FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 2177/08
David SARTANIA
against Georgia
The European Court of Human Rights (Forth 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 13 November 2007,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 25 October 2013 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr David Sartania, is a Georgian national, who was born in 1958 and lives in Tbilisi. He was represented before the Court by Ms N. Katsitadze and Mr A. Shoshikelashvili, lawyers practising in Tbilisi.
The Georgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Meskhoradze of the Ministry of Justice.
On 7 May 2013 the Court gave notice to the Government of the applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the alleged lack of medical treatment in prison, the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings conducted against him and the complaint under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention concerning the alleged breach of his right to receive family visits in prison.
By a letter of 25 October 2013 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to settle the case by submitting the following declaration:
“Taking into account the failure of the relevant authorities to ensure the applicant with adequate drug treatment program;
Considering the failure to provide the applicant with requisite medical care in respect of his mental problems;
Acknowledging the deficiencies in ensuring the fairness of the applicant’s criminal proceedings on domestic level as required by Article 6 of the Convention;
Considering the applicant’s right envisaged under Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, entitling him to address a domestic court with a request to re-open the criminal case against him;
Bearing in mind the failure of the prison authorities to ensure the applicant with requisite frequency of family visits in Rustavi no. 2 prison and the fact that from June 2007 to September 2008 the applicant was allowed to have family visits only once every two months; Hereby, taking note of the fact that the mentioned failure was remedied at the national level and since 12 September 2008 the applicant received visits once every month; ...
Taking into account the fact that the legal framework in force at the material time regarding the applicant’s, as the convict’s visits beyond the glass partition lacked the foreseeability aspect; ...
The Government is prepared to:Pay 5,000 (five thousand) Euros to cover any pecuniary or non-pecuniary damages and costs and expenses, which will be free of any taxes that may be applicable.
This sum will be converted into Georgian laris at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court to strike the case out of the list of cases. In the event of a failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on them, from expiry of that period until the settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
By a letter of 21 December 2013 the applicant submitted that he accepted the terms of the Government’s proposal.
THE LAW
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied 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.
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