SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 32553/04
by Onise KHUBULAVA and Others
against Georgia
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 24 November 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović,
András Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 August 2004,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Onise Khubulava, Mr Mamuka Kurashvili and Mr Konstantine Matakheria are Georgian nationals who were born in 1968, 1962 and 1957 and live in Zugdidi, Georgia. They were represented before the Court by Mr J. Beselia and Mr V. Matkava, lawyers practising, respectively, in Tbilisi and Zugdidi. The Georgian Government (“the Government”) were successively represented by their Agents, Ms I. Bartaia, Mr B. Bokhashvili and Mr L. Meskhoradze of the Ministry of Justice.
The case mostly concerned the lawfulness of the applicants’ arrest and the reasonableness of their pre-trial detention. On 21 September 2006 notice of those complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention was given to the Government who submitted their observations on admissibility and merits. Those observations were forwarded to the applicants who were invited to submit their own observations but failed to do so. The applicants remained silent even after the Court’s reminders, with a warning that their application might be struck out under Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, had been served on their representatives on 30 October 2007 and 4 September 2009.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their 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.
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.
Françoise Elens-PassosFrançoise Tulkens
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy