European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Baghdagul SEIDOVA v Georgia - 16956/09 [2009] ECHR 2093 (24 November 2009)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/2093.html
Cite as: [2009] ECHR 2093
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
16956/09
by Baghdagul SEIDOVA
against Georgia
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 24 November 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens,
President,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Danutė
Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović,
András
Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Kristina Pardalos,
judges,
and Françoise
Elens-Passos, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 December 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mrs Baghdagul Seidova, is a Georgian national who was born in 1945. She was represented before the Court by Mr Z. Rostiashvili, a lawyer practising in Tbilisi. The Georgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Meskhoradze of the Ministry of Justice.
On 22 April 2009 the Court gave notice to the Government of the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the lack of treatment of her cardio-vascular problems in prison.
On 27 April and 15 September 2009 the Government submitted medical information on the applicant’s state of health as well as their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. Those submissions disclosed that the applicant had started receiving the relevant treatment.
On 15 September 2009 the applicant informed the Court that she wished to withdraw her application as the matter had been resolved. The Government did not object.
THE LAW
In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to lift the interim measure indicated by the Court and to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Françoise Elens-Passos Françoise
Tulkens
Deputy Registrar President