FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 13008/11
Davit BARBAKADZE
against Georgia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11 March 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Paul Mahoney, President,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Reistrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 December 2010,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Mr David Barbakadze, is a Georgian national, who was born in 1972 and currently serves a prison sentence. He was represented before the Court by Mr T. Murmanishvili, a lawyer practising in Tbilisi. The Georgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Levan Meskhoradze, of the Ministry of Justice.
2. The case mainly concerned under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention the alleged lack of medical care for the applicant’s viral hepatitis C in prison, the disease being in its early stage. On 30 June 2011 the Government submitted observations, from which it appeared that the prison authority had started dispensing the relevant anti-viral treatment to the applicant.
3. By letters of 30 January and 3 February 2014, both parties submitted duly signed friendly settlement declarations to the Court, whereby the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against the respondent State in respect of the facts giving rise to his application against an undertaking by the Government to pay him 2,500 (two thousand five hundred) Euros to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. This sum will be converted into the respondent State’s national currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment and be free of any taxes that might be applicable to the applicant. It is payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.
THE LAW
4. In the light of the above, the Court considers that the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention and that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the application under Article 37 § 1 in fine. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Fatoş AracıPaul Mahoney
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy