FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 26056/11
Giga PURTSKHVANIDZE
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 21 April 2011,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Giga Purtskhvanidze, is a Georgian national, who was born in 1983 and lives in Tbilisi. The Georgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Levan Meskhoradze, of the Ministry of Justice.
On 1 July 2011 the Court gave notice to the respondent Government of the applicant’s complaints under Articles 3, 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention concerning the lack of treatment for his viral hepatitis C (HCV) in prison and the inability to have access to a domestic court for his health grievances.
On 16 November 2011 the Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application, which included detailed medical information on the applicant’s state of health. Those submissions disclosed that the applicant had started receiving the relevant anti-HCV treatment which had resulted in an improvement of his state of health.
On 5 December 2013 Court received a friendly settlement declaration dated 22 November 2013, which was signed by the Government, the applicant and his lawyer, whereby the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against the respondent State in respect of the facts giving rise to his application against an undertaking by the Government to ensure his early release from prison.
On 27 December 2013 the Government submitted an update, from which it appeared the applicant had been granted an irrevocable early release on 23 November 2013 on the basis of a decision by the Commission of Pardon and Parole of the Ministry of Prisons of Georgia.
THE LAW
In the light of the above, the Court considers that the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention and that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the application under Article 37 § 1 in fine. 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.
Fatoş AracıPäivi Hirvelä
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy