CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 avril 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Published on 10 May 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 13668/21 Nikanor MELIA against Georgia lodged on 1 March 2021 communicated on 21 April 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unlawful detention of the applicant, a leader of a major opposition political party in Georgia. On 23 June 2019 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant, a member of the Parliament of Georgia at the material time, under Article 225 of the Criminal Code of Georgia (organisation, planning or participation in group violence). On 26 June 2019 the Parliament, acting at the request of the Chief Prosecutor, lifted the applicant’s parliamentary immunity. The next day the Tbilisi City Court, while rejecting a prosecution application to remand the applicant in custody, ordered his release on bail for the amount of 30,000 Georgian laris (“GEL”) on the condition, among others, that he hand over his passport and does not communicate with witnesses. On 2 July 2019 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal confirmed the conditions of the applicant’s release on bail. The appeal court in addition ordered the applicant’s electronic tagging. The applicant’s trial started on an unidentified date. Sometime in March 2020 the proceedings were suspended in view of the applicant’s participation in the campaign for the upcoming parliamentary elections. On 1 November 2020 the applicant, while protesting against the official results of the parliamentary elections, removed his electronic tagging bracelet. On 3 November 2020 the Tbilisi City Court, acting at the request of the prosecution, ordered the increase of the amount of the applicant’s bail by GEL 40,000. The court concluded that the applicant, by removing his electronic tagging bracelet, breached his bail conditions and accordingly a stricter measure of restraint had to be applied. The applicant refused to pay the increased amount. On 16 February 2021 the Parliament of Georgia, acting at the request of the Chief Prosecutor, lifted the applicant’s parliamentary immunity again. On 17 February 2021 the Tbilisi City Court ordered the applicant’s detention pending trial. In its decision the court relied on Article 200 § 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which states that, should an accused breach bail conditions, the court acting at the request of a prosecution shall replace the release on bail with a stricter measure of restraint. The applicant was detained on 23 February 2021. While invoking Article 5 § 1 (c) and Article 18 of the Convention he argues that the decision on his pre-trial detention was unjustified and unnecessary for the purposes of his criminal proceedings and that it had the goal of keeping him out of political life. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Is the applicant’s detention compatible with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, is it justified by one or more reasons mentioned in Article 5 § 1 (b) or (c) of the Convention (see in this respect Gatt v.   Malta , no. 28221/08, §§ 36-52, ECHR 2010, and Tymoshenko v.   Ukraine , no. 49872/11, §§ 269-272, 30 April 2013; see, mutatis mutandis, Navalnyy v. Russia (no. 2) , no. 43734/14, §§ 56, 58-64, 9 April 2019 ?   2.     Did the domestic courts provide relevant and sufficient reasons justifying the applicant’s pre-trial detention, as required by Article   5   §   3 of the Convention?   3.     Has there been a violation of Article 18 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 5 § 1?