CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 mai 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s13E45F32 { font-family:Arial; color:#00548c }     Communicated on 21 May 2015   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 933/12 Zviad BERADZE against Georgia lodged on 2 December 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Zviad Beradze, is a Georgian national, who was born in 1967 and is detained in Tbilisi. He is represented before the Court by Ms   N.   Korkotadze, a lawyer practising in Tbilisi. 2.     On 21 May 2011 the applicant was arrested and charged with illicit possession and carrying of a gun. On 23 May 2011 the Tbilisi City Court remanded him in pre-trial detention. The court reasoned that since there was a risk of absconding, destruction of evidence and thus re-offending (since the destruction of evidence itself constituted a criminal offence) by the applicant, it was necessary to place him in detention. No time-limit was set for the applicant’s pre-trial detention. On 2 June 2011 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal, at final instance, dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant’s appeal against the detention. 3.     On 6 July 2011 the Tbilisi City Court held a pre-trial conference on the applicant’s case. Among other issues, the applicant’s lawyers motioned his release pending the trial, claiming that all the main evidence and witness statements had already been obtained by the prosecution and thus the grounds for the applicant’s continued detention were no longer present. Without issuing a written decision, the Tbilisi City Court rejected orally the motion on the applicant’s release noting for the verbatim record that the defence had failed to demonstrate any newly discovered circumstances that would justify the applicant’s release; the court further held that the initial grounds for the applicant’s remand in custody were still relevant and sufficient for his continued detention. This time as well no time-limit was set for the applicant’s pre-trial detention. 4.     At the time of the submission of the present application on 2   December 2011, the applicant remained in the pre-trial detention whereas the criminal proceedings against him were still pending in the first instance court. COMPLAINTS 5.     The applicant complains under Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention about unreasonableness of his pre-trial detention.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the deprivation of the applicant’s liberty after the opening of the pre ‑ trial conference fall within paragraph   (c) of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention?   - Notably, was that particular period of the applicant’s pre-trial detention (after the opening of the pre-trial conference) based on a court decision or a legal provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure (please specify exactly which one)?   - For how long did the Tbilisi City Court’s decision of 23   May 2011 impose the pre-trial detention on the applicant?   - Is it consistent with the relevant judicial practice not to indicate explicit time-limits in court decisions imposing the measure of pre-trial detention?   2.   Did the applicant’s pre-trial detention comply with the requirement of Article   5 §§   3 and 4 of the Convention?   -     Notably, were the grounds given by the Tbilisi City Court on 6   July 2011 “relevant” and “sufficient” to justify the continued deprivation of the applicant’s liberty?   -     Did the Tbilisi City Court’s decision of 6 July 2011 to maintain the applicant in custody result from an appropriate judicial review during which both the reasonableness of the suspicion underpinning the applicant’s arrest and the legitimacy of the purpose pursued by that arrest and the continued detention was duly addressed?   -     Was it compatible with relevant domestic law and practice for Tbilisi City Court to reject the applicant’s request for the review of his pre-trial detention on 6 July 2011 orally, only on the verbatim record of the relevant court session, and without delivering a written, reasoned decision?