in which part the Supreme Court shared Ramaz Akhvlediani's findings, while overturning the Court of Appeal's rulings, as it's not clear in the full text of the judgment. Also, Tbilisi City Court 27 October 2017 ruling isn't mentioned in the judgment, which can't be automatically annulled without the proper reference. Those circumstances cast doubt on another possible project of that decision that might have returned the case back to the Tbilisi Court of Appeals for re-examination, but, as a result of political and legal circumstances, the Supreme Court of Georgia adopted and act against the restoration of justice.
To note out, "Young Barristers" on the case of Lisi lake alienation started to work in 2015 and published a new study. During this, the litigation process has evolved in several ways - with the request to cancel the President's decree concerning the property; and for the resort (without water removal) and for sport purposes requesting the recognition of the legal validity of the special water use license granted to it. The court granted a license to Lisi Lake until 2024, recognizing it as an exclusive right for Ramaz Akhvlediani, successfully resolving the dispute in the Georgian court. In the Georgian court, as well as, in the ECHR, the interests of Ramaz Akhvlediani are represented by Archil Kaikatsishvili, the head of "Young Barristers".
