FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 19419/12
Davit KHARADZE
against Georgia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 13 September 2016 as a Committee composed of:
Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Marko Bošnjak, judges,
and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 March 2012,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Mr Davit Kharadze, is a Georgian national, who was born in 1969 and lives in Tbilisi. He was represented before the Court by Ms T. Dekanoidze and Ms N. Jomarjidze, 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 applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that his right to respect for private life had been infringed by a police television report prepared by the Ministry of the Interior.
4. After the Government had been given notice of the application, they informed the Court, by a letter of 22 February 2016, that they proposed a friendly settlement with a view of resolving the issue under Article 8 of the Convention. Notably, they offered to pay the applicant 500 (five hundred) Euros to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. This amount 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 will be 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.
5. On 24 March 2016 the Court received a letter from the applicant stating that he was ready to accept the Government’s offer and to waive any further claims against the respondent State in respect of the facts giving rise to his application.
THE LAW
6. 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. Accordingly, the case should be struck 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 6 October 2016.
Andrea TamiettiKrzysztof Wojtyczek
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy