THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 25391/08
Teimuraz KARSELADZE
against Georgia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10 January 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Alvina Gyulumyan, President,
Luis López Guerra,
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 May 2008,
Having regard to the applicant’s letter of 7 November 2011 and the Government’s comments of 23 November 2011,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Teimuraz Karseladze, is a Georgian national who was born in 1962. He was represented before the Court by Ms Vanda Jijelava, a lawyer practising in Tbilisi. The Georgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Levan Meskhoradze of the Ministry of Justice.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant, serving a prison sentence for a drug offence, suffers from serious angiology (thrombosis, embolism, venous insufficiency and so on), cardiac disorders and viral hepatitis C in an early stage.
On 15 October 2008 the Court, granting his request under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, indicated to the respondent Government that the applicant be placed in a medical establishment capable of dispensing adequate treatment for his various diseases.
On 16 November 2009 the applicant claimed before the Court that the respondent Government had not fully implemented the above-mentioned interim measure.
On 5 October 2011 the Court gave notice to the respondent Government of the applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 and 34 of the Convention concerning the absence of adequate medical care for his various diseases and the failure to implement its interim measure. Having regard to the latest medical information which confirmed that the applicant’s condition had significantly ameliorated as a result of the treatment dispensed to him in prison after the indication of the interim measure on 15 October 2008, the Court also decided to discontinue the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
On 7 November 2011 the applicant personally informed the Court of his intention to withdraw his application. He stated that the relevant domestic authorities had indeed provided him recently with the requisite treatment for his major diseases and that the purpose of his application was thus fully achieved.
On 9 November 2011 the Court transmitted the applicant’s withdrawal request to his representative, who did not object in reply, and to the Government.
On 23 November 2011 the Government, commenting on the applicant’s withdrawal request, confirmed, by reference to his medical file, that the applicant’s state of health had significantly ameliorated as a result of the treatment dispensed to him in prison. He was regularly examined by an angiologist, cardiologist, psychiatrist and neuropathologist in prison, with the latest consultation having taken place on 10 November 2011. Those specialists, without recommending his hospitalisation, would prescribe the applicant with relevant medication and other types of treatment which was then duly administered to him at the expense of the penitentiary authority. Consequently, the Government stated that the treatment dispensed to the applicant in prison fully corresponded to the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention and that his request for the discontinuation of the proceedings before the Court was legitimate.
THE LAW
In the light of the foregoing circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his 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 application (cf. Archaia v. Georgia (dec.), no. 6643/10, 14 December 2010; Murad Todua v. Georgia (dec.), no. 6024/10, 9 November 2010).
It is thus 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.
Marialena TsirliAlvina Gyulumyan
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy