CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 20 mai 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s38747C79 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s8BA86F1C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sD2F5C9FD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-after:avoid } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s172EF8F1 { width:208.76pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 3658/10 Tariel BAKRADZE against Georgia The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 20   May   2014 as a Committee composed of:   Paul Mahoney, President,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 January 2010, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 13 February 2014 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to this declaration, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The applicant, Mr Tariel Bakradze, is a Georgian national, who was born in 1958 and lives in Rustavi. He was represented before the Court by Mr   Z. Rostiashvili, a lawyer practising in Tbilisi. The Georgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Meskhoradze, of the Ministry of Justice. 2.     The case mainly concerned the lack of adequate medical care for the applicant’s various diseases in prison. On 3 January 2012 it was communicated, under Article 3 of the Convention, to the respondent Government. 3.     By a letter of 13 February 2014, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The relevant parts of the declaration read as follows: “The Government of Georgia acknowledge that, in the particular circumstances of the instant case, there was a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the deficiencies identified in the course of the medical treatment of Mr Tariel Bakradze. It should be noted that the applicant was released from imprisonment before expiration of his twelve years’ sentence, on 10 January 2014, on the basis of a presidential pardon. In the light of the particular facts of the applicant’s case, the Government declare that they are prepared to pay to the applicant 4,500 (four thousand five hundred) Euros to cover any and all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and costs and expenses. This sum will be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable to the applicant. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court .... In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment shall constitute a final resolution of the case. ...” 4.     By a letter of 4 April 2014, the applicant informed the Court that he accepted the terms of the Government’s declaration and agreed to the strike ‑ out of his application. THE LAW 5.     The Court considers that the applicant’s express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government can be considered as an implied friendly settlement between them. 6.     The Court therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It 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. 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.   Fatoş Aracı   Paul Mahoney Deputy Registrar   President