European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Giorgi GAMREKELASHVILI v Georgia - 6439/10 [2011] ECHR 1496 (6 September 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1496.html
Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1496
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
6439/10
by Giorgi GAMREKELASHVILI
against
Georgia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 6 September 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Alvina
Gyulumyan,
President,
Luis
López Guerra,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
judges,
and Marialena Tsirli,
Deputy Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 January 2010,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 9 September 2010,
Having regard to the applicant’s letters of 9 November 2010 and 10 March 2011,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Giorgi Gamrekelashvili, was a Georgian national who was born in 1981 and died on 25 June 2010, pending the proceedings before the Court. He was represented before the Court by Mr Mirian Nikoladze, a lawyer practising in Tbilisi. The Georgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Levan Meskhoradze of the Ministry of Justice.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
A. Domestic proceedings
The applicant was serving a ten year prison sentence since 19 February 2007, the date of his conviction for armed robbery by the Tbilisi City Court. Allegedly, he contracted pulmonary tuberculosis in detention.
On 26 October 2007 the applicant, diagnosed for the first time with an open form of tuberculosis, started receiving conventional anti-tuberculosis drugs under the DOTS programme in prison (Directly Observed Treatment, Short-course – the treatment strategy for the detection and cure of TB recommended by the World Health Organisation). However, according to an opinion of a prison doctor dated 21 September 2008, that treatment proved to be unsuccessful, in so far as the applicant’s tuberculosis appeared to be multidrug-resistant.
A report on the applicant’s medical examination conducted by the National Forensic Bureau between 29 July and 13 August 2009 showed that his state of health remained steadily critical despite the fact that he had started receiving second-line anti-tuberculosis drugs (SLDs), which were normally administered with respect to multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, since 24 April 2009. The report recommended that the applicant’s treatment with SLDs should continue on an in-patient basis.
On 31 August 2009 the applicant requested that the outstanding part of his sentence be suspended in view of his critical state of health, pending his recovery from tuberculosis. That request was dismissed by the Tbilisi City Court and the Tbilisi Court of Appeal on 23 September and 9 December 2009 respectively. The domestic courts reasoned that, whilst the applicant was a gravely ill person, his state of health could not impair his ability to serve the sentence. They further stated that the applicant had already been provided with the necessary SLDs in prison.
In November-December 2009, the prison authority placed the applicant in a civil TB hospital – the National Centre of Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases – for a short course of in-patient treatment.
B. The proceedings before the Court
On 12 May 2010 the Court gave notice to the Government of the applicant’s complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention concerning the lack of adequate medical care treatment for his tuberculosis in prison.
On 6 August 2010 the applicant’s representative (“the representative”) informed the Court that his client had died on 25 June 2010 in prison as a result of respiratory complications caused by tuberculosis. In reply, the Court enquired whether there was an heir or a close relative of the late applicant wishing to maintain the application (cf. Leger v. France (dec.) [GC], no. 19324/02, §§ 43-51, 30 March 2009).
On 9 September 2010 the Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application, which included detailed information about the medical treatment provided to the applicant by the prison authority; the Government did not comment on the applicant’s death. The Court transmitted those observations to the representative, inviting him to comment in reply by 9 November 2010.
On 9 November 2010 the representative, instead of submitting comments on the Government’s observations, informed the Court that the applicant’s family had been approached by the Government with certain friendly settlement proposals. The representative promised to brief the Court on the outcome of those negotiations.
On 10 March 2011 the representative informed the Court by facsimile that, by virtue of the Tbilisi City Court’s decision of 17 January 2011, the applicant’s mother had been awarded 10,000 Georgian Laris (some 4,300 Euros) in non-pecuniary damage for the lack of adequate treatment of her late son in prison. Consequently, the representative continued, the matter could be considered to have been resolved on the domestic level and the proceedings before the Court should thus be discontinued. On 20 May 2011 the representative submitted the original of the withdrawal request to the Court by post.
THE LAW
The Court first notes that the applicant’s mother may claim to be a victim, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, of the violations alleged by her late son under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see, amongst others, Renolde v. France, no. 5608/05, § 69, 16 October 2008).
However, having regard to the foregoing factual circumstances and, in particular, to the information contained in the representative’s letters of 9 November 2010 and 10 March 2011, the Court considers that the applicant’s mother may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue the present 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 application (cf. Archaia v. Georgia (dec.), no. 6643/10, 14 December 2010; Murad Todua v. Georgia (dec.), no. 6024/10, 9 November 2010).
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Marialena Tsirli Alvina
Gyulumyan
Deputy
Registrar President