CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 27 novembre 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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sE0372AB5 { width:21.8pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBF0FE613 { width:36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s40E9DAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s260B30F2 { width:16.02pt; display:inline-block } .sBF1D92B9 { width:173.61pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 4484/07 Jemal SHAMATAVA against Georgia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 27   November 2012 as a Committee composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Kristina Pardalos, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 December 2006, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Jemal Shamatava, is a Georgian national, who was born in 1970 and lives in Batumi. He was represented before the Court by Mrs   Lia Mukhashavria, a lawyer practising in Tbilisi. 2.     The Georgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr David Tomadze, of the Ministry of Justice. A.     The circumstances of the case 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4.     On 22 August 2006 the applicant, a former police officer, was arrested on suspicion of abuse of power and ill-treatment of a criminal suspect. 5.     On 23 August 2006 a prosecutor in charge of the criminal case filed with a court an application for the applicant’s detention on remand. The prosecutor stated that, in the circumstances when the applicant was accused of a serious offence, the pre-trial measure of detention would prevent him from absconding, re-offending or otherwise interfering with the establishment of the truth. The applicant replied that he should be released pending trial since the accusatory evidence had been collected in breach of procedural rules. He also requested leave to be bailed out for 15,000   Georgian laris (some 6,300   euros). 6.     On 24 August 2006 the Kutaisi City Court ordered the applicant’s pre ‑ trial detention for two months. The court stated as follows: “[T]he collected evidence ... suggests that the case file contains both formal and factual grounds for the imposition of pre-trial detention ... Having due regard to the gravity of the crime committed, a more lenient measure of restraint could not secure the aims of preventing the accused from re-offending or interfering with the establishment of the truth.” 7.     In an appeal against the detention order, the applicant, along with claiming his innocence, complained that the Kutaisi City Court had failed to consider the possibility of bail as an alternative pre-trial restraint measure. 8.     On 31 August 2006 the Kutaisi Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the detention order of 24 August 2006. The court noted that the evidence, which had been lawfully collected, confirmed the existence of a reasonable suspicion that the applicant might have committed the offence in question. A more lenient, non-custodial measure of pre-trial restraint could harm, in the appellate court’s view, the interests of the investigation. B.     Relevant domestic law 9.     The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure concerning pre-trial detention were summarised in paragraphs 35-36 and 29-41 of the Court’s judgment in the case of Giorgi Nikolaishvili v.   Georgia (no. 37048/04, 13 January 2009). COMPLAINTS 10.     Citing Articles 5 § 1 and 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complained that his pre-trial detention had not had any lawful basis. 11.     Furthermore, relying on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the applicant, referring to the court decisions of 24 and 31 August 2006, complained that his pre-trial detention for two months had been imposed on irrelevant and insufficient grounds. THE LAW 12.     The applicant mainly complained that his pre-trial detention for the period of two months had not been accompanied by sufficiently and adequately reasoned court decisions, in breach of Article   5   §   3 of the   Convention. This provision reads as follows: Article 5 § 3 “Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph   1   (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.” 13.     The Government argued that the reasons expressly given in the contested judicial decisions of 24 and 31 August 2006 had been adequate and sufficient for the questioned period of the applicant’s pre-trial detention. 14.     The applicant, whilst maintaining his initial complaint, did not submit any comments in reply to the Government’s arguments. 15.     The Court considers that the questioned period of the applicant’s pre-trial detention – two months – cannot be considered, given its short length, to have been unreasonable within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention even if it was mostly based on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence with which he had been charged (compare, for instance, with Mikiashvili v. Georgia , no.   18996/06, §§   101 ‑ 104, 9 October 2012; Galuashvili v.   Georgia , no. 40008/04, §   50, 17   July 2008; Saghinadze and Others v.   Georgia , no. 18768/05, §   137, 27   May 2010; Klamecki v. Poland , no.   25415/94, §§ 74 and 76, 28   March 2002; and also Malikowski v. Poland , no. 15154/03, § 52, 16 October 2007). 16.     As to the applicant’s remaining complaints under Articles   5 §   1 and   6   §   1 of the Convention (see paragraph 10 above), the Court, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. 17.     It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible.   Marialena Tsirli   Luis López Guerra   Deputy Registrar   President