FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 26315/10
Davit MERABISHVILI
against Georgia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4 March 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Päivi Hirvelä, President,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Faris Vehabović, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 May 2010,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Davit Merabishvili, is a Georgian national, who was born in 1956 and lives in Tbilisi. He was represented before the Court by Ms Ts. Javakhishvili, 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.
The case mainly concerned under Article 3 of the Convention the alleged lack of adequate medical care for the applicant’s various diseases in prison.
By letter dated 6 February 2012 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations in reply by 19 March 2012. No reply followed.
By letter dated 18 May 2012, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. His attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The applicant’s representative received this letter on 31 May 2012. However, no response has followed.
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 case. Accordingly, 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.
Fatoş AracıPäivi Hirvelä
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy