FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 652/10 Besarion BOTCHORISHVILI against Georgia

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

Paul Mahoney , President, Nona Tsotsoria , Faris Vehabović , judges,

and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 December 2009 ,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 27 February 2015 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 Besarion Botchorishvili , is a Georgian national, who was born in 1964 and lives in Tbilisi .

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

3. During a dispersal of the peaceful demonstration by the police on 9 May 2009, the applicant received light physical injuries to his head and nose which resulted in nasal bleeding and marks of bruises.

4. The applicant then complained that the injuries had been inflicted to him by certain unidentified police officers. On 9 June 200 9 the Ministry of the Interior launched an investigation into the applicant ’ s alleged ill ‑ treatment the dispersal of the demonstration , but that investigation did not lead to any result.

THE LAW

5. The application was communicated to the Government under Article 3 of the Convention on 15 September 2014 .

6. B y a letter of 27 February 2015, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue s raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

“ The Government wish to express their regretful acknowledgement of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of shortcomings identified in the course of the investigation into the applicant ’ s injuries allegedly sustained on 6 May 2009.

The Government, within the framework of the present declaration, undertake to ensure the promptness and effectiveness of the investigation launched on 9 June 2009 with respect to the applicant ’ s allegations of ill-treatment.

In addition, in the light of the above consideration and taking into account the factual circumstances of the case, the Government declare that they are prepared to pay to Mr Botchorishvili 3,500 (three thousand five hundred) euros to cover any and all pecuniary or non-pecuniary damages as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.

T hi s 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. In the event of failure to pay this 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. ”

8. By letter s of 30 April and 20 May 2015 , the applicant indicated that , although he welcomed the Government ’ s acknowledgement of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, he was still not satisfied with the amount of the compensation proposed .

9. The Cour t re iterates th at 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”.

10. It also re iterates 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. In this respect, the applicant ’ s reply to the Government ’ s declaration should be interpreted as his refusal to accept it.

11. The Court further recalls that it may accept a unilateral declaration even in the absence of prior friendly settlement negotiations (see Union of Jehova h ’ s Witnesses and Others v. Georgia (dec.), no. 72874/01, §§ 23 ‑ 30, 21 April 2015).

12. To this end, the Cour t has examined the declaration submitted by the Government in the present case carefully in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary issues) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003 ‑ VI ; WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and SulwiÅ„ska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03 , 18 September 2007 ).

13. It recalls that it has already established in a number of cases, including those brought against Georgia , its practice concerning complaints about the allegations of ill-treatment by the police and lack of adequate investigation in that respect (see, for example , Begheluri v. Georgia , no. 28490/02, § § 105-112, 7 October 2014 ; Davtyan v. Georgia , no. 73241/01, § § 35-47 , 27 July 2006 ) .

14. Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government ’ s declaration, as well as the amount of the compensation proposed – which is fully adequate in the particular circumstances of the present case – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

15. 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 ).

16. 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 ( see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration under Article 3 of 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 23 July 2015 .

Fatoş Aracı Paul Mahoney Deputy Registrar President