FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 56161/09
Iuri SARUKHANYAN
against Georgia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11 March 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Paul Mahoney, President,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Reistrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 October 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Mr Yuri Sarukhanyan, is a Georgian national, who was born in 1982 and lives in Tbilisi. He was represented before the Court by Mr I. Khatiashvili, a lawyer practising in Tbilisi. The Georgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Meskhoradze, of the Ministry of Justice.
2. The case concerned under Articles 3 of the Convention the alleged lack of medical care for the applicant’s neurological disorders in prison. On 2 March 2010 the Government submitted observations, from which it appeared that the prison authority had started dispensing the relevant treatment to the applicant.
3. On 25 January 2013 the applicant was granted an early release from prison on the basis of an amnesty law of 21 December 2012.
4. On 29 January 2014 the Court received a friendly settlement declaration duly signed by both parties, 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 pay him 3,000 (three thousand) Euros to cover any pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which sum will be converted into the respondent State’s national currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment and free of any taxes that might be applicable to the applicant. The sum is payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. In the event of failure to pay the sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until 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.
THE LAW
5. 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 AracıPaul Mahoney
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy