THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 4276/06
Boris MTCHEDLIDZE
against Georgia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 24 January 2012 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 11 January 2006,
Having regard to the applicant’s letter of 28 November 2011,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Boris Mtchedlidze, is a Georgian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Tbilisi. He was represented before the Court by Mr Koba Kobakhidze, 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 11 December 2007 the Court gave notice to the Government of the applicant’s complaints under Articles 3, 5 § 3 and 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention concerning his alleged ill-treatment in prison, the reasonableness of his pre-trial detention and the fairness of the criminal proceedings against him.
On 8 April and 1 July 2008 the parties exchanged their observations on the admissibility and merits of the communicated complaints.
On 28 November 2011 the applicant informed the Court that he wished to desist from the proceedings before it. He explained that, according to an agreement reached with the Government, the relevant domestic authorities had secured his early release from prison.
On the same date, 28 November 2011, the applicant’s withdrawal request was transmitted to the Government. They have not objected in reply.
THE LAW
In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the applicant no longer wishes 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 TsirliAlvina Gyulumyan
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy