Communicated on 20 October 2016

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 72006/12 Goga JGHARKAVA against Georgia lodged on 22 October 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Goga Jgharkava , is a Georgian national, who was born in 1981 and is detained in a prison in Rustavi. He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Buskhrikidze , a lawyer practising in Georgia.

A. The circumstances of the case

2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

3. On 27 December 2011 the applicant was found guilty of complicity to commit murder of two people and illicit carriage of a weapon. He was sentenced to twenty-four years ’ of imprisonment and, as an additional penalty, a fine in the amount of 3,000 Geor gian Laris (approximately 1,200 Euros).

4. On 24 January 2012 the applicant lodged an appeal, requesting a full retrial. He specified that he wished to attend the appellate hearing.

5. An appellate hearing was held on 28 February 2012 without the applicant ’ s personal participation but in the presence of his lawyer. The latter requested again that the hearing should be conducted only in the applicant ’ s presence, given that the latter wished to challenge all the items of evidences and had not, moreover, been acquainted with the minutes of the trial held at the first instance. The appellate court rejected the lawyer ’ s request under Article 296 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stating that his client had already took part in the trial at the first instance and that it was sufficient for the lawyer to represent interests of the accused during the appellate hearing.

6. On 28 February 2012 the Kutaisi Court of Appeals upheld the judgement of the first instance court.

7. On 7 May 2012 the Supreme Court of Georgia rejected the applicant ’ s cassation claim, in which he challenged the lack of a hearing before the appellate court, as inadmissible.

B. Relevant domestic law

8. According to Article 296 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”, which entered into force on 1 October 2010), appellate courts were empowered to re-try a criminal case both from the factual and legal points of view.

9. Pursuant to Article 296 of the CCP, whilst an accused had the right to request leave to attend an appellate hearing in person, the relevant appellate court was empowered to reject that request.

COMPLAINT

10. The applicant complains under Article 6 § § 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention that the appellate court deprived him of the right to defend himself in person.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Did the failure to provide for the applicant ’ s personal attendance at the appellate examination of his criminal case amount to a violation of his right under Article 6 § §1 and 3 (c) of the Convention?