Communicated on 14 December 2016
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 70619/11
Revaz SAKHVADZE and Givi ZURABISHVILI
against Georgia
lodged on 13 November 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicants, Mr Revaz Sakhvadze and Mr Givi Zurabishvili, are Georgian nationals who were born in 1962 and 1958. They were represented before the Court by Ms L. Mukhashavria, a lawyer practising in Tbilisi. In the course of the proceedings, the second applicant died. Ms M. Uridia, the applicant’s wife, expressed the wish to pursue his application before the Court, represented by the same lawyer.
A. The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
3. On an unidentified date criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicants on fraud charges. The applicants’ lawyers were imposed with a non-disclosure duty and were not allowed to photocopy case materials. They were simply given an access to the case file in order to make handwritten notes. In total, they were allowed to study the case file twice for two hours on the first occasion, and then – for an additional one hour.
4. On 20 August 2009 the applicants were found guilty of committing fraud, through misfeasance, as an organised group and in respect of a large amount of money. The trial was held in camera.
5. According to the facts as established by the first-instance court, the first applicant was a military officer who was working for the Ministry of Defence as the head of the air-defence division at the material time. He, together with the second applicant and other accomplices, created an organised group and planned to defraud the Ministry. In particular, one of the members of the organised group sourced parts and assembled electronic devices, which allegedly were able to examine anti-aircraft missiles. Then the second applicant registered as a sole trader. The first applicant, in his official capacity, proposed to his superiors to conclude a contract with the second applicant in respect of the repair of anti-aircraft missiles; the second applicant also claimed that he had invented an electronic device for examining anti-aircraft missiles. As a result, from 2007-08 a number of contracts were concluded between the Ministry and the second applicant in respect of the repair of anti-aircraft missiles and production and supply of several of the devices mentioned above. The total value of the contracts was 1,881,000 Georgian laris (GEL).
6. The first applicant was in addition convicted for attempting to commit fraud through misfeasance, in an organised group and in respect of a large amount of money. He was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment and fined GEL 5,000. The second applicant was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment and fined GEL 5,000. In addition, a civil lawsuit from the Ministry was allowed and the applicants were ordered to pay GEL 1,495,370 in redress for the damage caused.
7. The applicants lodged an appeal. The appeal hearing was also held in camera. On 4 November 2010 the Tbilisi Court of Appeal upheld the guilty verdict rendered by the first-instance court.
8. On 10 May 2011 the Supreme Court of Georgia declared the applicants’ cassation appeal inadmissible on points of law. The decision was served on the applicants on 13 May 2011.
COMPLAINTS
9. The applicants complain under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) of the Convention that in the case against them they had restricted access to the case file, which was classified in its entirety as secret, and that the court hearing was held in camera without reasonable grounds.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) of the Convention? In particular:
1.1. Were the applicants afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves and present their case in accordance with the principles of adversarial hearing and equality of arms, given the alleged hindrance in their access to the case file and the restriction on making photocopies of its contents?
1.2. Was the exclusion of the public in the present case “strictly necessary” for one of the purposes authorised by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy