FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 17295/09
Irakli MARAKVELIDZE
against Georgia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 8 April 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Paul Mahoney, President,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 January 2009,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 25 October 2013 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Mr Irakli Marakvelidze, is a Georgian national, who was born in 1980 and currently lives in Tbilisi. He was represented before the Court by Ms T. Avaliani, a lawyer practising in Tbilisi. The Georgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Levan Meskhoradze, of the Ministry of Justice.
2. On 5 October 2011 the Court communicated the application, which concerned the absence of medical care for the applicant’s viral hepatitis C (HCV) and certain other diseases in prison, to the Government under Article 3 of the Convention.
3. On 15 February 2012 the Government submitted their observations which confirmed that the prison authority had started dispensing the relevant anti-viral treatment for the applicant’s HCV. In his reply of 3 April 2012, the applicant argued that the provided treatment had been belated and insufficient.
4. The applicant was subsequently granted, on an unspecified date, early release from prison on account of his state of health.
THE LAW
A. As regards the communicated part of the application
5. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 25 October 2013 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
6. The declaration provided as follows:
“The Government wish to express – by way of unilateral declaration – their regretful acknowledgment of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention due to certain deficiencies identified in the course of the medical treatment dispensed to the applicant during his detention.
The Government are prepared to pay to Mr Irakli Marakvelidze 4,500 Euros. This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable to the applicant. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default periods plus three percentage points. The payment shall constitute the final resolution of the present case.”
7. By a letter of 27 November 2013, the applicant indicated that he was not fully satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that the Georgian Government failed to assume an obligation to provide him with the relevant anti-viral drugs even after his release from prison.
8. The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
9. It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the case to be continued.
10. To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issue) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007).
11. The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Georgia, its practice concerning the lack of adequate medical care in prison (see, for instance, Jeladze v. Georgia, no. 1871/08, §§ 50 and 57, 18 December 2012; Irakli Mindadze v. Georgia, no. 17012/09, §§ 48 and 53, 11 December 2012; and Jashi v. Georgia, no. 10799/06, § 70 and 74, 8 January 2013).
12. Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
13. Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
14. Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
B. As regards the remainder of the application
15. The applicant reiterated his complaint about the lack of medical care in prison under Article 2 of the Convention as well.
16. However, having regard to all the evidence in its possession, the Court has not found any appearance of a breach of the cited provision. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 3 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the part of the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Fatoş AracıPaul Mahoney
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy