FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 21098/09 Tsaro GELASHVILI against Georgia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 24 January 2017 as a Committee composed of:

Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President, Nona Tsotsoria, Marko Bošnjak, judges,

and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 March 2009,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 24 October 2016 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, Ms Tsaro Gelashvili, is a Georgian national, who was born in 1951 and lives in Tbilisi.

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

3. The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about a delay in the enforcement of a judgment delivered by the Tbilisi Regional Court on 19 August 2005 in relation to an employment dispute. The judgment entitled the applicant to be restored to her job and be paid salary arrears in the amount of 1,484 Georgian laris (approximately 530 euros (EUR)). Although the judgment became final and enforceable on 16 March 2006, it took the enforcement authorities two years and ten months to enforce it in full.

4. On 2 March 2016 notice of the application was given to the Government.

THE LAW

5. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 24 October 2016 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

6. Notably, after having acknowledged that the final judgment of 19 August 2005 remained unenforced for a significant period of time in breach of the applicant ’ s relevant rights under the Convention, the Government undertook to pay her EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros) to cover any and all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. The sum will be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of payment, and will be paid within three months from the date of notification of the Court ’ s decision issued in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to settle within this period, simple interest shall be payable on the amount in question at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points.

7. By a letter of 22 November 2016, the applicant informed the Court that she was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground of the insufficiency of the monetary award offered by the Government.

8. The Court re iterates that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of 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”.

9. It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.

10. To this end, the Court has examined the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; see also WAZA Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007, and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).

11. The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Georgia , its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one ’ s right to have a final court decision enforced (see, amongst many others, Burdov v. Russia , no. 59498/00, § § 33-42, ECHR 2002 ‑ III, and Amat-G Ltd and Mebaghishvili v. Georgia , no. 2507/03, § § 45-63, ECHR 2005 ‑ VIII).

12. Having regard to the nature of the admissions and the specific undertakings contained in the Government ’ s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

13. Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

14. Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention ( Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

15. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list .

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention as well as under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Done in English and notified in writing on 16 February 2017 .

Andrea Tamietti Krzysztof Wojtyczek              Deputy Registrar President