How Authorities Are Trying to Suppress Shukruti Protests: Interview with a Lawyer on the Dispute’s Details

In fact, how many affected families among the participants of the protest have received compensation, and what is the nature of this compensation? Why are the memorandum and agreements signed with some of the Shukruti residents burdensome ? We discussed the details of the dispute with Vladimir Kutateladze, a lawyer from the Civil Advocacy Center who represents the interests of Shukruti residents.

After the affected Shukruti residents arrived in Tbilisi from Chiatura on the 183rd day of their protest and began rallying in front of the Parliament, the company Chiatura Management Company LLC has been actively disseminating documents through government channels and social networks, claiming that they have fully paid the compensation to some individuals. Moreover, they have repeatedly accused the protesters of blackmailing the company and demanding payment a second time. In reality, of the 33 families participating in the protest, how many have received compensation? It is important to ask what company Chiatura Management Company LLC is and what its connection is to Georgian Manganese.

18 families among the protesters have not received any compensation for the damage caused by manganese mining. Only a small amount has been provided to a few families.

Only 6 individuals have received relatively substantial compensation. After reviewing the documents, it is clear that for one of these 6, the amount received was an advance. Following the public distribution of payment receipts, one of the victims, Jumber Tsutskiridze, has been labeled as greedy and radical, including by citizens mobilized on the company's Facebook page who may not have been to Chiatura or understand the situation there.

Magaroeli LLC, a company founded by Georgian Manganese, paid Jumber Tsutskiridze in four installments between 2021 and 2022 - 10 000, 20 000, 50 000, and 5000 GEL. A written agreement was signed between the parties, specifying that these payments were advances and that the total compensation amount would be determined based on an objective and fair assessment.

Such an assessment has not been conducted, and this is one of the primary demands of the protesters. They are calling for Georgian Manganese to assess the damage according to the settlement criteria of the National Bureau of Forensic Expertise and to provide fair compensation to the victims.

Regarding Chiatura Management Company LLC, it is important to note that Georgian Manganese, which has held a license for manganese extraction on 16 430 hectares in Chiatura and Sachkhere since 2007, has a history of complex and opaque practices involving numerous related companies with unclear obligations. This situation became more complicated after a special state manager was appointed to Georgian Manganese in 2017 at the government's request. Chiatura Management Company LLC, however, is a completely new entity, founded in February 2024. Its director is Maxim Mazurenko, a Ukrainian citizen, and the company is wholly owned by JSC New Group, which was registered in 2021. Based on our information, Maxim Mazurenko is a trusted associate of Igor Kolomoisky, a prominent Ukrainian oligarch and major owner of Georgian Manganese. The legal relationship between Chiatura Management Company LLC and Georgian Manganese LLC is not clear from the documents we have. In all three cases against the protesters in the Sachkhere court, the plaintiff and victim are listed as Magaroeli LLC.

Chiatura Management Company LLC has illegally processed and distributed personal data of five protesters. The company released only the payment receipts, aiming to discredit the protesters, and did not release the contracts, which is highly burdensome. We have already reported the illegal processing and distribution of personal data to the Personal Data Protection Service.

- Georgian Manganese and its related companies refer to the Memorandum of Understanding as the basis for all these payments, whether small or large. What is this document?

- The Memorandum of Understanding is dated June 1, 2020. Its signatories include Shukruti + LLC (formerly known as Magaroeli LLC), the signatories listed in Appendix One, and their associated "owners."

The directly affected citizens did not sign this memorandum and were not introduced to it. According to the victims, company representatives came to Shukruti residents with blank sheets of paper, telling them that signing these sheets was required to receive compensation.

Currently, we are representing the rights of at least 30 families, none of whom had access to the memorandum. The company has used this document in lawsuits filed against the protesters.

The signatures are attached to the memorandum as specified in Annex 23. According to the memorandum, the parties can only be those listed in Annex 1.

It is also worth noting that, according to the memorandum, anyone could sign the attachment (blank sheet), even though only the property owners were supposed to receive compensation for the damage.

The memorandum does not specify the affected individuals, their property, the damage caused, the amount of compensation, or the payment terms. Clause 1.4 stipulates that a separate agreement must be signed with each owner, detailing the terms of compensation.

The primary purpose of the memorandum seems to be to bind the residents so that the company can continue its operations without interruption, despite causing significant and ongoing damage to settlements and private property.

The memorandum is entirely one-sided, serving only the interests of Shukruti + LLC. Almost every article sets conditions that are clearly disadvantageous to the owners and are in direct conflict with existing legislation.

For example, Clause 4.2 of the Memorandum states that if any signatory interferes with the company in any way during the memorandum’s validity, the company is authorized to halt payments to all owners and recover sums already paid from them.

The company effectively restricts the public from expressing any form of protest and imposes collective responsibility, which is prohibited by law.

These provisions are particularly absurd, given that Clause 1.1 states that compensation is only given to the "owner," while the annex allows any person to sign, even those who will not be affected by violations of the memorandum.

4.4 of the Memorandum: Based on this clause, if Shukruti+ LLC, during the entire term of the memorandum’s validity, ceases mining activities for any reason, both it and Georgian Manganese LLC are released from the obligation to provide any form of compensation to the affected population. The memorandum is valid for 15 years.

To illustrate the implications, Shukruti+ LLC (now Magaroeli LLC) could mine in Shukruti for 14 years and 11 months, earning substantial profits, and then stop its activities for any reason. According to the memorandum, since it would not have operated for the full 15 years, it would not be obligated to pay any compensation to those affected by its activities.

These provisions are particularly burdensome given that Shukruti+ LLC and Georgian Manganese LLC had only signed service (resource) agreements for a duration of one year. Service contracts can typically be terminated at any time by the customer according to legal regulations.

The memorandum is highly burdensome. The signatures on it appear to have been obtained through deception or forgery, and the document lacks legitimacy.

- In 2021, following a prolonged protest by part of the Shukruti population, Magaroeli LLC and Georgian Manganese LLC signed an agreement with several families. Have these companies failed to meet their obligations under this agreement?

- On June 9, 2021, after the most significant and extended protest, an agreement was signed between Georgian Manganese LLC, Magaroeli LLC, and the protest participants. The memorandum is not referenced in this agreement.

This agreement is crucial and precedential because, for the first time, it established a fair and unified assessment of the damage between the affected population and the companies (Georgian Manganese LLC and Magaroeli LLC). It was also the first time Georgian Manganese LLC was explicitly included as a party to the agreement.

According to the agreement, the parties were required to approach the National Bureau of Forensic Expertise, named after Levan Samkharauli, within three working days of signing the document to request a report.

The report from the expert bureau was supposed to address the following questions:

- What part of the property is damaged at the time of the application to the Bureau of Expertise, and what damage is hypothetically possible (with a low standard of probability) due to manganese ore mining activities in Shukruti and its surroundings?

- If it is impossible to rectify the damage, determine the cost required to restore the property to a functionally similar condition, including buildings, structures, land, and vegetation.

All costs for preparing the expert report were to be covered by the companies.

The agreement was violated almost immediately, on the third day, when only the companies, not the parties, contacted the Bureau of Forensic Examination. As a result, the affected population still does not have access to the expert’s report and remains unaware if such a report even exists. The Bureau of Expertise has refused to provide information because the victims are not the customers.

From the beginning, the companies intended for the forensic report to not be the sole method of compensation. Thus, the agreement also included a provision for compensation based on a report from the companies’ own appraiser. Victims were supposed to choose one of the compensation methods.

Most of the current protest participants do not have such a contract, and their homes remain damaged or destroyed.

Different types of agreements have been signed with some Shukruti residents:

For a resident who requested repair of specific damage, such as a crack in a wall, a "settlement agreement" was created. The company’s appraiser assessed the damage and charged the victim for the repair costs.

These agreements are particularly burdensome because Clause 3.1 states that the amount paid is considered compensation for both existing and any future damages, thereby forfeiting the owner’s right to file additional claims. The compensation for such agreements ranged from 2000 to 10 000 GEL.

For victims seeking an assessment and compensation for damage to their entire property, an "advance payment agreement" was typically used.

This agreement also contains burdensome terms. For instance, Clause 5.3 stipulates that the advance payment must be returned if the company ceases operations and/or the property does not fall into the deterioration category.

Unfortunately, none of the individuals whose interests we represent have received a copy of the contract.

- We know that Georgian Manganese and related companies are also suing the participants of the protest in court. How many lawsuits have been filed, and what are the companies demanding? Have the dismissed employees who participated in the protest appealed to the court?

- So far, two lawsuits have been filed against the rally participants. I believe these lawsuits should not be accepted by the court due to their incomprehensible and absurd nature.

The first lawsuit, filed in March 2024, targets 20 individuals and effectively seeks to prevent them from protesting, even on their own property. Additionally, the company demands that the yards where the protestors’ houses are located be handed over to the company for manganese extraction for a period of four years.

The second lawsuit, submitted in August, claims 5.5 million GEL in damages from 30 citizens. The company sought a ban on mining protests as a security measure for this lawsuit, which the court granted. Additionally, the company is demanding the seizure of the protestors' property, although the court has not yet made a decision on this matter.

Regarding the miners who were fired for participating in the protest, a total of five individuals were dismissed. Currently, one of them has appealed against the unlawful dismissal. This appeal has been accepted by the court, and we are requesting that the process be expedited.

Furthermore, three participants in the protest are accused of disrupting the company's operations by organizing the group action. They have been granted bail, and the pre-trial session is scheduled for October 11.