FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 56080/10 Irakli SHANIDZE against Georgia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 30 June 2015 as a Chamber composed of:

Guido Raimondi, President, Päivi Hirvelä, George Nicolaou, Nona Tsotsoria, Krzysztof Wojtyczek, Faris Vehabović, Yonko Grozev, judges,

and Françoise Elens-Passos, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 September 2010,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1. The applicant, Mr Irakli Shanidze, is a Georgian national, who was born in 1976 and is currently in prison. He was represented before the Court by Mr Sh. Khatchapuridze, a lawyer practising in Tbilisi.

2. The Georgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Meskhoradze, of the Ministry of Justice.

3. On 11 July 2013 the Court gave notice to the Government of the applicant ’ s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning his alleged ill-treatment by police, the failure to initiate a criminal probe in this regard and the alleged lack of adequate medical treatment for his mental condition in prison. The complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention concerning the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings conducted against the applicant were also communicated to the Government for their observations.

4. On 29 November 2013 the Government submitted a declaration to the Court proposing to settle the case. The Government ’ s proposal was forwarded to the applicant ’ s representative who was invited to submit any comments he wished to make in reply on behalf of the applicant by 14 March 2014.

5. By a letter dated 13 March 2014, the applicant ’ s representative informed the Court that having consulted his client, he accepted the terms of the Government ’ s proposal on his behalf and agreed to waive any further claims against Georgia in respect of the facts giving rise to this application.

6. On 14 April 2014 the Court received a letter sent apparently personally by the applicant in which he rejected the Government ’ s friendly settlement proposal. In another letter dated 6 May 2014 the applicant also informed the Court that he had ceased cooperating with his representative.

7. On 7 May 2014 the Court wrote to the applicant as well as to his representative noting the inconsistency in their positions regarding the Government ’ s proposal. Mr Sh. Khatchapuridze was invited to clarify by 28 May 2014 whether he was still representing the applicant in the proceedings, and, if so, what the reasons were behind their contradictory positions regarding the settlement of the case.

8. By a faxed letter of 5 June 2014 the applicant informed the Court that he maintained his refusal to accept the Government ’ s friendly settlement proposal. He further declined Mr Sh. Khatchapuridze ’ s services and proposed Mr C. Roussel as his new representative. Another letter from the applicant dated 27 May 2014 with the same content was received by the Court on 10 June 2014.

9. On the same date, the Court received a letter from Mr Sh. Khatchapuridze dated 28 May 2014, in which he claimed that, having consulted his client, he was still representing the applicant ’ s interests in the proceedings before the Court. Further, according to Mr Sh. Khatchapuridze, the applicant maintained his acceptance of the terms of the friendly settlement as proposed by the Government. In support of his letter, Mr Sh. Khatchapuridze submitted a signed declaration form which in its concluding part read as follows:

“... Having consulted my client, I would inform you that he accepts the proposal and waives any further claims in respect of the facts giving rise to this application ...”

10. The applicant ’ s and Mr Sh. Khatchapuridze ’ s contradictory letters were again sent to the Government for their comments.

11. In the meantime, by a letter of 13 June 2014 Mr Sh. Khatchapuridze informed the Court that after seeing the applicant in prison he had decided in view of the latter ’ s inconsistent position to withdraw from the case. At the same time, he confirmed that the applicant was against settling the case with the Government.

12. On 30 June 2014 the Court received a letter from the applicant, in which he explained that he had lost trust in Mr Sh. Khatchapuridze as the latter had misrepresented his interests and accepted the Government ’ s proposal without his prior consent. He again declined his services.

13. On 2 July 2014 the Court received a letter from Mr C. Roussel who expressed his readiness to represent the applicant ’ s interests before the Court and asked for free legal aid to be granted to his client in connection with the presentation of the case. In reply, he was requested by the Registry, among other things, to submit by 18 August 2014 a completed form of authority, which he failed to do. Subsequently, Mr C. Roussel, without submitting an authority form, has twice addressed the Court with a request for legal aid.

14. On 22 July 2014 the Court received a letter from the Government, in which they claimed that the irresponsible behaviour of the applicant in the current case amounted to an abuse of the right of petition. They noted in particular that apart from submitting conflicting and misleading information to the Court in the context of the friendly-settlement negotiations that had already been initiated, the applicant had also failed to submit within the set time-limit an authority form duly authorising Mr C. Roussel to represent his interests before the Court. Thus, the applicant acted in breach of Rule 36 1 § 2 of the Rules of Court which provides for the compulsory assistance of a lawyer once notice of the case has been given to the Government. The Government requested the Court to declare the application inadmissible under Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention.

15. By letters of 15 September 2014 and 3 February 2015 the applicant and his new representative were reminded again of the Court ’ s request to submit a new authority form. No further correspondence either from the applicant or his new representative has been received since.

THE LAW

16. As to the Government ’ s objection, the notion of “abuse”, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, must be understood as any conduct on the part of the applicant that is manifestly contrary to the purpose of the right of individual application as provided for in the Convention and which impedes the proper functioning of the Court or the proper conduct of the proceedings before it (see Miroļubovs and Others v. Latvia , no. 798/05, §§ 62 and 65, 15 September 2009). An application may exceptionally be rejected on those grounds if, among other things, it is knowingly based on untruths (see, as a recent example, F.A. v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 41816/10, §§ 39, 40, 42 and 43, 25 March 2014; and Gross v. Switzerland [GC], no. 67810/10, § 28, ECHR 2014; see also Keretcha s hvili v. Georgia (dec.), no. 5667/02, 2 May 2006), the most egregious example being applications based on forged documents (see, for instance, Bagheri and Maliki v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 30164/06, 15 May 2007). However, any deliberate attempt to mislead the Court must be established with sufficient certainty (see Gross , cited above, § 28).

17. Turning to the circumstances of the current case, the Court considers that the conduct of the applicant and his initial representative in the context of the friendly settlement negotiations was highly disruptive. It is not entirely clear as to whether the lawyer, as claimed by the applicant, took the liberty of making unsolicited submissions on his behalf (see in this regard Aladashvili v. Georgia, (dec.) no. 17491/09, 3 April 2012, and Kotchlamazashvili v. Georgia (dec.) no. 42270/10, 3 April 2012), or whether it was the applicant who made conflicting and inconsistent statements. In any event, their irresponsible conduct impeded proper functioning of the Court proceedings in the current case. Furthermore, the applicant at a later stage proposed a new lawyer to represent his interests before the Court. The new lawyer, while repeatedly approaching the Court with requests for legal aid, has failed so far to submit a completed form of authority.

18. The Court considers that the applicant ’ s and, on his behalf, his representative ’ s conduct in the current case has impeded the proper conduct of the proceedings before it. The Court nevertheless sees no need to address the Government ’ s above plea as the application in any event should be struck out under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention for the following reason.

19. Article 37 of the Convention provides that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application off its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:

“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.

21. According to the Court ’ s practice, failure to comply with the requirement of proper legal representation, as defined in Rule 36 1 §§ 2 and 4 (a), may result in the discontinuation of the proceedings (see, inter alia , Grimaylo v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 69364/01, 7 February 2006; Ivanchenko v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 60726/00, 7 February 2006; Akulov v. Russia (dec.), no. 74688/01, 8 March 2007; R.W. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 37281/05, 14 September 2010; and Engwer (dec.), cited above).

23. In such circumstances, the Court cannot but conclude that the lack of diligence on the part of the applicant and his representatives prevents it from further consideration of the current case.

The Court hence concludes that in the particular circumstances of the current case, and having regard to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. 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 further examination of this case.

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 23 July 2015 .

             Françoise Elens-Passos Guido Raimondi Registrar President