Today, the European Court of Human Rights published its decision on the case "Ugulava v. Georgia" and found that the arrest of Giorgi Ugulava in 2014-2015 was not aimed at hindering his political activities.

The applicant disputed the legality of the preventive measure (imprisonment) applied to him within the framework of two criminal cases from July 2014 to September 2015. He also claimed that the only purpose of his imprisonment was to remove him from political scene.

According to today's decision of the Strasbourg Court, the arrest of the applicant in July 2014 was based on a reasonable suspicion of his commission of a crime, which was supported by a number of evidences obtained by the prosecution. The European Court agreed with the reasoning of the national courts to the extent that there were threats from the applicant to obstruct the investigation, influence witnesses and concealment.

The Strasbourg Court also did not share the applicant's contention that he was persecuted on political grounds. In particular, the European Court rejected the applicant's argument that the main motive of the state in the context of the investigation and the use of detention was to withdraw him from political scene. The court clarified that high political status does not mean immunity from criminal liability. The ECHR also emphasized the independence of national courts from the executive power, noting that no evidence had been presented to question the independence of national courts. Accordingly, according to the court's decision, there was no violation of Article 18 (scope of the use of rights restrictions) and the above-mentioned processes did not serve to remove the applicant from the political scene.

With today's decision, the European Court found a violation of the Convention in relation to two episodes, in both cases, the legislation and practice in force before 2015 were the subject of the European Court's criticism.

In particular, regarding the legality of the applicant's arrest, the European Court noted that under the legislation in force in 2015, there was a practice of imposing detention as a preventive measure in separate, parallel or consecutive criminal proceedings under Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which the Constitutional Court considered on September 15, 2015 inconsistent with the Constitution of Georgia. Accordingly, the European Court shared the findings of the Constitutional Court, and considered that in July 2014, leaving the applicant in custody after 9 months of the initial period of detention constituted a violation of the Convention. The European Court also found that the applicant's continued detention was not properly justified by the national courts.

It should be noted that both issues have been eliminated by the current legislation and practice. In particular, on the basis of the above-mentioned decision of the Constitutional Court, the practice of imprisonment in parallel ongoing criminal cases has been changed. In addition, in the case of prolonged imprisonment, according to the legislation in force today, the need for continued imprisonment is automatically reviewed every two months.