CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 août 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 26 August 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 9808/19 Davit GRIGALASHVILI against Georgia lodged on 9 February 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s alleged unlawful detention. According to the applicant, on 18   July 2016 he was forcibly brought to a police station in his capacity as a witness, threatened and forced to sign a statement, and was forbidden to leave the building, despite him feeling unwell, for approximately seven hours, without any procedural document being made in that respect. He was then released but arrested after two days on charges of fraud and forgery. On an unspecified date in 2018 a criminal investigation was opened in respect of the applicant’s allegation of having been unlawfully detained. He was not informed of the outcome of those proceedings. The applicant relies on Article   6 §   1 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Bearing in mind that the Court is the master of the characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Scoppola v. Italy (no.   2) [GC], no.   10249/03, §   54, 17   September 2009), has there been a violation of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant deprived of his liberty on 18   July 2016 and, if so, within which sub-paragraph of that provision did the applicant’s deprivation of liberty fall?   In this connection,   (a)     Did the authorities use physical force and/or other forms of coercion to bring the applicant to the police station? In what circumstances was the applicant brought to the station? (b)     For what purpose was the applicant brought to the police station? (c)     What was the legal basis for bringing the applicant to the station? (d)     How long did the applicant spend at the police station? (e)     In what circumstances was the applicant held: was he allowed to move freely on the premises, and leave if he wished to? Did he feel unwell, and was he provided with medical services? (f)     Is the criminal investigation into his allegations still ongoing? If not, what was the outcome of that investigation?   The Government are invited to   submit all relevant information and documents relating to the applicant’s bringing to and stay at the police station, his subsequent release, as well as the findings of the related criminal investigation.