CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 2 octobre 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 } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s9C23B4C7 { width:6.99pt; display:inline-block } .sCC343C85 { width:185.93pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFC8F8 { width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .s5A070004 { width:213.96pt; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 55486/10 Lena NATCHKEBIA against Georgia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 2   October   2012 as a Committee composed of:   Ján Šikuta, President,   Alvina Gyulumyan,   Nona Tsotsoria, judges,   Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 September 2010, Having regard to the parties’ letters, dated 13 June and 27 July 2012, accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The applicant, Ms Lena Natchkebia, is a Georgian national, who was born in 1977 and lives in Tbilisi. She was represented before the Court by Mr   Ioseb Khatiashvili, a lawyer practising in Tbilisi. 2.     The Georgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Levan Meskhoradze of the Ministry of Justice. 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4.     According to a report of the National Forensic Bureau on the   applicant’s psychiatric examination which took place between 7   and 23   October 2009 (“the psychiatric report”), the applicant, serving a prison sentence for robbery since June 2007, suffered from schizoaffective disorder (classification F   25). That disorder was manifested, amongst other symptoms, by auditory hallucinations, paranoia, bizarre delusions, disorganised speech and thinking. The conclusion was that the applicant was not responsible for her actions and required a compulsory psychiatric treatment in a mental hospital; only upon recovery could the applicant, according to the psychiatric report, continue serving her prison sentence. 5.     On 21 October 2010 the Court indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that the applicant, in line with the recommendations of the psychiatric report, be placed in a medical establishment capable of dispensing adequate care for her mental disorders. 6.     On 7 December 2010 the Government informed the Court that, pursuant to the interim measure indicated by the Court, the Tbilisi City Court had commuted on 17 November 2010 the applicant’s prison sentence to a compulsory psychiatric treatment in a civil mental hospital. 7.     On 16 February 2011 the Court reconsidered the application in the light of the information provided by the Government and decided to lift the interim measure previously indicated on 21 October 2010. The applicant was invited to inform the Court whether, in the light of the latest developments of the case, she wished to pursue her application. 8.     The applicant’s representative replied on 18 March 2011, maintaining his client’s interest in the proceedings before the Court. Whilst welcoming the authorities’ decision to place the applicant in the civil mental hospital for treatment, the representative complained that that intervention had been belated. COMPLAINTS 9.     The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that she had been left without adequate mental care in prison prior to 17   November 2010. THE LAW 10.     After an exchange of letters between the parties in the context of friendly settlement negotiations, the applicant’s representative informed the Court, by a letter of 13 June 2012, that his client would agree to desist from the proceedings before the Court in exchange for the Government’s acceptance of the following three conditions. 11.     Firstly, the applicant should be paid EUR 3,500, which sum would cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. Secondly, the Government should set up a panel of psychiatric experts, which should include three medical experts nominated by the applicant party (Mrs M. Jishkariani, Mr G. Berulava and Mrs L. Chokheli), for the purposes of conducting another examination of the applicant’s mental health and defining her disability status. Thirdly, the Government must undertake further specific steps in order to improve the quality of the psychiatric care in the Georgian prison sector. 12.     By a letter of 27 July 2012, the Government, informing the Court that they accepted the applicant’s conditions, submitted the following declaration:   “...The Government agree to conduct another psychiatric examination of the applicant for the purposes of reviewing her diagnosis; the participation of the experts nominated by the applicant party will be ensured. ... The Government note that the applicant is entitled to have her disability status defined ... [and] the Government will bear all the costs in relation to the relevant examination. The Government will pay the applicant EUR 3,500 (three thousand and five hundred   euros) in compensation for any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. Finally, the Government note that the current reforms aimed at the improvement of access to and the quality of psychiatric care in the penitentiary system will progressively continue.” 13.     On 6 August 2012 the Court, explicitly noting that the Government had accepted the applicant’s friendly settlement proposals of 13 June 2012, transmitted the Government’s letter of 27 July 2012, together with the accompanying declaration, to the applicant for information and/or eventual comments. 14.     The applicant did not object to the terms in which the Government had accepted her friendly settlement proposals. 15.     In the light of the foregoing, the Court, taking note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties, is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application. 16.     As regards the Government’s undertaking to conduct the applicant’s psychiatric examination for the purposes of reviewing her diagnosis and defining her disability status, the Court considers that it should be fulfilled within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision issued in accordance with Article 39 § 3 of the Convention. 17.     As to the amount of compensation offered to the applicant by the Government in their declaration, the Court considers that it should be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of payment, and paid within the same period of three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision issued in accordance with Article 39 § 3 of the Convention. In the event of failure to settle within this period, simple interest shall be payable on the amount in question at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points. 18.     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 in accordance with Article   39 of the Convention.   Santiago Quesada   Ján Šikuta   Registrar   President