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

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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. 25300/10 Theona SAVOSTINA 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 3 May 2010, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The applicant, Ms Theona Savostina, is a Georgian national who was born in 1984. She was represented before the Court by Mr   Sh.   Khatchapuridze, a lawyer practising in Tbilisi. The Georgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr   L.   Meskhoradze, of the Ministry of Justice. 2.     On 12 May 2010 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 treatment for her various health problems in prison. 3.     By letter dated 29 September 2010 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant’s representative, who was requested to submit any claims for just satisfaction by 10 November 2010. The applicant did not reply. 4.     By letters dated 21 July 2011 and 29 January 2014, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was repeatedly reminded that the period allowed for submission of the just satisfaction claims had long expired and that no extension of time or any other correspondence had been submitted since then. The 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 applicants do not intend to pursue the applications. 5.     The applicant’s representative received the latest of the Court’s warnings on 12 February 2014. However, he has never replied. THE LAW 6.     In the light of the above circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue her 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.   Fatoş Aracı   Paul Mahoney Deputy Registrar   President