THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 23920/07
Gagi KHVEDELIDZE
against Georgia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 17 September 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Valeriu Griţco, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 31 May 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Mr Gagi Khvedelidze, is a Georgian national, who was born in 1971 and lives in Tbilisi. He was represented before the Court by Mr Murman Isaev, a lawyer practising in Tbilisi.
2. The Georgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Levan Meskhoradze of the Ministry of Justice.
3. On 1 April 2010 the Court gave notice to the Government, under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, of the applicant’s complaints about the alleged absence of adequate medical care for his various diseases and the lack of sufficient number of family visits in prison.
4. On 12 April 2013 the Government informed the Court that the applicant had been granted early release from prison on the basis of an amnesty law of 21 December 2012.
5. Taking into account the applicant’s early release from prison, on 29 April 2013 the Court requested the applicant’s representative, by a letter sent by registered post, to clarify whether his client still wished to maintain his application. The representative was warned that his failure to reply by 20 May 2013 might lead the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases.
6. The Court’s letter of 29 April 2013 was duly served on the applicant’s representative on 8 May 2013. However, he has not replied to date.
THE LAW
7. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, 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 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.
Marialena TsirliLuis López Guerra
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy