KARAKHMAZLI v. GEORGIA
Doc ref: 49627/09 • ECHR ID: 001-118417
Document date: March 12, 2013
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no . 49627/09 Vilaiat KARAKHMAZLI against Georgia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 12 March 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 September 2009,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Vilaiat Karakhmazli , is a Georgian national, who was born in 1944 and lives in Marneuli . He was represented before the Court by Ms Nunu Chocheli , a lawyer practising in Tbilisi . The Georgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Levan Meskhoradze of the Ministry of Justice.
On 22 November 2011 the Court gave notice to the Government of the applicant ’ s complaints under Articles 3 and 34 of the Convention concerning the allegedly inadequate medical treatment provided to the applicant in prison and the improper implementation of the interim measure indicated by the Court under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. On 16 April 2012 the Government ’ s observations on the admissibility and merits were received. The observations were forwarded to the applicant ’ s representative, who was invited to submit by 30 May 2012 observations in reply, together with any claims for just satisfaction. No reply was received to the Registry ’ s letter.
By a letter dated 26 June 2012, sent by registered post, the applicant ’ s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the observations had expired on 30 May 2012 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant ’ s representative ’ s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. A copy of the above letter was also sent to the applicant ’ s home address on 28 August 2012.
In her reply of 25 October 2012, the applicant ’ s representative informed the Court that the applicant had lost trust in her and ceased cooperating; nevertheless, he had not formally rejected her services and, hence, she was continuing to represent him in the proceedings before the Court. Further, without providing any explanations as to the failure to submit observations within the time-limit set for that purpose, the representative maintained that she wished to maintain the application before the Court.
In the absence of any reply from the applicant, the Court sent yet another letter by registered post on 12 November 2012 to the applicant ’ s prison address. The applicant was asked to inform the Court whether he had rejected Ms Nunu Chocheli as his representative in the proceedings before the Court and whether he wished to maintain his application. A copy of the above letter was also sent to the applicant ’ s home address as well as to Ms Nunu Chocheli ’ s address.
No response to the above letter has been received from the applicant. Meanwhile by a letter of 10 December 2012 Ms Nunu Chocheli maintained her position concerning the application. She noted that she would continue representing the applicant in the proceedings before the Court until he appoints a new representative.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in the circumstances described above, 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
LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
