PATARAIA v. GEORGIA
Doc ref: 64006/10 • ECHR ID: 001-138532
Document date: October 22, 2013
- 0 Inbound citations:
- •
- 0 Cited paragraphs:
- •
- 0 Outbound citations:
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no . 64006/10 Ramaz PATARAIA against Georgia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 22 October 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President, Nona Tsotsoria, Valeriu Griţco, judges, and Marialena Tsirli , Deputy Section Registrar ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 November 2010,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1 . The applicant, Mr Ramaz Pataraia, is a Georgian national, who was born in 1988 and lives in Mtskheta. He was represen ted before the Court by Ms N. Andriashvili , a lawyer practising in Tbilisi.
2 . The Georgian Government (“the Government”) were repre sented by their Agent, Mr L. Meskhoradze of the Ministry of Justice.
3 . On 15 April 2011 the Court gave notice to the Government of the applicant ’ s complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning his alleged ill-treatment by prison officers, the failure to conduct an effective investigation in that regard and the alleged lack of adequate medical care for his paraparesis and mental health in prison.
4 . On 19 April 2013 the Government informed the Court that the applicant had been granted early release on the basis of the Amnesty Act of 21 December 2012.
5 . By a letter of 13 September 2013, the applicant requested the Court to strike his application out of its list of cases. He stated that he did not want to pursue his application any further. The Government have been informed of the applicant ’ s withdrawal request and did not object to it.
THE LAW
6 . In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. 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 continued examination of the 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.
Marialena Tsirli Luis López Guerra Deputy Registrar President