Communicated on 21 May 2015

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 933/12 Zviad BERADZE against Georgia lodged on 2 December 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Zviad Beradze , is a Georgian national, who was born in 1967 and is detained in Tbilisi . He is represented before the Court by Ms N. Korkotadze , a lawyer practising in Tbilisi .

2. On 21 May 2011 the applicant was arrested and charged with illicit possession and carrying of a gun. On 23 May 2011 the Tbilisi City Court remanded him in pre-trial detention. The court reasoned that since there was a risk of absconding, destruction of evidence and thus re-offending (since the destruction of evidence itself constituted a criminal offence) by the applicant, it was necessary to place him in detention. No time-limit was set for the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention. On 2 June 2011 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal, at final instance, dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant ’ s appeal against the detention.

3. On 6 July 2011 the Tbilisi City Court held a pre-trial conference on the applicant ’ s case. Among other issues, the applicant ’ s lawyers motioned his release pending the trial, claiming that all the main evidence and witness statements had already been obtained by the prosecution and thus the grounds for the applicant ’ s continued detention were no longer present. Without issuing a written decision, the Tbilisi City Court rejected orally the motion on the applicant ’ s release noting for the verbatim record that the defence had failed to demonstrate any newly discovered circumstances that would justify the applicant ’ s release; the court further held that the initial grounds for the applicant ’ s remand in custody were still relevant and sufficient for his continued detention. This time as well no time-limit was set for the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention.

4. At the time of the submission of the present application on 2 December 2011, the applicant remained in the pre-trial detention whereas the criminal proceedings against him were still pending in the first instance court.

COMPLAINTS

5. The applicant complains under Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention about unreasonableness of his pre-trial detention .

Q UESTION S TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the deprivation of the applicant ’ s liberty after the opening of the pre ‑ trial conference fall within paragraph (c) of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

- Notably, was that particular period of the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention (after the opening of the pre-trial conference) based on a court decision or a legal provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure (please specify exactly which one)?

- For how long did the Tbilisi City Court ’ s decision of 23 May 2011 impose the pre-trial detention on the applicant?

- Is it consistent with the relevant judicial practice not to indicate explicit time-limits in court decisions imposing the measure of pre-trial detention?

2. Did the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention comply with the requirement of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention?

- Notably, were the grounds given by the Tbilisi City Court on 6 July 2011 “relevant” and “sufficient” to justify the continued deprivation of the applicant ’ s liberty?

- Did the Tbilisi City Court ’ s decision of 6 July 2011 to maintain the applicant in custody result from an appropriate judicial review during which both the reasonableness of the suspicion underpinning the applicant ’ s arrest and the legitimacy of the purpose pursued by that arrest and the continued detention was duly addressed?

- Was it compatible with relevant domestic law and practice for Tbilisi City Court to reject the applicant ’ s request for the review of his pre-trial detention on 6 July 2011 orally , only on the verbatim record of the relevant court session, and without delivering a written, reasoned decision?