CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 juin 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 15 July 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 13661/25 Mzia AMAGHLOBELI against Georgia lodged on 28 April 2025 communicated on 23 June 2025 STATEMENT OF FACTS The application primarily concerns the arrest and subsequent pre-trial detention of the applicant, a well-known journalist in Georgia, on charges of attacking a police officer in the course of his duties (a criminal offence under Article   353(1) of the Criminal Code). In particular, on the evening of 11 January 2025, a demonstration was held in Batumi in front of the Ajarian Police Department, in which the applicant also participated. At one point, following other demonstrators, the applicant placed a sticker with the slogan “Georgia is going on a strike” on the façade of the police building. She was immediately arrested under Article 150 of the Code of Administrative Offences (“putting unauthorised writing, drawings, or symbols on buildings ...”) and taken inside the regional police building. Soon after she was released on the basis of a written undertaking to appear before the police when summoned, and she rejoined the demonstrators in front of the police building. According to the applicant, a scuffle soon broke out between the police officers and the demonstrators. Standing close to the police cordon, she was pushed by the police and fell to the ground. Although she managed to get up and move away slightly, as she approached the entrance to the police building, she suddenly felt a strong pull and sharp pain in her back. She also heard several police officers insulting her, with one, in particular, being especially aggressive and cynical. As can be seen from the available video recording, she suddenly turned around and slapped that officer on his left cheek. The applicant was immediately arrested by the same police officer (I.D., chief of the Batumi Police) and escorted back to the police department. On 12 January 2025 an investigation was initiated under Article 353(1) of the Criminal Code. On the next day I.D. was granted victim status and the prosecution sought the applicant’s pre-trial detention. On 14 January 2025 the Batumi City Court granted the prosecution request to remand the applicant in custody. The court briefly noted that there was sufficient information to show that there was a reasonable suspicion against the applicant. It further referred to the severity of the sentence (four to seven years in prison) and to the separate ongoing administrative proceedings against the applicant (under Article 150 of the Code of Administrative Offences), concluding that there was a risk of her obstructing the investigation as well as of reoffending. On 21 January 2025 the Kutaisi Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal as inadmissible. In the meantime, on 12 January 2025, the applicant began a hunger strike to protest against the alleged arbitrary nature of her arrest and detention, as well as the subsequent inhuman and degrading treatment she allegedly endured. Notably, she alleged that after her arrest, I.D. – the police officer she slapped – spat in her face, attempted to physically assault her, verbally assaulted and threatened her, and also prevented her from accessing the toilets and drinking water for several hours. On 13 February 2025, in view of, among other factors, the applicant’s deteriorating medical condition, her lawyer requested the Batumi City Court to replace her pre-trial detention with an alternative measure of restraint. On 14 February 2025 the Batumi City Court rejected the application as inadmissible. That decision was confirmed on appeal by the Kutaisi Court of Appeal on 19 February 2025. After thirty-eight days, on 18   February 2025, the applicant ended her hunger strike. On 4 March 2025, after the applicant’s case was transferred to the Batumi City Court for examination on the merits, the court decided to maintain the applicant in pre-trial detention. Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 (c), 3 and 4 of the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 18, the applicant complains that she was detained in the absence of any reasonable suspicion that she had committed a criminal offence; that there were no relevant and sufficient reasons justifying her initial and/or continued pre-trial detention; that the domestic courts failed to conduct a proper reassessment of the lawfulness of her continued detention; and that her Article 5 rights were restricted for purposes other than those prescribed in the Convention. Under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the reasoning of the pre-trial judge, who justified her pre-trial detention by referencing the ongoing parallel administrative proceedings against her, was based on a premature assessment of her guilt. Under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, the applicant also complains about the allegedly unlawful seizure and search of her mobile phone. In the latter respect, she also invokes Article 13 of the Convention, arguing that she did not have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant deprived of her liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was her detention compatible with Article   5 §   1 (c) in terms of being justified and based on a reasonable suspicion (see the recapitulation of the relevant general principles in Selahattin Demirtaş v.   Turkey (no. 2) [GC], no. 14305/17, §§ 311-21, 22 December 2020, and Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, §§ 181-86, 28   November 2017)?   2.     Did the domestic courts provide relevant and sufficient reasons justifying the applicant’s initial and continued pre-trial detention, as required under Article   5   §   3 of the Convention? Did they consider alternative measures to her continued detention (see the recapitulation of the relevant general principles in Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no.   23755/07, §§   84-102, 5 July 2016; see also Merabishvili , cited above, §§ 226-35, and Ugulava v.   Georgia , no. 5432/15, §§ 98-112, 9 February 2023)?   3.     Did the applicant have an effective procedure by which to challenge the lawfulness of her detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (see the recapitulation of the general principles in Idalov v. Russia [GC], no.   5826/03, § 161, 22 May 2012; see also Ilg ar Mammadov v.   Azerbaijan , no.   15172/13, §§ 113-15, 22 May 2014, and Rasul Jafarov v.   Azerbaijan , no.   69981/14, §§   140 ‑ 44 , 17 March 2016)?   4.     Was the applicant’s right to be presumed innocent, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, breached in the present case, particularly in view of the reasoning by the trial judge regarding the parallel administrative proceedings pending against the applicant (see Kangers v.   Latvia , no.   35726/10, §§ 50-53, 14 March 2019, with further references)?   5.     Was there an interference with the applicant’s rights under Articles   8 §   1 and 10 § 1 of the Convention on account of the seizure and search of her mobile phone? If so, was this interference compatible with the requirements set out in Articles 8 § 2 and 10 § 2 of the Convention? 6.     Did the applicant have access to an effective domestic remedy for her complaint under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, as required by Article   13?   7.     Were the restrictions imposed by the State in the present case, purportedly pursuant to Article 5 of the Convention, applied for a purpose other than that envisaged by the said provision, in violation of Article   18 of the Convention (see the recapitulation of the relevant general principles in Merabishvili , cited above, §§ 287-317, and Navalnyy v. Russia [GC], nos.   29580/12 and 4 others, §§ 164-65, 15 November 2018?