CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 27 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 } .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 } .s6667B4BF { width:213.78pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 16516/10 Zurab TIBILASHVILI against Georgia The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 27   May   2014 as a Committee composed of:   Päivi Hirvelä, President,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Faris Vehabović, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 March 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 Zurab Tibilashvili, is a Georgian national, who was born in 1977 and lives in the village of Manavi. 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 concerned the lack of adequate medical care for the applicant’s various diseases in prison. On 26 May 2010 it was communicated, under Article 3 of the Convention, to the respondent Government. 3.     On 2 February 2011 the applicant passed away, but his mother, Mrs   Dali Tibilashvili, confirmed, on 18 March 2011, her interest in pursuing the proceedings before the Court in her own name as well as on behalf of her late son. She did not introduce any additional complaints. 4.     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 Zurab Tibilashvili. Considering all the above-mentioned, the Government declare that they are prepared to pay to the applicant’s heir, Mrs Dali Tibilashvili, 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. ...” 5.     By a letter of 16 April 2014, the applicant’s mother informed the Court that she accepted the terms of the Government’s declaration and agreed to the strike-out of the application. THE LAW 6.     The Court 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   Päivi Hirvelä Deputy Registrar   President