FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 60909/08 Tengiz CHKOTUA and Eliso ARKANIA against Georgia

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section ), sitting on 20 May 2014 as a Committee composed of:

Paul Mahoney , President, Nona Tsotsoria , Krzysztof Wojtyczek , judges,

and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 September 2008 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1. The first applicant, Mr Tengiz Chkotua, was a Georgian national, who was born in 1964 and died in 2009 (see paragraph 3 below). The second applicant, Mrs Eliso Arkania, his wife, is also a Georgian national born in 1964. She is represented before the Court by Ms R. Korchilava, a lawyer practising in Tbilisi.

2. On 16 November 2006 the first applicant was arrested in relation to a drug offence, and on 28 March 2007 the Zugdidi District Court convicted him of that offence. He was sentenced to ten years ’ imprisonment.

4. At the time of the initiation of the criminal proceedings against the first applicant and his consequent detention, he had already been infected with pulmonary tuberculosis, viral hepatitis C and suffered from certain other diseases. The medical documents available in the case file do not disclose as to what type of treatment was provided for the first applicant ’ s various health problems in prison, if any.

3. On 5 March 2010 the second applicant informed the Court that her husband had died on 26 December 2009 as a result of the lack of care for his diseases in prison, and that a criminal investigation had been launched in that respect. She stated her intention to pursue the proceedings before the Court in her own name as well as on behalf of her late husband.

COMPLAINTS

4. Citing, in substance, Article 2 of the Convention, the second applicant complained, in her own name as well as on behalf of her late husband, about the prison authority ’ s failure to protect his health and life in prison.

THE LAW

5. On 14 May 2013 the Court gave notice of the application to the Government under Article 2 of the Convention.

6. On 25 October 2013 the Government informed the Court that they wished to effect a friendly settlement with the applicant party, for the purposes of which they submitted a formal declaration couched in the following terms:

“Considering the factual and legal circumstances of the case, the Government wish to express their regretful acknowledgment of a violation of Article 2 of the Convention on account of the lack of medical treatment provided to the first applicant during his imprisonment and the ineffectiveness of the investigation into his death.

The Government are prepared, within the scope of the present declaration, to:

- conduct effective investigation with respect to the [first] applicant ’ s death;

- pay 10,000 (ten thousand) Euros to the [second] applicant to cover any pecuniary or non-pecuniary damages and costs of expenses, which will be free of any taxes that may be applicable to the applicant. This sum will be converted into the respondent State ’ s national currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and 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 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 fulfilment of the above-mentioned conditions will constitute the final resolution of the case.”

7. By a letter of 26 March 2014, the applicant informed the Court that she was prepared to accept the Government ’ s friendly-settlement declaration of 25 October 2013. She welcomed in particular the Government ’ s undertaking to conduct an effective investigation into the cause of the death of her husband in prison.

8. The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. In this connection, it reiterates that the fundamental character of Article 2 of the Convention requires that there should be some form of an effective official investigation in order for the cause of the death of a prisoner who had suffered from a serious disease in prison, as well as the possible lack of the requisite medical treatment, be elucidated (see, for instance, Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia , no. 35254/07 , §§ 87 ‑ 89 , 22 November 2011 ).

9. The Court is thus 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. 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.

FatoÅŸ Aracı Paul Mahoney              Deputy Registrar President