THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 65103/10
by Teimuraz KURKHULI
against Georgia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 6 September 2011 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 4 November 2010,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 25 March 2011,
Having regard to the applicant’s letter of 3 May 2011,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Teimuraz Kurkhuli, is a Georgian national who was born in 1984. He was represented before the Court by Mr Davit Jinjolava, 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.
On 29 November 2010 the Court gave notice to the Government of the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the lack of adequate treatment for his viral hepatitis B and C in prison.
On 25 March 2011 the Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application, which included detailed medical information on the applicant’s state of health. Those submissions disclosed that he had started receiving the requisite antiviral drugs, hepatoprotectors and other types of relevant treatment in prison. The medical file confirmed that the applicant benefited from permanent medical supervision and that his general condition remained stable.
By a letter of 3 May 2011, the applicant, confirming that the relevant authorities had started dispensing the necessary treatment for his hepatic diseases in prison, stated that the matter of the application was being resolved on the domestic level and that he did not wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court.
THE LAW
In the light of the foregoing, 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).
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