CEDH · PRESS;GCJUDGMENTS;ENG — 8 avril 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   177 8.4.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF ASSANIDZE v. GEORGIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today delivered at a public hearing a Grand Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Assanidze v. Georgia (application no. 71503/01).   The Court held: unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the applicant’s detention since 29 January 2001; by 14 votes to 3 that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention on account of the failure to comply with a judgment acquitting the applicant; unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression); by 14 votes to 3 that it was unnecessary to examine the complaint under Article 5 § 4 (right to have the lawfulness of the detention decided speedily); unanimously that it was unnecessary to examine the complaints under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 (freedom of movement).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 150,000 euros (EUR) for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses. It also held unanimously that the Georgian State had to secure the applicant’s release at the earliest possible date.   (The judgment is available in English and French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Tengiz Assanidze, is a Georgian national who was born in 1944. He is currently in custody in Batumi, the capital of the Ajarian Autonomous Republic in Georgia. He was formerly the mayor of Batumi and a member of the Ajarian Supreme Council.   He was accused of illegal financial dealings in the Batumi Tobacco Manufacturing Company, and of unlawfully possessing and handling firearms. On 28 November 1994 he was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment and orders were made for his assets to be confiscated and requiring him to make good the pecuniary losses sustained by the company. On 27 April 1995 the Supreme Court of Georgia, on an appeal on points of law, upheld the applicant’s conviction for illegal financial dealings. The applicant was granted a pardon by the President of the Republic on 1 October 1999, but was not released by the local Ajarian authorities.   While the applicant was still in custody (despite having been pardoned), further charges were brought against him on 11 December 1999 in connection with a separate case of kidnapping. On 2 October 2000 the Ajarian High Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment. Although he was subsequently acquitted by the Supreme Court of Georgia on 29 January 2001, he has still not been released by the Ajarian authorities. Consequently, more than three years later, he remains in custody in a cell at the Short-Term Remand Prison of the Ajarian Security Ministry.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged on 2 July 2001 and declared partly admissible in 12 November 2002. On 18 March 2003 the Chamber relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber (Article 30 of the Convention and Rule 72 of the Rules of Court). The Court held a hearing on the merits of the case on 19 November 2003.   Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows:   Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Georg Ress (German), Nicolas Bratza (British), Lucius Caflisch (Swiss) [2] , Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot) Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese) , Viera Strážnická (Slovakian) , Karel Jungwiert (Czech) , Josep Casadevall (Andorran) , Boštjan Zupančič (Slovenian) , Wilhelmina Thomassen (Netherlands) , Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian) , Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian) , Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), judges , and also Paul Mahoney , Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaints   The applicant complained that he was still being held by the authorities of the Ajarian Autonomous Republic despite having received a presidential pardon in 1999 for the first offence and having been acquitted of the second by the Supreme Court of Georgia in 2001. He relied on Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4, Article 6 § 1, and Articles 10 and 13 of the Convention, and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4. Decision of the Court   Article 1 The Court observed that Georgia had ratified the Convention for the whole of its territory, without making any specific reservation with regard to the Adjarian Autonomous Republic or to difficulties in exercising its jurisdiction over that territory. The Adjarian Autonomous Republic was indisputably an integral part of the territory of Georgia and subject to its competence and control. Furthermore, it was common ground that the Adjarian Autonomous Republic had no separatist aspirations and that no other State exercised effective overall control there. Consequently, the Court found that the actual facts out of which the allegations of violations had arisen were within the “jurisdiction” of the Georgian State within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention (obligation to respect human rights).   The Court noted that the central authorities had taken all procedural steps possible under domestic law to secure compliance with the judgment acquitting the applicant, had sought to resolve the dispute by political means and had repeatedly urged the Adjarian authorities to release him, all to no avail. Consequently, the matters complained of by the applicant were directly imputable to the local Adjarian authorities.   However, even though it was not inconceivable that States would encounter difficulties in securing compliance with the rights guaranteed by the Convention in all parts of their territory, each State that had ratified the Convention was responsible for events occurring anywhere within its national territory. Consequently, the Court found that the facts were within the “jurisdiction” of Georgia and that, even though within the domestic system those matters were directly imputable to the local authorities of the Adjarian Autonomous Republic, it was solely the responsibility of the Georgian State that was engaged under the Convention.   Article 5 § 1 As regards the complaint concerning the period of detention from 1 October 1999 (when the presidential pardon was granted) to 11 December 1999 (when the applicant was charged), the Court ruled that it had to be declared inadmissible as being out of time. As to the period from 11 December 1999 (when the applicant was charged) to 29 January 2001, it found that the complaint was outside the scope of the case referred to the Grand Chamber for examination.   The Court noted that on 29 January 2001 the Supreme Court of Georgia ordered the applicant’s release. However, he had remained in custody since then despite the fact that his case had not been reopened and no further order had been made authorising his detention. Thus, there was no statutory or judicial basis for his deprivation of liberty. The Court accordingly found that since 29 January 2001 the applicant had been arbitrarily detained, in breach of Article 5 § 1. In the light of that finding, it held that no separate examination of the complaint concerning his place of detention was necessary.   Article 6 § 1 The Court held that the fact that the judgment of 29 January 2001, which was a final and enforceable judicial decision, had not been complied with more than three years after its delivery had deprived the provisions of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of all useful effect.   Articles 5 § 4 and 13 The Court noted that the complaints under these provisions were based on the failure to comply with the provision of the judgment ordering the applicant’s immediate release. They therefore raised essentially the same legal issue on the basis of the same facts as the issue which had been examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Consequently, no separate examination of those complaints was necessary.   Article 3 As to the applicant’s complaint that his being held in total isolation in a cell at the Ajarian Security Ministry prison constituted a breach of Article 3 of the Convention, the Court noted that it had been raised for the first time after the admissibility decision, which determined the scope of the proceedings to be examined by the Court. Accordingly, it was outside the scope of the case that had been referred to the Grand Chamber for examination.   Article 5 § 3 The Court found that this complaint was out of time, as the period of detention for which the applicant was entitled to benefit from the guarantees set out in Article 5 § 3 had ended on 2   October 2000 with his conviction at first instance by the Ajarian High Court.   Article 10 The Court found that the applicant’s complaints under Article 10 § 1 of the Convention was unsubstantiated.   Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 To Court considered that it was not necessary to examine this complaint as the present case was not concerned with a mere restriction on freedom of movement within the meaning of Article 2 of Protocol No 4 but, as it had already stated, with arbitrary detention falling under Article 5 of the Convention.   Article 41 The Court reiterated that it was for the States, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, to decide on and take measures to put an end to any violations that are found. Having regard to the particular circumstances of the case and the urgent need to put an end to the violation of the Convention, the Court held that Georgia had to secure the applicant’s release at the earliest possible date.     Judges Costa, Bratza and Thomassen expressed a partly dissenting opinion, Judge Costa a partly concurring opinion and Judge Loucaides a concurring opinion, all of which are annexed to the judgment.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. [1] Judgments of the Grand Chamber are final (Article 44 of the Convention). [2]   Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein. [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.