როლანდ ბლადაძის საქმე Roland Bladadze s Case

Transcription

1

2 როლანდ ბლადაძის საქმე Roland Bladadze s Case მონიტორინგი Monitoring ა(ა)იპ ახალგაზრდა ადვოკატები სექტემბერი, 2014 წ. ქ. თბილისი N(N)LP The Young Barristers September, 2014 Tbilisi

3 კვლევაზე მუშაობდა ა(ა)იპ ახალგაზრდა ადვოკატების გუნდი Researchers: N (N) LP the Young Barristers team სამუშაო ჯგუფის ხელმძღვანელი არჩილ კაიკაციშვილი Head of the Working Group Archil Kaikatsishvili სამუშაო ჯგუფი: Working Group: არჩილ კაიკაციშვილი Archil Kaikatsishvili ანა კიკნაძე Ana Kiknadze ნინო ისაკაძე Nino Isakadze ჯუმბერ სირაბიძე Jumber Sirabidze ლევან ბერაძე Levan Beradze სოფიო აზარიაშვილი Sophio Azariashvili ანა ბარათაშვილი Ana Baratashvili ემილ კურბანოვი Emil Kurbanov თარგმნა: Translated by: ა(ა)იპ ახალგაზრდა ადვოკატები N (N) LP the Young Barristers გამოცემის დიზაინი: Publishing design: კოკა კაპანაძე Koka Kapanadze

4 კვლევა მომზადდა ინსტიტუციური დიალოგი აღმასრულებელ, საკანონმდებლო, სასამართლო ხელისუფლებასთან პროექტის ფარგლებში. Research has been prepared Within the framework of the Project Institutional dialogue with Executive, Legislative and Judicial Authorities. კვლევაში წარმოდგენილი ინფორმაციის გამოყენება შესაძლებელია მხოლოდ წყაროს მითითებით. Information presented in the research may only be used by indicating the source C ა(ა)იპ ახალგაზრდა ადვოკატები C N (N) LP the Young Barristers

5 შინაარსი 1 შესავალი საკითხის სამართლებრივი მხარე საკითხის ფაქტობრივი ანალიზი დასკვნა სარეკომენდაციო წინადადებები Table of Contents 2 1. Introduction 2. Legal Aspects of the Issue 3. Factual Analysis of the Case 4. Conclusion 5. Recommendation Proposals 1 მონიტორინგის შედეგების ელექტრონული ვერსია განთავსებულია ორგანიზაციის ოფიციალურ ელექტრონულ გვერდზე: 2 Electronic version of the monitoring results is available on the official web-page of the organization:

6 1. Introduction After the parliamentary elections of October 2012 in Georgia, the change in political governance revealed to the society a number of facts of systemic crime. Among them, the most critical situation is one about the citizens who were deprived of property in and whose rights to the fair trial were violated. The cases of large-scale abandonment of property by the citizens and tranferring it as a gift to the state, as well as willful shift of the property, already being registered under the name of their owners, to the state became a sort of trend. The incidents of giving up the property rights by the relevant government bodies occurred in almost all regions of Georgia, although the government which came into power after the Rose Revolution of 2003, undertook the most large-scale property concession and infringement in adjure. After the Rose Revolution in 2004 when direct presidential governance was introduced in Adjara and former commander of Adjara - Aslan Abashidze s long-term governance came to end, political persecution of the former commander of Adjara and his related political encirclement before the year of 2004, their criminal persecution, repressions of the region s top officials and property redistribution process was commenced. The cases of confiscation in Adjara and illegal acts committed by the former officials over the governance period of call for total examination. Until now there has never been relevant legal opinions prepared, as to how much damage was caused to the citizens, who undergone compulsion for political reasons, for their prominent civil position; although, it can be considered, that Roland Bladadze s case will be of enough substance, telling a complicated story of the property seizure on political grounds in the region. At the same time, it emphasizes the style and the form of governance that existed towards the people with different opinion. It presents system against the citizen, who was forced to leave Georgia and move to the Russian Federation with his family as a result of the government s unlawful actions to protect his personal security in this way. Since 1990 Roland Bladadze has held administrative position in the Customs Security Service at various times and was in close connection with the encirclement of the former commander of Adjara - Aslan Abashidze. From 2001 until April 2004, he worked as a Deputy Head of the Sarpi Checkpoint, but his authority was terminated based on the Law of Georgia on the Civil Service. As for the official reason for his dismissal, the Head of the Customs Office at that time noted that Roland Bladadze did not appear at work for unknown reasons which constituted to the gross violation of his duty; in fact, Roland Bladadze made his mind to leave Georgia secretly when Adjara A/R Prosecution Office commenced criminal prosecution against him and the court ruled that real estate in his possession was unlawful and unjustified. Roland Bladadze was among those who were deprived of property against their will. The law enforcement bodies, common courts system and administrative authorities happened to agree on the application of selective justice in order to undertake prominent prosecution and law enforcement against the officials related to the former commander of Adjara. The president transferred Roland Bladadze s confiscated property to the chairman of the Constitutional Court of Georgia - Giorgi Papuashvili who until now lives in the house of Roland Bladadze with his family, even though legal dispute is still going on with no avail. In June 2013, criminal prosecution against Roland Bladadze was ceased, which resulted in the creation of lawful basis to strengthen legal action and return back the property, but considering the newly discovered or newly revealed circumstances, current legislation deprives court to deem admissible the invalidity of the decisions concerning the property confiscation,

7 as far as 5 year limitation period has lapsed after the legal appeal was filed against the binding court decision. Young Barristers began comprehensive research on Roland Bladadze s case in February Due to the conducted monitoring, legal and factual circumstances of the case, decisions of the Prosecution office and Courts, actions of the certain administrative bodies, the status and attitude of the highranking officials inherently related to the case were examined. The organization focused on the legal opinion and recommendations on the Roland Bladadze s case for the executive and legislative governmental authorities of Georgia towards whom exists the legitimate expectation of making fair decisions for the property-deprived people. This research, prepared by the organization s legal group, will be disseminated within the representatives of the executive, legislative and judicial authorities of Georgia, Public Defender s office of Georgia, the diplomatic corps and international organizations. In addition, the English version will be delivered to the European Constitutional Courts, the Venice Commission, international central offices. For that matter, the organization will hold a discussion tables in Tbilisi and Batumi together with the law specialists, will discuss the realization of the legal actions related to the dispute and implementation strategy. The objective of the monitoring is to increase public awareness with regard to the Roland Bladadze s case and make this story the subject of extensive discussion in the professional circles and media. During the survey, it was found that there is scant information in the Georgian media. The first case which depicted illegal actions against Roland Bladadze was an authorship program of journalist Nana Ledjava Kviris Reportage. It was due to this journalistic investigation, that in 2012 public was first informed about the prosecution and unlawful seizure of property of administrative official in close relation with the former commander of the Adjara. Later, in the newspaper Asaval-Dasavali, an interview with Roland Bladadze was published, authored by the journalist Tea Asatiani, in June 18, 2013 Roland Bladadze s family members held a protest action, so called Leave my house, on the Era str. #37 in Batumi where the confiscated house was located, against the chairman of the Constitutional Court Giorgi Papuashvili after Adjara Prosecution office ceased criminal prosecution against Roland Bladadze and property confiscation by the state was delegitimized publicly. Despite the legal effort, justice was not restored on the Roland Bladadze s case, which should be connected to the current government s further common decision. During the newspaper interview Roland Bladadze recalls his story in the following way: After the Adjara revolution, before I left Georgia, I received two calls from the President s Administration. They offered me to go to Tbilisi and scold Mr. Abashidze in the Rustavi 2 TV live and after that I would keep working. On that day, when Aslan Abashidze left Georgia, Data Akhalaia called me and threatened me. Before that, he spent an entire month at my workplace as President s trustee and he personally controlled everything in the Customs Office. After his arrival in Tbilisi, he said on television that he could not find any violations in Sarpi. After Mr. Akhalaia s call, I left Georgia. After my departure, they visited my father and requested to give my contact information. They were already apparently demanding the money, at first 500 thousand, after that they reduced the price to 50 thousand. When I refused to pay money, they were threatening to deprive me of my house in case I did not pay to them. I went to Moscow alone and left my spouse and three children in Batumi. One day, they broke into house with the masks and threw out my wife together with my three underage children. My child came to the masked one and asked not to throw them out and he slapped child on the face. This was the period of time when nobody welcomed the members of Aslan Abashidze s

8 government on the streets because of the fear. Who would dare to shelter them. They were hiding in one relative s house, or another. Children did not go to school throughout the year. After that I managed to take them in Moscow. During the eviction, we already knew that our house would be transferred to the chairman of the Constitutional Court of Georgia Giorgi Papuashvili Now he says he did not know that the house was confiscated. How did he not know about it, when I sent several common acquaintances asking what he was committing, that situation was all-changing and he was doing sinful action. He occupied our house with no feeling of inconvenience. The chairman of the Constitutional Court of Georgia preferred throwing under-age children out on the street over the justice. My wife told him that children shed so many tears in that apartment, that he could never be happy there. Mr. Papuashvili s answer was the following: I am not going anywhere By the way, when I found out that Mr. Papuashvili inhibited my house, Giorgi Targamadze was working in Imedi TV. I called him and asked to produce TV show. He agreed and in a couple of days he refused. He said that Eka Khoferia was working with him and Mr. Papuashvili was a spouse of her sister says Roland Bladadze in an interview with the Asaval-Dasavali newspaper. 3 In another newspaper interview Roland Bladadze notes that Adjarian government proposed my house to many candidates, but nobody has decided to lodge in it, except Giorgi Papuashvili. Everyone refused, there are little kids living in this house and we could not commit the sin, especially when the property is illegally confiscated. Papuashvili s wife, who as you already know, is Eka Khoferia s sister, was very impressed with my house. The lawyer advised them not to lodge in this apartment as far as it was illegally confiscated, but she insisted on this house. Everyone avoids the case when they learn about the fact that Giorgi Papuashvili lives in my house. Now the chairman of the Constitutional Court of Georgia Giorgi Papuashvili is going to sell my house. Apparently, he is afraid that I will return back my house and tries to get rid of the loot property, at least to be left with money. I urge everyone not to buy the house from Giorgi Papuashvili, as far as this house is mine and its purchaser can not be deemed to be good faith buyer. Sooner or later I will prove my truth, - says Roland Bladadze. 4 In the process of research, while communicating with the public authorities, organization found out that from September 1, 2012 until June 10, applications were registered by the citizens regarding the return of property ownership at the Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development and there is ongoing investigation at the Prosecutor s Office of Georgia as to the return of the seized property. It is important to note the public statement of Prime Minister of Georgia Irakli Gharibashvili on August 12, 2014 according to which in the near future the government will notify the public about the fate of those citizens who lost their property. I would like to explain to citizens whose rights were grossly, violently and brutally infringed over the years that the state cares for the restoration of their rights under the 24 hour regimen. The Prosecutor s Office, in fact completed the work on their cases case examination is on the last stage and I hope, that we will notify the public about the fate of those citizens who lost their property, business, life. It is our duty to bring this process to the end and we will surely bring it to the end. All crime will be identified and the truth will be established for good, - said the Prime Minister, who reports that Prosecutor s Office already systematized these types of cases. The organization would like to express gratitude towards various bodies involved in the process of producing public information during the research preparation. In the process of monitoring, Roland 3 Newpaper Asaval-Dasavali, 4-10 February, #5, Newpaper Asaval-Dasavali, 30 December (2013) 12 January, #1, 2014.

9 Bladadze s case materials were provided by the aggrieved party s lawyer, Ms. Nana Tsuladze, whose professional commitment and effort is especially noteworthy. Nana Tsuladze had been involved in the process since 2006 and from January 2014, Roland Bladadze granted representative authority to the cofounder and head of of the NGO Young Barristers - Archil Kaikatsishvili, who carried out monitoring together with the organization s legal group. Effort undertaken by Roland Bladadze s wife - Marina Eselidze during the case proceedings is worth a mention; she protected her spouse s and family interests from 2004, notwithstanding meeting particular difficulties and challenges. The government evicted Marina Eselidze and her three underage children and today, repressed family lives with the hope for restoration of justice. 2. Legal Aspects of the Issue On June investigation on the Adjara A/R criminal case #263/04 was opened against the head of LLC Batumgamtsvaneba on grounds of abuse of power and violation of customs rules, followed by launching legal proceedings against the former commander of Adjara A/R government - Aslan Abashidze s political team supporters. History of the proceedings indicated, that the Direcotr of LLC Batumgamtsvaneba Ednar Shamilishvili had been importing a large amount of palms from Turkey from May 2003 until October 2003 by violating customs rules. While being questioned as an accused, Ednar Shamilishvili stated, that the palms were being imported by the former Adjara government officials with Aslan Abashidze s assignment. Based on Ednar Shamilishvili s testimony, according to Aslan Abashidze s assignment, LLC Batumgamtsvaneba would have received GEL. However, the mentioned amount must have been transacted to Turkish citizen acquainted to the company by former commander of Adjara. Although the palm trees were purchased and imported from the Republic of Turkey, Ednar Shamilishvili was to prepare fake documentations, as if the mentioned palms were purchased from an individual living in Adjara. The case indicates that Aslan Abashidze assured Ednar Shamilishvili as if customs employees would cause no issues while importing the palms. In addition to this, Act of Adjara A/R Control Chamber of July 2, 2004 indicates, that the mentioned palms have been registered at Sarpi Border Crossing Point, but have never been customs cleared, infringing the Customs Code of Georgia. On June 13, 2004, the Investigation Unit Head of Adjara A/R Prosecutor s Office - Shota Bolkvadze received a resolution concerning the history of the date-palms, according to which legal proceedings had begun against Roland Bladadze on the grounds of abuse of power and violation of customs rules. Although the deputy head of Control Chamber and the head of revision group mentioned above Ilia Kartsivadze stated in his testimony, as if according to the Control Chamber Act non-clearance of palm trees was caused by illegal actions of Roland Bladadze himself or any other employee, the mentioned condition must have been determined based on investigation. On August 25, 2004 deputy head of Sarpi Border Crossing Point of Adjara A/R, Roland Bladadze was convicted in absence and faced criminal charges. Resolution concerning criminal charges imposed on Roland Bladadze defines, that: Having worked as a deputy head of Sarpi Border Crossing Point of Adjara A/R and having the responsibility over normal working course of Sarpi Border Crossing Point, he intentionally did not fulfill his job obligations. In particular, starting from May 2003 until October 2003, he did not provide an appropriate control over customs clearance, as a result, causing Ednar Shamilishvili, the head of Batumi City Planting Trust, to import a large

10 amount of date-palms and flowers from Turkey with violating Sarpi Border Crossing Point custom rules. Precisely, during the period mentioned above, E. Shamilishvili imported 1020 Palm trees of $ and flowers at a price of $900, causing the state budget to lose tax fees of up to $15 950, infringing the legal interests of the state 5 (the style is retained). On August , Adjara A/R Prosecutor Giorgi Papuashvili filed a lawsuit against Roland Bladadze in the High Court of Adjara A/R and requested the recognition of Roland Bladadze s property as illegal and unjustified, property seizure and transfer to the State. 6 The State Prosecutor s lawsuit against Roland Bladadze on the illegal and unjustified recognition, seizure and transfer of the property states: Adjara A/R Prosecutor has enough evidence in order to consider defendant s property as illegal. The proof is based on the following arguments. The evidence gained about the named official s revenue (which the plaintiff was able to obtain and is attached to the lawsuit) provides information regarding the fact that in any scenario the amount of income could not ensure acquisition of the property listed in the lawsuit. This circumstance conditioned our assumption, which in turn led to raising this claim. In specific terms, Roland Bladadze worked as the deputy head of the Sarpi Border Checkpoint from 2001 until 2004 and during his employment he received income equaling to GEL. Therefore, we request the Court to reason in accordance with the evidence presented by the defendant on the lack of substantiation as to the property. Please, find preceding lawsuit admissible, examine it and satisfy our claims completely (the style is retained). On August 26, 2004 when Adjara A/R Prosecution appealed against the Court with the lawsuit, it indicated that Mr. Bladadze owned the following property, deemed to be recognized as illegal and unjustified, be seized and transferred to the State: 1. Residental apartment, Era str. #37, b8, Batumi. Total area: sq.m. 2. Residental house, Kobuleti District, village Sameba; 3. Residental house, N. Dumbadze str. Batumi; 4. Plot of Land, Kobuleti District, village Sameba; 5. Car GAZ 31-10, license plate number, IOO 462; On August 30, 2004 Adjara A/R Prosecutor Girogi Papuashvili gave power of attorney to head of the legal department at the Prosecution Service of Georgia - Valerian Cercvadze, prosecutors - Giorgi Khizanishvili and Vladimer Khuchua in order to carry out all the statutorily established procedural actions on behalf of the Prosecution Service of Georgia. 7 Together with Mr. Bladadze s case, prosecutors were entitled to defend the interests of the Prosecution Service of Georgia against officials Aslan Abashidze, Ioseb Gogitidze, Rostom Bolkvadze, Irakli Abashidze, Teimuraz Komakhidze, David Bakuridze, Sergo Gogitidze, Teimuraz Komakhidze, Guram Gogitadze, Elguja Mowyobili, Jemal Gvarishvili, Tariel Khalvashi, Ina Kharazi, Tamaz Ananidze as regards to the seizure and state-transfer of the property being in possession of their family members, close relatives and related persons, whereas the Prosecutor of Adjara A/R Giorgi Papuashvili acted as a plaintiff. All of the above named persons were senior government officials of Adjara A/R in Resolution on the Criminal Charges of Roland Bladadze of August 25, Lawsuit of Adjara A/R Prosecutor s Office concerning the confiscation of Roland Bladadze s property of August 26, Prosecutor s Power of Attorney No to Valerian Cercvadze of August 30, 2004.

11 On September 2, 2004 Roland Bladadze s case was separated from the criminal case #263/04 for the further proceeding and it was granted criminal case number of 287/04. On 7 September 2004, Adjara A/R Supreme Court, Administrative Law and Taxation Panel commenced to examine Adjara A/R Prosecutor s lawsuit about the recognition of the Roland Bladadze s property as illegal and unjustified, seizure and transfer to the state with the participation of judges: Davit Ananidze (chairman), Rezo Beridze and Ilia Kadamadze. The Court deemed Roland Bladadze s absence on the court hearing as nonexcusable, due to this Court a hearing was postponed and was resumed on September 10, On September 9, 2004, Batumi City Court sentenced Roland Bladadze imprisonment for a term of 3 months and on the same day it rendered a decision on his persecution. On September 10, 2004 Adjara A/R Supreme Court Administrative Law and Taxation Panel resumed proceedings on the Roland Bladadze s case with the participation of the judges Davit Ananidze (chairman), Rezo Beridze and Ilia Kadamadze, as well as with the prosecutors: Valerian Cercvadze, Girogi Khizanishvili and Vladimer Khuchua. The hearing was attended neither by the Respondent Roland Bladadze, nor by its legal representative. The prosecution side did not challenge the court, did not present application or motion. According to the record of the court hearing, the hearing started at 16:00 and ended at 17:00. The panel announced the decision after leaving the deliberation room. 9 Specifically, Prosecutor s claim was partially satisfied. On September 10, 2004 Supreme Court of Adjara A/R Adminsitrrative Law and Taxation Panel ruled on Roland Bladadze Case #3-62. According to the court s decision, apart from the real estate located in Kubuleti Minicipality, village Kveda Sameba, the following property was deemed to be illegal and unjustified: 1. Residential Apartment, Era str. #37, b8, Batumi. Total area: sq.m. 2. Residental house, N. Dumbadze str. Batumi; 3. Plot of Land, Kobuleti District, village Sameba; 4. Car Mercedez-benz, WMW 009, valiable 40000; 5. Car GAZ 31-10, license plate number, IOO 462; On September 10, 2004 Adjara A/R Supreme Court Administrative Law and Taxation Panel s decision states, that according to the notice, claimed residential house belongs to Roland Bladadze s father - Usup Bladadze and belonged to their predecessors, therefore this part of plaintiff s claim should be refused. Prosecutor s lawsuit as regards to the rest of the property claim should be satisfied. It should be considered as illegal and unjustified property, defendant should be deprived of property and since there is no other owner other than the defendant, it should be transferred to the state. The case does not contain documents proving the existence of needed funds to purchase the property or tax payment documents proving that these funds are legally acquired. The Court considers reasonable doubt as being confirmed as far as defendant could not acquire the property with this salary or purchase it legally, which provides the basis for satisfaction of the 8 Adjara A/R Supreme Court record of proceeding of September 7, Adjara A/R Supreme Court record of proceeding of September 10, 2004.

12 claim. 10 In addition, according to the Court s decision, Roland Bladadze was ordered to pay GEL court fees in favor of the State budget. Adjara A/R Supreme Court Administrative Law and Taxation Panel s decision rendered on September 10, 2004 came into force on November 12, 2004 and November 30, 2004 the court issued a writ of execution to seize Roland Bladadze s property and transfer it to the State. It should be noted that, based on the Adjara A/R Prosecutor s request, Ltd. Consulting Audit, presented audit report on September 22, 2004 according to which the value of residential houses, apartments, vehicles, shares and stock belonging to Roland Bladadze, his family members, close relatives and related persons was estimated at GEL. 11 It is noteworthy that on November 17, 2004 Adjara A/R prosecutor aggravated Roland Bladadze s charge and apart from accusing him in the repeated abuse of authority, he was condemned to money extortion, and threatening of employing force in order to acquire a large amount of property belonging to others. On the questioning of victim on one of the cases, Prosecutor deemed citizen - Mikheil Bogveradze, who noted that Roland Bladadze tried to withdraw money in favor of a third party, as a victim and plaintiff on the civil case. Reviewing this episode reveals, that this accusation against Mr. Bladadze was unfounded considering Adjara A/R prosecutor s decision on April 12, 2013 In 2006, Roland Bladadze s attorneys at law filed a complaint to the Batumi City Court and requested suspension of enforcement order. The complaint noted that Roland Bladadze s wife Marina Eselidze received a warning from the Adjara Enforcement Bureau on March 22, 2006 to voluntarily pay imposed GEL in favor of state budget. Before receiving such a warning, Roland Bladadze s family did not know about the existence of this decision. The court was addressed for another noteworthy circumstance; the evidence gathered by Marina Eselidze confirmed that part of the deprived property belonged not to Roland Bladadze, but to her instead. Marina Eselidze s complaint noted that the imposition of GEL by the court on her property, violated her legal rights. On March 29, 2006 the court issued a ruling and approved Marina Eselidze s claim, noting that although Marina Eselidze is not the debtor, enforcement is directed towards her property, which falls under her legitimate interest. According to the ruling, enforcement order issued on the basis of Adjara A/R Supreme Court on September 10, 2004, was suspended. 12 On April 14, 2006 the head of the Enforcement Department of Adjara Enforcement Bureau of the Ministry of Justice - Gela Tavdgiridze submitted a motion in Batumi City Court and requested a clarification on Adjara A/R Supreme Court Administrative Law and Taxation panel s decisions of September 6 and 10, 2004 as regard to the operative part, arbitrary deprivation of property and transfer to the State. 13 On April 27, 2006 in its enforcement order, where together with the former government officials, Roland Bladadze s property was mentioned, Batumi City Court pointed out that illegal and arbitrary deprivation of property and transfer of property to the state implies transfer of ownership rights and thus freed-up transfer to the creditor (state). According to this enforcement order, Roland Bladadze owns the following property: 10 Adjara A/R Supreme Court, Administrative Law and Taxation Panel s decision of September 10, Ltd. Consulting Audit Audit Report on the Roland Bladadze s Case of September 22, Batumi City Court Ruling #2 707 of March 29, 2006, Judge: Gocha Futkaradze 13 Batumi City Court Ruling of April 14, 2006, Judge: Jemal Kiknadze

13 1. Residental apartment, Era str. #37, b8, Batumi. Total area: sq.m. 2. Residental house, N. Dumbadze str. Batumi; 3. Plot of Land, Kobuleti District, village Sameba; Roland Bladadze s attorneys at law appealed Batumi City Court Decision of April 14, 2006 with the private complaint in the Kutaisi Appeal Court. Private complaint notes that in the operative part of the Adjara A/R Supreme Court s decision, as well as prosecutor s lawsuit, there is no indication as to the freed-up residence being transferred to the creditor (state). Defenders of the interests of Roland Bladadze clarify, that Adjara A/R Supreme Court s decision of September 14, 2004 was already enforced. Originally, the disputed property was seized, followed by the apartment located on Era street. It was registered in the Public Register as the state property in Batumi. Private ruling noted that the Court has taken the role of plaintiff and in fact, issued the writ of execution on the release of the apartment so that the judge Jemal Kiknadze was not entitled to review Gela Tavdgiridze s motion as far as before becoming a judge Jemal Kiknadze served as the head of Adjara A/R Prosecution Service Investigative Department and he supervised the criminal case against Roland Bladadze. Accordingly, the judge Jemal Kiknadze should have challenged its own authority. Therefore, Roland Bladadze s lawyers requested abolition of the Batumi City Court s ruling of April 14, 2006 and enforcement order issued on April 27, On December 14, 2006 according to the Kutaisi Appeal Court s ruling, private complaint filed by Roland Bladadze s defenders of legitimate interests was not upheld. The court left unchanged Batumi City Court s ruling of April 14, 2006 (the ruling was final and could not be appealed). The Court of Appeal pointed out that court had the right to decide on the interpretation of the ruling without inviting the parties. In addition, court noted that the issue of the ground for challenging the judge has not been raised. The case materials do not prove that Jemal Kiknadze was interested in this this case. The fact that before serving as a judge he was appointed as a head of Adjara A/R Prosecution Service Investigation Department and he was supervising criminal case against Roland Bladadze does not imply judge s interest in this case while interpreting the decision in force. 15 In addition, the court 16 noted, that deprivation of property no longer requires filing a lawsuit on the eviction of the persons living in the property, as far as property seizure and transfer already implies transfer of the deprived property to the authorized person, in this case the state. On November 8, 2006, Adjara A/R Enforcement Bureau court enforcement officials, evicted Roland Bladadze s family from the apartment located on Era str. #8 in Batumi. Roland Bladadze s wife Marina Eselidze indicated in the record that current proceedings in the real estate was illegal and according to the Batumi City Court ruling, court s clarification was not in force at that time, consequently the enforcement procedure was held in violation of law. On February 5, 2007, Batumi City Court issued a ruling 17 on Roland Bladadze s lawyers statement, which requested annulment of Adjara A/R Supreme Court Administrative Law and Taxation Panel decision of September 10, 2004 and resumption of the proceedings due to the newly discovered circumstances. The lawyers statement pointed out that Adjara A/R Supreme Court held the hearing without Roland Bladadze 14 Private Complaint in the Kutaisi Appeal Court of April 27, Kutaisi Appeal Court Ruling of December 14, Adjara A/R Enforcement Bureau record of the proceedings of November 8, Batumi City Court Ruling #2 533 of February 5, Judge: Nino Vashakmadze.

14 attending it. Neither Roland Bladadze, nor his family members received a notice informing them about the court hearing. Neither was Roland Bladadze s interests defended by the lawyer on the hearing, while based on the power of attorney, Adjara A/R Prosecution Service prosecutors acted as civil plaintiff on these cases. As stated by the party, this circumstance violated adversarial principle between the parties. Due to these circumstances, party was unable to provide court with the information that the major part of the property, disputed with the Roland Bladadze and his family had never been owned by Roland Bladadze and relevantly, was owned by his family members; on the other hand, the second part cars had been long alienated. As for the only residential apartment on the residential apartment #8 on the Era str. #37 in Batumi, where Roland Bladadze s wife and children lived was acquired in 1999, was signed by notary in early 2000, i.e. much earlier until that time (disputed period according to the Prosecution Service lawsuit ) when he became official. The court did not examine Roland Bladadze s lawyers lawsuit on the annulment of the decision and resumption of the case and stated that according to the Georgian Civil Procedure Code Article 426, application on the annulment of the court decision should be filed within 1 month and prolongation of this period is not allowed. The court pointed out Roland Bladadze s legal representative knew about the Adjara A/R Prosecution Service lawsuit against Roland Bladadze on the illegal and unjustified recognition of the property, its seizure and transfer to the state and the existence of the disputed decision on the case. As further evidence, court pointed to the dates of April 25 and October 5, 2005 when Roland Bladadze s attorneys applied to the Court to receive copies of the case materials. In addition, the court noted that Roland Bladadze s attorneys, appealed to Adjara A/R Administrative Law and Taxation Panel s Decision of September 10, 2004 in the cassation, which was held inadmissible by the Supreme Court of Georgia s ruling of November 25, 2005 and was handed over to the Roland Bladadze s attorneys on December 5, Accordingly, Court pointed that Roland Bladadze s attorneys missed one-month deadline to apply to the court. Roland Bladadze s attorneys appealed Batumi City Court ruling of February 5, 2007 with the private complaint in Kutaisi Appeal Court. With the cassation complaint, the court was once again informed about the newly-discovered circumstances of the case, which included illegally and unjustifiably recognized real estate (located on Era str. #37, #8 Batumi) acquisition in 1999 and disputed one-month appealing period. However, Kutaisi Appeal Court rejected Roland Bladadze s attorneys complaint and left unchanged Batumi City Court Decision of February 5, Kutaisi Appeal Court decision of March 20, 2007 states 18 The Civil Procedure Code Article 423 (I) defines what can be considered as newly discovered circumstance. This list is exhaustive and can not be expanded. The fact that residential apartment #8 on the Era str. #37 was acquired by Roland Bladadze can not be considered as newly-discovered circumstance because apartment according to Civil Code Article 149 is a real estate and its owner s identity is established through the Public Registry. The circumstance is deemed to be newly discovered if it existed before the judgment was rendered, provide d that it did not exist before rendering this decision and emerged after the decision was issued, it became known to the party only after the judgment was rendered. In this case, it is unreasonable to conclude as if the purchase of residential apartment #8 on the Era str. #37 in 1999 and formalization in 2000 emerged after rendering a decision on September 10, As it is well-known, the purchase of residential apartment #8 on Era str. #37 was known 18 Kutaisi Appeal Court Ruling of March 20, Judge: F. Basilaia

15 to the party before rendering a decision. Therefore, it can not be considered as newly-discovered circumstance (the style is retained). As regards to Roland Bladadze s case, the contested one-month procedural appeal period, the legal dispute was proceeded in the Supreme Court of Georgia. On October 31, 2005 Roland Bladadze s attorneys appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia and requested abolishment of the Adjara A/R Administrative Law and Taxation Panel s decision of September 10, The party initially contested the fact that Court s Decision 10/09/2004 was handed to him in violation of the terms. Accordingly, the judgment could not be properly examined by the party and in response it could not undertake legal action. According to the ruling of the Supreme Court of Georgia of November 24, 2005 Roland Bladadze s cassation appeal has also been held inadmissible and left unexamined. The Court Ruling stated: Cassation Chamber reviewed Roland Bladadze s representative s cassation lawsuit and considered that it should be left unexamined on the inadmissibility ground since it does not meet the requirements set by the Article 397 of the Civil Procedure Code of Georgia. The delivery of the postal consignment notice, provided in the case materials, makes it clear that Adjara A/R Administrative Law and Taxation Panel s decision of September 10, 2004 was sent to Roland Bladadze on October 8, On the second page of the notice, it is noted that the courier could not find addressee on the indicated address and as explained by the neighbor, addressee Roland Bladadze was out of town and as a result, the above-mentioned decision was handed to the Batumi Municipal Government on October 11, 2004 as evidenced by the notice seal. The Court of Cassation deems that appealing period must begin to run from the moment of decision delivery to the Batumi Municipal Government. The Court of Cassation considers that appealing one-month period is expired according to the Civil Procedure Code Article (the style is retained). The Supreme Court of Georgia rejected the reasoning of the defenders of the legitimate interests of Roland Bladadze according to which the disputed one-month appealing period has the following rationale. In particular, Adjara A/R Supreme Court Panel s Decision 10/09/2004 satisfied Adjara Prosecution Service s sought complaint on the seizure of the unjustified property in a way that neither Roland Bladadze nor his attorney, when according to the Civil Procedure Code of Georgia Article 81(II) attorney should have been assigned for him. Party indicated that the law had been violated, when neither court summons nor the decision was handed to Roland Bladadze and his family members in an appropriate manner. In addition, the party indicated that the following recording on the court notification by the courier on October 8, I went to that address. The addressee can not be found. According to neighbors, Roland Bladadze is out of town can not be deemed as a reliable allegation, as far as the case materials do not contain proper report signed by the neighbors providing the information about Roland Bladadze being out of the town to the courier. On the contrary, Roland Bladadze s neighbors argued the opposite that they had not seen anybody from the court neither with the court notification nor with the decision and there was no indication when Mayor s Chancellery took over the notification. In addition, the court rejected the claim that from September 15, 2004 Roland Bladaze s family three minor children and a wife Marina Eselidze were living at the address of the unjustified and illegally recognized real estate. If the courier, even once came to this address, 19 Supreme Court of Georgia, Ruling #ბს (კ 05) of November 24, 2005 M. Vachadze (chairman), N.Kadagidze, B. Koberidze.

16 Roland Bladadze s wife would meet him there. The case also included the notice about the fact that Roland Bladadze lived and he was recorded as a member of Kobuleti Minicipality Khutsubani community. The court notification was not sent to this address either. After the compulsory eviction of the family from the real estate located on Era str. #37, flat #8, Batumi, on November 8, 2006 by the virtue of State, Roland Bladadze s family remaining in Georgia were sheltered by relatives and after the legal dispute t the Common Courts continued in vain Roland Bladadze s attorneys addressed representatives of the executive and legislative branches for the assistance and establishment of the truth. At different times in 2007 as regards to the case, the official letters was sent to Mikheil Saakashvili - President of Georgia in , Nino Burjanadze Chairman of the Parliament in , Levan Varshalomidze Chairman of Adjara A/R Government in , as well as to the governmental agencies connected to the case. The letters sent to President and Chairman of the Parliament by Roland Bladadze s wife Marina Eselidze state: If the truth can not be revealed, I am forced to address different countries for asylum. Do not deprive my children of already desperate childhood. Do not kill their slightest hope. They have committed no crime before the country. Pardon me, that I can not indicate address in this statement for the simple reason that I do not have it anymore (the style is retained). The official letters sent to the executive and legislative authorities by the Roland Bladadze s defenders of the legitimate interests were left unrequited. The only reply prepared in connection with the case belongs to the Parliamentary Human Rights and Civil Integration Committee as well as Legal Issues Committee of the Parliament. The letter referred to the Secretary of High Council at the Supreme Court of Georgia, in by the Parliament s Legal Affairs Committee Chairman Levan Bezhashvili states: Parliament s Legal Issues Committee received Marina Eselidze s statement, where applicant notes that with the decision of September 14, 2004 Supreme Court of Adjara A/R confiscated the property as being illegal and unjustified belonging to her husband - Roland Bladadze without examining the merits of the case. However, they learned about this decision almost a year later. In addition, the applicant notes that they were in possession of the residential apartment located on Era str. #37, Batumi, while the rest of the confiscated property was owned neither by them nor by their close relatives. In addition, the citizen asserts, that the property recognized as illegally and unjustifiably acquired was purchased by him a few years before he was appointed on the position of government official. The applicant indicates on a number of due process violations by the Kutaisi Appeal Court. Please, consider these facts and in case of violation by the court, if any, take appropriate measures within your competence in accordance with the legislation (the style is retained) 20 It should be noted that the letter with the similar content was prepared by the Parliamentary Human Rights and Civil Integration Committee Chairman Elene Tevdoradze in , which was sent to the head of the Human Rights Department at the General Prosecutor s Office of Georgia. In this letter, Elene Tevdoradze put emphasis on the fact that the citizen is requesting to take necessary measures in order to not be left 20 Legal Affairs Committee of the Parliament of Georgia, Recourse # to the Secretary of High Council at the Supreme Court of Georgia - Valeri Cercvadze of June 20, 2007.

17 without house with three minor children, putting the family in the intolerable situation. The reason for our application is solely the fact that investigation was conducted in the defendant s absence. The apartment located on Era str. was purchased by the defendant 2 months before the appointment, which suggests that perhaps the court s decision was hasty, without the examination of the merits of the case. Also, it is interesting that the applicant neither refer to her husband s accusation, nor to the seizure of the rest of the property. Basically, what is disputed is the deprivation of the residential apartment on the Era str. She also notes that the government is going to give the apartment to the chairman of the Constitutional Court of Georgia. Please, examine reality of the facts brought up by the statement and in case of confirmation, prosecution service executives refer this case to the Court for the re-examination of the case, as far as the context of the application creates reasonable doubt that in fact defendant s constitutional and internationally established rights and obligations were violated (the style is retained) 21. However, parliamentary committees statements were not followed by any results. The authorized decision-makers lacked appropriate political and legal will. Roland Bladaze s legal representatives assumption turned out to be true. Real estate located on Era str. #37, flat #8, Batumi which according to the Adjara A/R Administration Law and Taxation Panel s decision of September 10, 2004 was deemed to be illegal and unjustified was transferred to the State after which through the way of direct sale it was given to Giorgi Papuashvili - Chairman of the Constitutional Court of Georgia at a symbolic price of 1000 GEL. 22 On June 26, 2007 according to the Presidential Decree #285, the decision on the Privatization in the form of direct sale of the state property to the members of the Constitutional Court of Georgia entered into force. The President s decree notes that as regards to the replacement of the Constitutional Court in Batumi, the members of the Constitutional Court as indicated below, will be given state property (including the plot of land partially attached to it) in the form of direct sale at a symbolic price of 1000 (thousand) GEL in order to ensure decent working and living conditions for the members of the constitutional court: 1. Chairman of the Constitutional Court of Georgia Giorgi Papuashvili - Era Str. # 37, apartment No. 8, Batumi; 2. Deputy Chairman of the Constitutional Court of Georgia Konstantine Vardzelashvili Chavchavadze str.# 113, Flat # 8-9; 3. Deputy Chairman of the Constitutional Court of the Georgia Besik Loladze - Gamsakhurdia str.# 2, apartment # 39, Batumi; 4. Member of the Constitutional Court of Georgia, Vakhtang Gvaramia Asatiani str. # 8, apartment No. 3, Batumi; 5. Member of the Constitutional Court of Georgia, Ketevan Eremadze Gamsakhurdia str. # 38, apartment No. 6, Batumi; 6. Member of the Constitutional Court of Georgia, Besarion Zoidze, Rustaveli str. # 22, apartment No. 1, Batumi; 21 Parliamentary Human Rights and Civil Integration Committee Recourse # to the head of the Human Rights Department at the General Prosecutor s Office of Georgia Archil Giorgadze, of June 18, On July 14, 2006 Giorgi Papuashvili was appointed as a member of Constitutional Court of Georgia by the President of Georgia and on September 29 he was elected as a Chairman of the Constitutional Court of Georgia by the Plenum of the Constitutional Court. Present Chairman of the Constitutional Court of Georgia

18 7. Member of the Constitutional Court of Georgia, Otar Sichinava - Rustaveli str. # 22, apartment No. 9, Batumi; 8. Member of the Constitutional Court of Georgia, Joni Khetsuriani Griboedovi str. #28, apartment No. 13, Batumi; On June 6, 2007, according to the President s decree, state property privatization terms were specified so as to pay privatization fee within 2 years and three months after the conclusion of the relevant contract. In case of the termination of the Constitutional Court member s authority, they had to return back transferred property free of charge to the State, within 2 years after the conclusion of the relevant contract buyers were deprived to alienate, to hand over for temporary use, mortgage or otherwise grant the title on the specified state property and within 2 years after the conclusion of the relevant contract, judges of the Constitutional Court had an obligation to take care for the maintenance and protection of the transferred property. According to the Presidential Decree, the Ministry of Economic Development was charged with the implementation of legislative measures in order to fulfill the order. Due to the Order #1 1/905 of the Minister of the Economic Development of June 6, 2007, 23 apartment located on Era str. #37, Flat #8, with the partially attached plot of land to it, was granted to the chairman of the Constitutional Court of Georgia - Giorgi Papuashvili. On June 19, 2007 in connection with the transfer of the real property, the State and Giorgi Papuashvili signed the receipt and handling act. 24 On June 20, 2007, a contract of sale was concluded between the State and Giorgi Papuashvili as regards to the real estate and according to the Order of the Minister of the Economic Development of July 16, 2007, the chairman of the Constitutional Court was granted title deed on the residential apartment located on Era str. #37, flat #8, Batumi and partially attached plot of land to it. On June 21, 2007, as regards to the real property, the State and Giorgi Papuashvili concluded the contract of sale, 25 while on July 16, 2014 the Order of the Minister of the Economic Development of Georgia, 26 granted the certificate of ownership to the Chairman of the Constitutional Court of Georgia on the apartment located on Era str. #37, flat #8, Batumi and partially attached plot of land to it. 27 On April 12, 2013 Adjara A/R Prosecutor s Office adopted a resolution on the termination of the criminal prosecution against Roland Bladadze. 28 The Prosecutor s Office terminated criminal prosecution against Roland Bladadze due to the lack of actions. The Prosecutor s office abolished imprisonment as the selected measure by the Order of September 9, 2004 by the Judge of the Batumi City Court and the same court s decision rendered on September 9, 2014 on the commencement of the prosecution against Roland Bladadze. The decision was based on the comprehensive study and fact verification on the case. In particular, based on intermediate acts, relied by the investigation authorities as an evidence proving accusation against Roland 23 Order of the Minister of the Economy Development Giorgi Arveladze on the Privatization in the form of direct sale of the state property to the members of the Constitutional Court of Georgia of June 14, The receipt and handling act concluded between the State and Chairman of the Consitutional Court of Georgia, signed on June 19, The Contract of Sale concluded between the State and Chairman of the Consitutional Court of Georgia, signed on June 21, 2007 and certified by the Notary. 26 Order of the Minister of the Economy Development Giorgi Arveladze on the certification of ownership of June 16, The certificate of ownership #352 პ, issued by the Ministry of the Economic Development of Georgia on August 6, Resolution of the Adjara A/R Deputy Prosecutor Irakli Imerlishvili on the termination of the criminal prosecution against Roland Bladadze of April 12, 2013.