THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 41359/08
Givi VASHAKIDZE
against Georgia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 28 January 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Ján Šikuta, President,
Luis López Guerra,
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 August 2008,
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
1. The applicant, Mr Givi Vashakidze, is a Georgian national, who was born in 1990 and lives in Tbilisi. He was represented before the Court by Mr D. Modebadze and Mr Z. Khatiashvili, lawyers practising in Tbilisi.
2. The Georgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Meskhoradze of the Ministry of Justice.
3. On 21 February 2013 the Court communicated to the Government the applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the alleged ineffectiveness of the investigation into the circumstances of the applicant’s stabbing and the complaints, under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention, concerning the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings conducted against him.
4. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 25 October 2013 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
5. The relevant parts of the declaration read as follows:
“The Government wish to express, by way of a unilateral declaration, their regretful acknowledgement of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention due to the existence of deficiencies in the course of examination of the criminal case by domestic courts, namely, insufficient reasoning provided by the Tbilisi City Court and Tbilisi Court of Appeal for finding the applicant guilty of aggravated murder, failure of the courts to examine the witnesses requested by the defence; and the violation of Article 3 of the Convention due to the ineffectiveness of the investigation commenced with respect to the applicant’s stabbing.
Bearing in mind Mr Givi Vashakidze’s right envisaged under Article 310 (e) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, entitling him to address the domestic court with a request to re-open the criminal case on the basis of a decision/judgment rendered by the European Court;
The Government undertake to pay 4,000 (four thousand) EUR to cover any pecuniary or non-pecuniary damages and costs and expenses.
This sum will be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake 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 shall constitute a final resolution of the case. ...”
6. By a letter of 13 December 2013 the applicant submitted that he accepted the terms of the declaration.
THE LAW
7. The Court considers that the applicant’s express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government can be considered as an implied friendly settlement between the parties.
8. It therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).
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 in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention.
Marialena TsirliJán Šikuta
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy