CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 18 septembre 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s88036C24 { width:29.79pt; display:inline-block } .s4ABA8125 { width:197.98pt; display:inline-block } .sAFF36EC2 { width:18.78pt; display:inline-block } .s6C2D746E { width:198.98pt; display:inline-block }     FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 44331/10 Y against Georgia   The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 18   September 2018 as a Committee composed of:   André Potocki, President,   Mārtiņš Mits,   Lado Chanturia, judges, and Milan Blaško, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 July 2010, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The applicant, Y, is a Georgian national. The President granted the applicant’s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule   47 §   4). He was represented before the Court by Mr A. Shoshikelashvili, a lawyer practising in Tbilisi. 2.     The application mainly concerned the alleged absence of medical care for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) of the applicant, who had been serving a prison sentence from 21 July 2008; he had contracted HIV several years before his imprisonment. On 5 December 2011 the case was communicated under Article 3 of the Convention to the Georgian Government (“the Government”) who were represented by their Agent, Mr   L.   Meskhoradze, of the Ministry of Justice. 3.     As disclosed by the parties’ additional submissions, filed with the Court after the communication of the case, the prison authority had started dispensing the relevant anti-retroviral treatment for the applicant’s HIV since 3 September 2009. As a result of that treatment, which lasted until the applicant’s early release from prison (see paragraph 5 below), the activity of his virus significantly stabilised, which was considered to be a success by the treating prison doctors. 4.     On 10 April 2013 the Registry of the Court enquired with both parties whether they would be interested in reaching a friendly settlement. Whilst the Government answered in the affirmative, the letter addressed to the applicant’s representative was returned to the Registry undelivered with the following annotation made by the Georgian post – “unclaimed”. Subsequently, the Registry attempted to reach the representative at various telephone numbers indicated to that end in the application form, but to no avail. 5.     By a letter 19 April 2013, the Government informed the Court that the applicant had been released from prison on 20 July 2012. On 29 April 2012 the Court transmitted the Government’s letter to the applicant, but the latter did not comment. 6.     By a letter of 16 April 2018, the Court requested the applicant’s representative to confirm his client’s interest towards the proceedings and to update it of any important factual developments that might have occurred since the Court’s last correspondence. However, the letter was returned to the Court undelivered as the addressee had not been found. 7.     Thus, the applicant has not kept any contact with the Court since April 2012. THE LAW 8.     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. 9.     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. Done in English and notified in writing on 11 October 2018.   Milan Blaško   André Potocki   Deputy Registrar   President