GRAND CHAMBER CASE OF MERABISHVILI v. GEORGIA (Application no. 72508/13) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 28 November 2017 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. MERABISHVILI v. GEORGIA JUDGMENT Table of contents PROCEDURE ............................................................................. 1 THE FACTS ............................................................................... 3 I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE .................................................... 3 A. Background ......................................................................................................... 3 B. The incident at Tbilisi Airport on 30 November 2012 ........................................ 4 C. The criminal proceedings against the applicant in relation to the State Programme for Job Seekers and the house in the village of Kvariati ................ 4 1. The initial phase of the proceedings ............................................................. 4 2. The applicant’s arrest and placement in pre-trial detention .......................... 5 3. The two adjournments of the pre-trial conference hearing ........................... 9 4. The applicant’s request for release during the pre-trial conference hearing ......................................................................................................... 9 5. The applicant’s request for release of 7 October 2013 ............................... 10 6. The applicant’s conviction and sentence and his appeals against them ........................................................................................................... 10 D. The other criminal cases against the applicant ................................................. 11 E. Alleged covert removal of the applicant from his prison cell on 14 December 2013 and investigations into that allegation .............................. 12 1. The applicant’s allegations.......................................................................... 12 2. The authorities’ initial reaction to those allegations ................................... 14 3. Inquiry by the Ministry of Prisons’ General Inspectorate (December 2013 – January 2014) ................................................................................ 14 4. Developments after the end of the inquiry .................................................. 17 5. Investigation by the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office (June 2016 – February 2017) .......................................................................................... 19 F. Criminal cases against other members of UNM’s leadership ........................... 24 1. Statements by Georgian Dream government ministers in connection with those cases ......................................................................................... 25 2. Statements by foreign governments, international organisations and non-governmental organisations in relation to those cases ....................... 25 3. Refusals to extradite former UNM officials to Georgia ............................. 30 4. Interpol’s deletion of information about Mr Saakashvili and Mr D.K. ...... 31 II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW ................................................................. 31 A. Provisions governing arrest............................................................................... 31 B. Provisions governing pre-trial detention ........................................................... 32 1. Grounds for ordering pre-trial detention ..................................................... 32 2. Maximum duration ...................................................................................... 32 3. Judicial review ............................................................................................ 33 C. Power of the prosecuting authorities to drop charges ....................................... 33 III. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL MATERIALS...................................... 33 MERABISHVILI v. GEORGIA JUDGMENT A. Council of Europe ............................................................................................. 33 B. European Union law .......................................................................................... 34 C. Case-law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ................................. 35 D. Disguised prosecution for political opinions in extradition law ....................... 36 IV. COMPARATIVE-LAW MATERIALS..................................................... 37 THE LAW ................................................................................. 38 I. SCOPE OF THE CASE ................................................................................ 38 II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION ........................................................................................... 38 A. The Chamber judgment..................................................................................... 38 B. The parties’ submissions to the Grand Chamber .............................................. 39 1. The applicant ............................................................................................... 39 2. The Government ......................................................................................... 40 C. The Court’s assessment ..................................................................................... 40 1. Whether the Grand Chamber has jurisdiction to examine the complaint relating to the applicant’s arrest ............................................... 40 2. General principles under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention ..................... 41 3. Application of those principles ................................................................... 42 III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION ........................................................................................... 47 A. The Chamber judgment..................................................................................... 47 B. The Government’s preliminary objection ......................................................... 48 1. The parties’ submissions ............................................................................. 48 2. The Grand Chamber’s assessment .............................................................. 48 C. Merits of the complaint ..................................................................................... 49 1. The parties’ submissions ............................................................................. 49 2. The Court’s assessment ............................................................................... 50 IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION ........................................................................................... 53 V. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 18 OF THE CONVENTION TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 5 § 1 ................................................................................................................ 54 A. The Chamber judgment..................................................................................... 54 B. The Government’s preliminary objection ......................................................... 55 1. The parties’ submissions ............................................................................. 55 2. The Grand Chamber’s assessment .............................................................. 55 C. Merits of the complaint ..................................................................................... 56 1. The parties’ submissions ............................................................................. 56 2. The Court’s assessment .............................................................................. 60 VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION .................. 84 MERABISHVILI v. GEORGIA JUDGMENT A. Damage ............................................................................................................. 84 B. Costs and expenses ............................................................................................ 85 1. In the Chamber proceedings ....................................................................... 85 2. The applicant’s claims in the Grand Chamber proceedings ....................... 85 3. The Government’s comments on the claims ............................................... 86 4. The Court’s assessment ............................................................................... 87 C. Default interest .................................................................................................. 88 OPERATIVE PROVISIONS .................................................. 88 JOINT CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGES YUDKIVSKA, TSOTSORIA AND VEHABOVIĆ ............... 90 I. Introduction ................................................................................................... 90 II. General comments ....................................................................................... 90 III. New approach ............................................................................................. 96 IV. Concrete circumstances of the present case ............................................... 99 1. Case of the investigation into the death of former Prime Minister Zhvania........................................................................................................... 104 2. Case of former President Saakashvili .............................................................. 106 V. Conclusion ................................................................................................