SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 16299/07
by Tinatin INDUASHVILI
against Georgia
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 12 May 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović,
András Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 March 2007,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the absence of those of the applicant in reply,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mrs Tinatin Induashvili, is a Georgian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Tbilisi. She was represented before the Court by Mr A. Gegia, a lawyer practising in Tbilisi. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr D. Tomadze of the Ministry of Justice.
The case, as it stood prior to its notification to the Government on 11 December, raised, under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the issue of non-enforcement of the Tbilisi Appellate Court’s binding judgment of 9 March 2006. The judgment debt of 3,505.67 Georgian laris (approximately 1,574 euros) was payable to the applicant by the Tbilisi Municipality.
As disclosed by the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application, the judgment debt was fully discharged in the applicant’s favour on 20 December 2007.
The applicant was invited to submit observations in reply to those of the Government by 16 July 2008 but failed to do so. She remained silent even after the Court’s reminder, with a warning that her application might be struck out under Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, had been served on her by registered post on 29 September 2008.
THE LAW
In these circumstances, the Court considers that the matter has been resolved, and the applicant no longer wishes to pursue her application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) 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 further examination of the application.
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