CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 10 mai 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s260B30F2 { width:16.02pt; display:inline-block } .sF03B00FD { width:194.96pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 10076/10 Taftikh MUSAEV against Georgia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10 May 2012 as a Committee composed of:   Ján Šikuta, President,   Ineta Ziemele,   Nona Tsotsoria, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 January 2010, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Taftikh Musaev, is a Georgian national who was born in 1947 and lives in the Village of Zemo Bolnisi. He was represented before the Court by Ms Madina Musaeva, his wife. The Georgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Levan Meskhoradze of the Ministry of Justice. On 13 January 2011 the Court gave notice to the Government of the applicant’s complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention concerning the allegedly inadequate medical care provided to the applicant for his serious cardiological problems in prison. On 6 May 2011 the Government’ observations on the admissibility and merits were received. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit by 30 June 2011 his own observations in reply, together with any claims for just satisfaction. He was also reminded of Rule 36 §§ 2 and 4 according to which he had to appoint a lawyer to represent him before the Court. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. By a letter dated 6 February 2012, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 30 June 2011 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s representative’s attention was drawn to Article 37 §1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. No reply or further correspondence has since been received from the applicant. THE LAW The Court considers that, in these circumstances, 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. 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   Ján Šikuta   Deputy Registrar   President