FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 22523/09
FC MRETEBI
against Georgia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 18 September 2018 as a Committee composed of:
André Potocki, President,
Mārtiņš Mits,
Lado Chanturia, judges,
and Milan Blaško, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 January 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, a legal entity, was registered as a company under Georgian law on 3 February 1988 (“the applicant company”). It was represented before the Court by Mr A. Baramidze (“the first representative”) and G. Svanidze (“the second representative”), lawyers practising in Tbilisi.
2. The Georgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Meskhoradze, of the Ministry of Justice.
3. The present case concerned, under Articles 6 § 1 and 46 of the Convention, the allegedly inadequate execution by the respondent State of a measure indicated by the Court in a judgment of 31 July 2007 concerning the applicant company’s previous application (see FC Mretebi v. Georgia, no. 38736/04, §§ 35-50, 31 July 2007, hereinafter referred to as “the principal judgment”).
4. In particular, the Court had indicated in the principal judgment, establishing a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant company’s inability to have access to a civil court, that the applicant had been entitled to request re-opening of the domestic proceedings in question (see FC Mretebi, cited above, § 61). However, on 21 July 2008 the competent domestic court refused to revive those proceedings, citing the absence of a re-opening mechanism in domestic law.
5. On 4 September 2009 notice of the present case was given to the Government.
6. On 13 May 2010 the Government informed the Court that an Amendment of 10 May 2010 had been enacted with respect to the Code of Civil Procedure (“the CCP”), introducing a mechanism for re-opening of civil proceedings on the ground of the Court’s judgments (decisions) establishing the existence of violations of provisions of the Convention (Article 423 § 1 (g) of the CCP). That Amendment was given retroactive force, allowing even those applicants to request re-opening of the impugned domestic proceedings on the basis of the Court’s judgment who had already been denied similar requests by domestic courts (Article 444 of the CCP).
7. On 2 December 2010 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, with reference to the Amendment of 10 May 2010 to the CCP, adopted a Resolution (CM/ResDH(2010)163) on the closure of supervision of the execution of the Court’s principal judgment, in accordance with Article 46 § 2 of the Convention.
8. By a letter of 1 December 2012, the applicant company’s first representative informed the Court that he wished to recuse himself from the case. This letter was transmitted to the applicant company, who was invited either to confirm whether or not its second representative still remained active in the proceedings or to appoint a new representative. The applicant company was requested to reply by 16 January 2013, but failed to so do.
9. By a letter of 16 April 2018, the Court requested the second representative to confirm his client’s interest towards the proceedings and to update it of any important factual developments that might have occurred since 2010. The letter was returned to the Court undelivered as the addressee had not been found.
10. On 25 May 2018 the Court sent again its letter of 16 April 2018, this time directly to the postal address of the applicant company’s managing director. The letter was again returned to the Court undelivered with an annotation: “unclaimed”.
11. Thus, apart from its former co-representative’s letter on self-recusal (see paragraph 8 above), the applicant company has not kept itself any contact with the Court since October 2010.
THE LAW
12. The Court considers that, in the above circumstances, the applicant company may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue its application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case.
13. 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.
Done in English and notified in writing on 11 October 2018.
Milan BlaškoAndré Potocki
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy