CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 octobre 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 } .sB5688C0F { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:115% } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 20 October 2016   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 894/12 Vera MTCHEDLISHVILI against Georgia lodged on 20 December 2011 Statement of Facts 1.     The applicant, Ms Vera Mtchedlishvili is a Georgian national, who was born in 1959 and is detained in prison no. 5. She is represented before the Court by Ms S. Abuladze, a lawyer practising in Tbilisi. A.     The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3.     By a judgment of 14 February 2011, the Khelvachauri District Court found the applicant guilty of illicit trafficking of pharmaceuticals in a large quantity, in breach of the relevant customs regulations. This criminal offence was qualified, under the relevant criminal law, as a less serious one. The exact quantity of the medications thus trafficked by the applicant was established by a crime detection examination conducted by a State expert. She was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment and a fine of 25,000   Georgian Laris (approximately 11,000 Euros). 4.     The applicant appealed against her conviction, complaining that the District Court had erroneously assessed the facts. Notably, she argued that the quantity of the illicitly imported pharmaceuticals was minor, not of such a scope as to attract criminal liability. She requested that the case be re ‑ examined by the appellate court at an oral hearing, so that she could question the State expert who had authored the above-mentioned crime ‑ detection report. Furthermore, she wished to submit another expert report during a hearing, which document allegedly rebutted the State expert’s conclusions. 5.     A copy of the applicant’s appeal was transmitted to the prosecutor, but the latter did not reply. 6.     On 31 March 2011 Kutaisi Court of Appeal, dispensing with an oral hearing, delivered a decision upholding the applicant’s conviction of 14   February 2011. 7.     The applicant lodged a cassation complaint against the appellate decision of 31 March 2011, complaining that, by its decision to dispense with an oral hearing, the court of appeal had deprived her of an opportunity to submit additional arguments in her defence. 8.     On 22 June 2011 the Supreme Court of Georgia rejected the applicant’s complaint on the points of law as inadmissible. No reply was given to the complaint about the lack of a hearing at the appellate level. B.     Relevant domestic law 9.     According to Articles 519 and 522 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”), as in force at the material time (it was abolished at the time of the entry into force of the new Code of Criminal Procedure on 1   October 2010), appellate courts were empowered to re-try a criminal case both from the factual and legal points of view. 10.     Pursuant to Article 529 § 6 of the CCP, an appellate court was entitled to dispense with an oral hearing if the proceedings concerned an offence qualified as a less serious one. 11.     According to Article 531 § 1 of the CCP, the participation of the public prosecutor in an appellate examination of a criminal case was mandatory. COMPLAINT 12.     The applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention that the Kutaisi Court of Appeal did not hold an oral hearing. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Having regard to the fact that the Kutaisi Court of Appeals dispensed with an oral hearing during the examination of the criminal proceedings against the applicant, could the latter be said to have had a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against her, in accordance with Article   6 §§   1 and 3   (c) of the Convention (compare with Constantinescu v.   Romania , no. 28871/95, § 58, ECHR 2000-VIII)?