CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 février 2023

.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 27 February 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 5431/20 Irakli OKRUASHVILI against Georgia lodged on 22 January 2020 communicated on 7 February 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is an opposition politician. On 25   July 2019 he was arrested and remanded in custody in relation to the criminal charge of participating, during the demonstration of 20-21   June 2019, in violent activities organised by a group. According to the prosecuting authorities, the applicant’s actions during the demonstration had been aimed at breaking the police cordon and entering the protected area of the Parliament building. The applicant’s requests for release were rejected on 19   September and 23   October 2019. The applicant complains that (a)   the domestic courts failed to adduce relevant and sufficient reasons to justify his pre-trial detention and (b)   the decisions regarding his requests for release were given orally and did not contain any reasons. The applicant relied on Article   5   §   3 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant’s pre-trial detention comply with the requirements of Article   5 §   3 of the Convention? In particular:   (a)   Were the grounds given in the domestic courts’ decisions “relevant” and “sufficient” to justify the applicant’s initial pre-trial detention?   (b)   Were the domestic courts’ decisions to maintain the applicant’s pre ‑ trial detention delivered as a result of an appropriate judicial review? Was it compatible with relevant domestic law and practice for the courts to reject the applicant’s requests for the review of his pre‑trial detention orally, without delivering a written, reasoned decision (see, for instance, Merabishvili v.   Georgia [GC], no.   72508/13, §§   231-35, 28   November 2017)?