FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
This version was rectified on 9 September 2014
under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.
Application no. 35199/10
Valeri JAPARIDZE
against Georgia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 27 May 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Päivi Hirvelä, President,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Faris Vehabović, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 June 2010,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 13 February 2014 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Mr Valeri Japaridze, was[1] a Georgian national, who was born in 1957 and was serving a prison sentence in Rustavi no. 2 Prison. He was represented before the Court by Ms N. Londaridze, a lawyer practising in Tbilisi. The Georgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Meskhoradze of the Ministry of Justice.
2. On 15 November 2010 the Court communicated to the Government the applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the alleged lack of adequate medical treatment for his cirrhotic pulmonary tuberculosis in prison. On 9 May 2012 the applicant, Mr Valeri Japaridze, died. His brother, Mr Zaur Japaridze, informed the Court that he wished to pursue the application on behalf of his brother.[2]
3. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 13 February 2014 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
4. The relevant parts of the declaration read as follows:
“The Government of Georgia accept that in the particular circumstances of this case, there was a violation of Article 3 and Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. They do so on account of the deficiencies identified in the course of medical treatment of Mr Valeri Japaridze.
In light of the above-mentioned, the Government declare that they are prepared to pay to the applicant’s brother – Mr Zaur Japaridze[3] – 4,500 (four thousand five hundred) Euros to cover any pecuniary or non-pecuniary damages and costs and expenses.
This sum will be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until the 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 shall constitute a final resolution of the case. ...”
5. By a letter of 10 April 2014, the applicant’s brother indicated, without providing any arguments, that he refused to accept the terms of the unilateral declaration.
THE LAW
6. The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.”
7. It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see Taktakishvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 46055/06, 16 October 2012). To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003‑VI); WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03).
8. Turning to the Government’s declaration, the Court observes at the outset that the Government have explicitly acknowledged a violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention with respect to the applicant. In this connection, it reiterates that there already exists an abundance of well‑established case-law, including against Georgia, concerning lack of adequate medical treatment in prison and lack of effective remedies in this regard (see, for instance, Goginashvili v. Georgia, no. 47729/08, §§ 57-61, 71‑81, 4 October 2011; Jeladze v. Georgia, no. 1871/08, §§ 43-50, 18 December 2012, and Jashi v. Georgia, no. 10799/06, §§ 63‑66, 8 January 2013).
9. Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1(c)).
10. The Court notes the modalities agreed by the respondent Government for the payment of the amount proposed (see paragraph 4 above).
11. Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Fatoş AracıPäivi Hirvelä
Deputy RegistrarPresident
[1] Rectified on 9 September 2014: the text was “The applicant, Mr Valeri Japaridze, is a Georgian national…”.
[2] Rectified on 9 September 2014: the last two sentences were added to paragraph 2.
[3] Rectified on 9 September 2014: the text was: “…the applicant – Mr Valeri Japaridze…”
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy