CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 4 septembre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s20AFED81 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sCA92750 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC769D9E0 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBAD0D18F { width:1.87pt; display:inline-block } .sDD0159ED { width:203.11pt; display:inline-block } .s33B92635 { width:220.98pt; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 47974/07 Aslan ABASHIDZE against Georgia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 4   September 2012 as a Chamber composed of:   Egbert Myjer, President,   Corneliu Bîrsan,   Alvina Gyulumyan,   Ján Šikuta,   Luis López Guerra,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Kristina Pardalos, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 July 2007, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Aslan Abashidze, is a Georgian national, who was born in 1938 and currently lives in Moscow, the Russian Federation. He was represented before the Court by Mr Shalva Shavgulidze, a lawyer practising in Georgia. A.     The circumstances of the case 2.     On 4 January 2006 the applicant, former Head of the Ajarian Autonomous Republic (see Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no.   71503/01, §§   63, 69 and 84, ECHR 2004 ‑ II), was charged with abuse of power, misappropriation of public funds and a number of other offences committed in public office. The applicant evaded the investigation and trial, but his lawyer, Mr Shavgulidze, ensured his defence in the criminal proceedings. 3.     By a judgment of 22 January 2007, the Batumi City Court convicted the fugitive applicant of the above-mentioned offences in absentia , sentencing him to fifteen years in prison and to pay a fine of 98,229,530   Georgian laris (some 48,120,812 euros). The City Court explained in the operative part of its judgment, which was announced to the applicant’s lawyer at the end of the hearing on 22 January 2007, that, given the applicant’s absence, the judgment was final and immediately enforceable; an appeal lay against it only in the situation envisaged by Article 523 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”), namely after the applicant’s surrender to the law-enforcement authorities. B.     Relevant domestic law 4.     Article 523 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as it stood at the material time, read as follows: Article 523 “4.     If a conviction was delivered following a trial in absentia , the accused may lodge an appeal [on points of law and findings of fact] within one month after having been arrested or surrendered to the relevant authorities” COMPLAINTS 5.     Relying on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No.   7, the applicant complained about the inability to lodge an appeal against his conviction which had been delivered following the trial in   absentia . THE LAW 6.     Recalling its case-law on the matter, the Court considers that the procedure under Article 523 § 4 of the CCP, whereby a person who was tried and convicted in absentia may lodge an appeal after having surrendered to custody, which by definition cannot be a voluntary act on the convict’s part, is not a remedy to be exhausted for the purposes of Article   35 of the Convention (compare with Krombach v. France , no. 29731/96, §§   66   and 67, ECHR 2001 ‑ II). The Court further observes that on 22   January 2007 the trial court duly explained to the applicant’s lawyer, who also acts as the representative in the present proceedings, that the conviction was final and immediately enforceable and that the statutory bar under Article 523 § 4 of the CCP prevented his client from lodging an appeal in absentia . 7.     Noting that the subject matter of the present application is to challenge the very same statutory bar on appeal under Article 523 § 4 of the CCP, the Court finds that the six-month time-limit referred to in Article   35   §   1 of the Convention started to run on the day after the applicant’s representative had been informed by the domestic court of the impugned bar and of the associated finality of the applicant’s conviction and expired exactly six calendar months later, on 22 July 2007 (see Sabri Güneş v.   Turkey [GC], no. 27396/06, §§ 43-49 and 56-61, 29 June 2012; and also Otto v. Germany (dec.), no. 21425/06, 10 November 2009, with further references). However, since the application was lodged with the Court on 23   July 2007, that is to say one day after the expiry of the relevant period, it follows that it is belated and must be rejected pursuant to Article   35   §§   1 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible.   Marialena Tsirli   Egbert Myjer Deputy Registrar   President