European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Gocha TSETSKHLADZE v Georgia - 50613/06 [2011] ECHR 1880 (18 October 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1880.html
Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1880
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
50613/06
by Gocha TSETSKHLADZE
against
Georgia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 18 October 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 11 December 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Gocha Tsetskhladze, is a Georgian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Tbilisi. He was represented before the Court by Mr Wolfgang Schulz, a lawyer practising in Berlin. The Georgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Levan Meskhoradze of the Ministry of Justice.
On 18 April 2011 the Court gave notice to the Government of the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the alleged lack of adequate medical care in prison for his viral hepatitis C.
By a letter of 14 September 2011, the applicant requested the Court to strike his application out of its list of cases. He submitted that on 29 August 2009, by virtue of a Presidential pardon, he had been released from serving the remainder of his sentence and 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
In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the matter has been resolved at the domestic level and that the applicant has no intention to pursue his application (Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) 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 Alvina Gyulumyan
Deputy
Registrar President