European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Guram ELIZBARASHVILI v Georgia - 28263/07 [2010] ECHR 1941 (9 November 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1941.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1941
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
28263/07
by Guram ELIZBARASHVILI
against Georgia
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 9 November 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise
Tulkens, President,
Ireneu
Cabral Barreto,
Danutė
Jočienė,
András
Sajó,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
Işıl
Karakaş,
Kristina
Pardalos, judges,
and
Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 July 2007,
Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Mr Guram Elizbarashvili, a Georgian national who was born in 1983. He was represented before the Court by Ms Manana Kobakhidze and Ms Vanda Jijelava, lawyers practising in Tbilisi. The Georgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Levan Meskhoradze of the Ministry of Justice.
The application concerned the alleged lack of adequate medical treatment for the applicant and the conditions of his detention. A major complaint, supported by a number of forensic psychiatric reports (“the forensic reports”), was that the applicant, detained and prosecuted for murder, had serious mental disorders and required compulsory psychiatric treatment. A domestic court found him, on the basis of those forensic reports, mentally unfit for trial. Additional medical documents proved that the applicant had been infected with viral hepatitis C (HCV).
On 6 July 2007 the President of the Chamber indicated to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that the applicant be placed in the prison hospital where an appropriate treatment for his mental disorders and HCV could be dispensed. The Government then reported on the implementation of the indicated medical measure.
On 15 May 2008 the Court gave notice to the Government of the application under Article 3 of the Convention. Subsequently, the parties exchanged, in several rounds, medical information concerning the applicant’s condition as well as their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. Those submissions disclosed that the applicant had started receiving the relevant anti-viral treatment for his HCV. As to the question of whether or not his psychiatric treatment had been relevant and sufficient, it remained a highly controversial, contested issue between the parties.
On 1 April 2010 the applicant, acting through his representatives, informed the Court that he wished to withdraw his application as the matter had been resolved on the domestic level. On 18 June 2010 he reiterated this request for withdrawal.
On 27 July 2010 the Government commented that they did not object to having the application struck out of the list of pending cases. They further informed the Court that, in early July 2010, the psychiatric experts who had issued the forensic reports, as well as the applicant’s family members, had been detained and charged with bribery and falsification of official documents. Those criminal proceedings were, according to the Government’s submissions, still pending at the investigation stage. According to the incriminating statements made by the above-mentioned arrested suspects on 4 July 2010, the impugned forensic reports, deceitfully portraying the applicant as a mental patient, had been issued by the experts in exchange for a bribe of 40,000 United States dollars (some 28,860 euros) paid by the applicant’s father; the illicit deal was aimed at the exemption of the applicant from criminal liability for murder. The Government suggested that, since the applicant had been trying to mislead the Court by the falsified forensic reports, his application constituted an abuse of the right of petition, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention.
The Government’s submissions of 27 July 2010 were transmitted to the applicant’s representatives on 25 August 2010, but they did comment in reply.
THE LAW
At the outset, in reply to the Government’s objection as regards the abuse of the right of petition, the Court notes that, according to their submissions of 27 July 2010, the criminal proceedings for bribery and falsification of the forensic reports are still pending at the domestic level. Consequently, having due regard to the principle of the presumption of innocence, it would not be appropriate to make premature allusions, prejudging, in lieu of the competent domestic courts, the establishment of the facts constitutive of the offences with which the applicant’s family members and the relevant psychiatric experts have been charged.
However, having due regard to the applicant’s own request for the withdrawal of his complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, which was made in a clear and unambiguous manner on two occasions, 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 (cf. Seidova v. Georgia (dec.), no. 16956/09, 24 November 2009).
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 previously indicated on 6 July 2007 under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Françoise Elens-Passos Françoise
Tulkens
Deputy Registrar President
