CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 26 juin 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s2A91C753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8BD2CFA4 { width:35.21pt; display:inline-block } .sBB035CE9 { width:234.45pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 23155/05 by Badri LAZIASHVILI against Georgia The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 27   June 2007 as a Chamber composed of:   Mrs   F. Tulkens, President,   Mr   A.B. Baka,   Mr   I. Cabral Barreto,   Mr   R. Türmen,   Mr   M. Ugrekhelidze,   Mrs   A. Mularoni,   Mrs   D. Jočienė, judges, and Mrs S. Dollé , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 June 2005, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, Having regard to the arguments submitted by the parties on 13 April and 2 May 2007, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Badri Laziashvili, is a Georgian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Tbilisi. He was represented before the Court by the lawyers of the Georgian Young Lawyers Association (“GYLA”), a non ‑ governmental organisation registered in Georgia. The Georgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr   B.   Bokhashvili of the Ministry of Justice. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In a judgement of 2 August 2002, the Isani-Samgori District Court in Tbilisi ordered private persons to pay the applicant USD 1, 170 (EUR 898 [1] ). The judgement became binding. The applicant initiated enforcement proceedings but the responsible authorities remained inactive. On 30 May 2003 the applicant brought a civil action against the competent enforcement authority, requesting damages for the non ‑ enforcement of the judgment of 2 August 2002. In a judgment of 20 January 2004, the Krtsanisi-Mtatsminda District Court in Tbilisi allowed the applicant’s claim and ordered the respondent enforcement agency to compensate the applicant in the amount of the non-discharged judgment debt. The judgment of 20 January 2004 became binding but, according to the GYLA’s submissions dated 22 November 2005, the authorities refused to enforce it. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the non-enforcement of the judgments of 2 August 2002 and 20   January 2004 and the absence of an effective remedy in this respect. PROCEDURE On 27 March 2007 the application was communicated to the Government (Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court) and the GYLA was informed thereof. In reply, the Chairman of the GYLA submitted on 13 April 2007 that the judgment debt of 20 January 2004 - EUR 898 - had been paid in full to the applicant in December 2005. He apologised for not having informed the Court of this fact earlier, but there had been a lack of communication between the GYLA and the applicant. In a letter of 2 May 2007 the Government confirmed that the judgment of 20 January 2004 had been fully enforced and contended that the applicant could no longer be considered to be a victim of the alleged violations. They requested the Court to accept the GYLA’s letter of 13 April 2007 as an indication of the fact that the applicant had lost interest in the proceedings before the Court and to strike the application out of its list of cases. The applicant has not objected to the Government’s comments of 2   May 2007. THE LAW   The Court notes that the communication of the application revealed the fact that the judgment of 20 January 2004, which was at the core of the applicant’s complaints, had been duly enforced in December 2005. In view of the parties’ comments of 13 April and 2 May 2007, the Court considers that the applicant is no longer interested in pursing his application. In these circumstances, the Court concludes that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application within the meaning of Article   37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. 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 further examination of the application. Accordingly, the application of Article 29   §   3 of the Convention should be discontinued and the case struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.     S. Dollé   F. Tulkens   Registrar   President   [1] Exchange rate as of 13 February 2007.