Application of Standards of the European Court of Human Rights by Common Courts of Georgia When Imposing Remand Detention
Keywords:Justification of detention, sufficient and relevant circumstances, case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.
Justification of preventive measures by common courts of Georgia remains problematic to this day. Considering the degree of restriction of an accused person’s rights, justification of remand detention is the most acute problem at stake. This article, through a prism of standards established by the European Court of Human Rights, analyses the shortcomings of decisions of common courts of Georgia in terms of substantiating risks of absconding, reoffending and interfering in proceedings with relevant and sufficient circumstances. Due to the problem of accessibility of decisions on application of preventive measures, the article makes a particular emphasis on the published rulings of the Tbilisi Court of Appeals. Furthermore, since many decisions of the Tbilisi Court of Appeals discussed in the article are considered to be exemplary, it is important to compare and analyse the standards established in these rulings with the relevant standards of the European Court of Human Rights.
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 11/05/1994.
Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, LHG, 31, 03/11/2009.
Harris D. J., O’Boyle M., Bates E. P., Buckley C. M., Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, 4th ed., Oxford, 2018, 291.
Korkelia K., Kurdadze I., International Human Rights Law according to the European Convention on Human Rights, Council of Europe, Tbilisi, 2004, 142 (in Georgian).
Leach P., Taking a Case to the European Court of Human Rights, 3rd edition, GBA, Tbilisi, 2013, 503 (in Georgian).
Macovei M., The Right to Liberty and Security of the Person, Mchedlidze N. (ed., comm.), Council of Europe, Tbilisi, 2004, 16, 107 (in Georgian).
Maglakelidze L., Information Obtained through Misguiding the Accused and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination According to the Practice of the Georgian Courts and the European Court of Human Rights, “German-Georgian Law of Criminal Law”, № 3/2018, 60-65 (in Georgian).
Mchedlidze N., Application by Common Courts of Georgia of the Standards under the European Convention on Human Rights, Council of Europe, Tbilisi, 2017, 58 (in Georgian).
Smith R. K. M., van den Anker C., The Essentials of Human Rights, Hodder Arnold Publishing, London, 2005, 231.
Trechsel S., Human Rights in Criminal Proceedings, the Constitutional Court of Georgia, Tbilisi, 2009, 452 (in Georgian).
Van Dijk P., Hoof F. van, Rijn A. van, Zwaak L., Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, 4th ed., Antwerp-Oxford, 2006, 458.
Decision of October 4, 2017 Case № 1g/1199-17, Tbilisi Court of Appeals.
Decision of January 12, 2015, Case № 10/a-11/15, Batumi City Court.
Decision of February 25, 2015, Ozurgeti District Court
Decision of June 16, 2015, Batumi City Court.
Decision of August 27, 2015, Case № 1g/1272-15, Tbilisi Court of Appeals.
Decision of November 21, 2015, Case № 10a-236-15, Rustavi City Court
Decision of November 13, 2015, Rustavi City Court.
Decision of January 21, 2015, Case № 10/a-1, Senaki District Court.
Decision of November 2, 2015, Case № 10/d-47, Senaki District Court.
Decision of December 5, 2014, Case № 1g/1234, Tbilisi Court of Appeal
Andrey Smirnov v. Russia [13.02.2018], ECHR, Appl. № 43149/10.
Arzumanyan v. Armenia [11.01.2018], ECHR, Appl. № 25935/08.
Arutyunyan v. Russia [10.01.2012], ECHR, Appl. № 48977/09.
Buzadji v. Republic of Moldova [05.08.2016], Grand Chamber of the ECHR, Appl. № 23755/07.
Dirdizov v. Russia [27.22.2012], ECHR, Appl. № 41461/10.
Idalov v. Russia [22.05.2012], ECHR, Appl. № 5826/03.
I. E. v. Moldova [26.05.2020], ECHR, Appl. № 45422/13.
Ignatenco v. Moldova [08.02.2011], ECHR, Appl. № 36988/07.
Kosenko v. Russia [17.09.2020], ECHR, Appl. № 15669/13 and № 76140/13.
Miminoshvili v. Russia [28.06.2011], ECHR, Appl. № 20197/03.
Ramkovski v. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [08.02.2018], ECHR, Appl. № 33566/11.
Romanov v. Russia [20.01.2005], ECHR, Appl. № 63993/00.
Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (№ 2) [22.12.2020], ECHR.
Sulaoja v. Estonia [15.02.2005], ECHR, Appl. № 55939/00.
Stögmüller v. Austria [10.11.1969], ECHR, Appl. № 1602/62.
How to Cite
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.