FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 43098/10
Mikheil TSIVTSIVADZE
against Georgia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 11 September 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Síofra O’Leary, President,
Lәtif Hüseynov,
Lado Chanturia, judges,
and Milan Blaško, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 July 2010,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Mr Mikheil Tsivtsivadze, is a Georgian national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Tbilisi. He was represented before the Court by Ms L. Gvarliani, a lawyer practising in Tbilisi.
2. On 3 January 2012 the application was communicated to the Georgian Government (“the Government”), who were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Meskhoradze, of the Ministry of Justice, under Articles 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention.
3. The communicated complaints concerned the alleged absence of adequate medical care for the applicant’s health issues in prison and the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings conducted against him for a drug offence. The applicant had been serving his eight years’ prison sentence from 8 November 2008 until 7 December 2012, the date of his early release on the basis of a pardon granted by the President of Georgia.
4. Despite his submissions indicating his wish to pursue the proceedings in early 2012, the applicant failed to submit his observations in reply to those of the Government. He never filed these observations even after the Court’s reminder and strike-out warning of 18 September 2012 had been sent to him.
5. Furthermore, the applicant failed to respond to the Registry’s last letter of 16 April 2018 (duly served on his representative on 24 April 2018), requesting him to confirm unambiguously his interest towards the proceedings and to update the Court of any important factual developments that might have occurred since 2012. The applicant was explicitly warned that his failure to reply might be construed as a sign of the loss of interest towards the application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. No reply followed.
THE LAW
6. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, 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.
7. 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.
Done in English and notified in writing on 4 October 2018.
Milan BlaškoSíofra O’Leary
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy