Published on 7 April 2025
 
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 54869/22
LTD BARISAKHO
against Georgia
lodged on 22 November 2022
communicated on 18 March 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the expropriation of the applicant company’s land and buildings for the construction of a railway.
The applicant company, Barisakho Ltd, has been operating a wood flooring and window factory since 1996. It owned a plot of non-agricultural land measuring 14,699.97 sq. m. with several factory buildings located on the property. After several failed attempts to settle the case, on 15 June 2011 8,587 sq. m. of the applicant company’s land, along with its buildings, were expropriated by the State for railway construction purposes. The applicant company was compensated with 622,704,12 Georgian Lari (“GEL”).
The applicant company initiated civil proceedings arguing, among other things, that the compensation awarded for the expropriated land and property did not reflect its real value, and that the remaining plot of land had been divided into two smaller plots, rendering it impossible to continue the business. The applicant sought compensation in the amount of 7,206,000 GEL covering the alleged full market value of the entire land and its property, as well as the business relocation costs. Additionally, it requested 350,000 GEL per year for lost income.
On 24 February 2017 the Tbilisi City Court increased the amount of compensation for the expropriated part of land and property, awarding the applicant company 792,169 GEL. As for the remaining land and property and the business operations, the court noted that while continuing the activities as before was impossible, the plots of land themselves remained the applicant company’s property and had not lost their value. Hence, it could not be concluded that the land concerned had become unusable and that de facto expropriation had occurred. The decision was upheld on appeal by the Tbilisi Court of Appeal on 18 January 2019. On 6 July 2022 the Supreme Court of Georgia rejected the applicant company’s appeal on points of law as inadmissible.
The applicant company complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about disproportionate interference with its property rights as it had to bear an excessive burden after it was left with two small, separated plots of land which prevented it from continuing its business.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1.  Has the applicant company been deprived of its possessions in accordance with the conditions provided for by law (see Vistiņš and Perepjolkins v. Latvia [GC], no. 71243/01, §§ 95-98, 25 October 2012, with further references) and in the public interest (see Former King of Greece and Others v. Greece [GC], no. 25701/94, § 87, ECHR 2000-XII), within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?
 
2.  Did that deprivation impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant company on account of the authorities’ decision not to compensate for the loss resulting from disrupted business operations (see, mutatis mutandis, Ouzounoglou v. Greece, no. 32730/03, 24 November 2005; Bistrović v. Croatia, no. 25774/05, 31 May 2007; and Osmanyan and Amiraghyan v. Armenia, no. 71306/11, 11 October 2018)?