CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 décembre 2024

.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 6 January 2025   FOURTH SECTION Applications nos. 10093/23 and 10095/23 Davit TUSHISHVILI against Georgia and Nugzar KITIASHVILI against Georgia both lodged on 23 February 2023 communicated on 9 December 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern the applicants’ pre-trial detention in the context of the criminal proceedings against them on the charges of negligence. On 21   October 2022 the applicants were remanded in custody. Their requests for release were rejected on 24 October 2022, 30   November 2022, 18   January 2023 and 8 February 2023. The applicants relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and argued that the domestic courts had failed to adduce relevant and sufficient reasons to justify their pre-trial detention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicants’ pre-trial detention comply with the requirements of Article   5 §   3 of the Convention? In particular: did the courts provide relevant and sufficient grounds for ordering and extending their pre-trial detention (see Merabishvili v.   Georgia [GC], no.   72508/13, §§ 222-25 and 231-35, 28   November 2017, and Ugulava v. Georgia , no.   5432/15, §§   98 ‑ 113, 9   February 2023)?