CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 juillet 2016

.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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }   Communicated on 15 July 2016   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 56283/08 Maia TOPURIA against Georgia lodged on 29 October 2008 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     The applicant, Ms Maia Topuria, is a Georgian national, who was born in 1966 and lives in Tbilisi. 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3.     On 6 September 2006 the applicant was arrested and charged with high treason. On 8 and 15 September 2006 respectively the Tbilisi City Court remanded the applicant in pre-trial detention for two months pending investigation and then the Tbilisi Court of Appeal, at the final instance, upheld her detention. Subsequently the applicant’s pre-trial detention pending investigation was extended twice, each time by one month, with the end date set at 6 January 2007. 4.     At the material time, the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”) differentiated between detention on remand “pending investigation” and detention “pending trial”. Under Article 680 4 § 11 of the CCP, apart from a period of detention pending investigation, the maximum permissible period of detention pending trial was six months; this term could be extended by up to a total of three months by the President of the Court of Appeal (“the exception clause”). 5.     On 28 December 2006, upon the completion of the investigation, the applicant’s case was sent to the Tbilisi City Court for trial. Meanwhile, the applicant remained in detention. 6.     On 1 January 2007 Article 162 §§ 1 and 9 of the CCP entered into force, setting the maximum overall permissible period of detention on remand (combining total time spent in detention pending investigation and detention pending trial until the first conviction) in respect of a person charged with a criminal offence at nine months from the date of that person being apprehended (“the nine-month rule”). The exception clause also remained in force. 7.     On 7 June 2007, relying on the nine-month rule under Article 162 §§   1 and 9 of the CCP, the applicant’s lawyers motioned before the Tbilisi City Court for the applicant’s release, arguing that the maximum permissible period of detention of nine months had expired with respect to the applicant on 6 June 2007; however, the court rejected that motion holding that the time-limits of the exception clause under Article 680 4 §   11 of the CCP applied in the applicant’s case. 8.     On 22 June 2007, upon the motion of the presiding judge of the Tbilisi City Court, and relying on the exception clause under Article 680 4 §   11 of the CCP, the President of the Tbilisi Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention for another three months. In her decision, adopted in camera without the presence of either the applicant or her lawyers, the President of the Tbilisi Court of Appeal reasoned that owing to the volume of the case file, the court needed more time; thus, the exceptional extension of the applicant’s detention pending her trial by the maximum allowed period of time – until 29 September 2007 – was justified. This decision was not subject to further appeal. 9.     On 24 August 2007 the Tbilisi City Court convicted the applicant as charged. COMPLAINTS 10.     The applicant complains under Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention that, in view of the nine-month rule, her detention on remand from 6 June to 24 August 2007 and the extension of the period of her detention under the exception clause was unlawful, rendering excessive the overall period of her detention on remand. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   Was the applicant’s extended detention on remand in conformity with the requirements of Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention? In particular:   -     did Article 162 §§ 1 and 9 and Article 680 4 § 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the material time set different maximum allowed time-limits for detention on remand within the meaning of Article   5 of the Convention? If so, how were these different time-limits applied in practice? The parties are invited to submit relevant examples.   -     what was the maximum allowed period of detention on remand within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention applicable in the present case?   -     was the applicant’s detention on remand from 6 June to 24 August 2007 “lawful”?   -     was the detention order of 22 June 2007 made by the President of the Tbilisi Court of Appeal “lawful” and were the grounds for the extended detention given therein “relevant” and “sufficient” to justify the deprivation of liberty?