SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 6024/10
by Murad TODUA
against Georgia
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 9 November 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Danutė Jočienė,
András Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Işıl Karakaş,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 January 2010,
Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Mr Murad Todua, a Georgian national who was born in 1978. He was represented before the Court by Mr Giorgi Bakhturidze, a lawyer practising in Tbilisi. The Georgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Levan Meskhoradze of the Ministry of Justice.
On 18 January 2010 the applicant, referring to a lack of adequate medical care in prison, complained that the respondent State was unable to protect his life, health and physical well-being, contrary to its obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.
On 25 February 2010 the President of the Chamber, as well as communicating the application, decided, ex proprio motu, to indicate to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that the applicant, a partially paralysed person suffering, amongst other diseases, from progressive multifocal leukoencephalitis, be placed in a medical establishment capable of providing adequate treatment for his grave neurological condition; any other relevant measures aimed at alleviating his sufferings caused by hemiplegia and hemiparesis should also be undertaken by the Government.
On 11 March 2010 the Head of the Medical Establishment of the Ministry of Prisons, transmitted to the Court a handwritten letter from the applicant (“the applicant’s letter of 11 March 2010”). In that letter, the applicant, without giving any specific details, requested the Court to strike his application out of the list of pending cases as the matter had been resolved on the domestic level.
On 16 March 2010 the Court transmitted the applicant’s letter of 11 March 2010 to his representative and the Government, inviting them to comment thereon by 6 April 2010.
On 17 March 2010 the Government informed the Court that the Tbilisi City Court had on 12 March 2010 suspended the applicant’s prison sentence in view of his grave state of health.
The Government’s submissions of 17 March 2010 were then transmitted on 23 March 2010 to the applicant’s representative, who was reminded of his duty to comment on the latest developments in the case, including the applicant’s letter of 11 March 2010.
On 10 May 2010 the President of the Chamber reconsidered the application in the light of the information provided by the Government on 17 March 2010 and decided, in view of that information, to lift the interim measure previously indicated on 25 February 2010 under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
On 12 May 2010, as well as informing the applicant’s representative of the discontinuation of the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the Court invited him once again to confirm as soon as possible, and in any event before 1 June 2010, the applicant’s intention to withdraw his application. However, no reply followed.
On 17 June 2010 the Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application, in which they requested that the application be struck out of the list of pending cases, in so far as the applicant’s early release had resolved the matter.
By a letter of 19 July 2010, sent by fax and registered post, the Court, along with transmitting the Government’s observations, reproached the applicant’s representative for not having replied to its previous letters. The representative was also warned that, should he fail to submit observations on behalf of the applicant by 30 August 2010, that silence might lead to the application being struck out under Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
As confirmed by a facsimile transmission record, the recipient’s fax machine successfully accepted the Court’s above-mentioned letter on the same day, 19 July 2010, at 5:04 p.m., Strasbourg time; the indicated fax number had often been used in communications with the applicant’s representative in the past. However, no response has been received from him to date.
THE LAW
Having due regard to the applicant’s letter of 11 March 2010 and his representative’s lasting silence, 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.
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.
Françoise Elens-PassosFrançoise Tulkens
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy