BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Julietta BERISHVILI v Georgia - 14127/05 [2009] ECHR 2094 (24 November 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/2094.html Cite as: [2009] ECHR 2094 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
14127/05
by Julietta BERISHVILI
against Georgia
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 24 November 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens,
President,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Danutė
Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović,
András
Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Kristina Pardalos,
judges,
and Françoise
Elens-Passos, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 March 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mrs Julietta Berishvili, is a Georgian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Rustavi. She was represented before the Court by Mr I. Ninua, a lawyer practising in Tbilisi. The Georgian Government (“the Government”) were successively represented by their Agents, Mr D. Tomadze and Mr L. Meskhoradze of the Ministry of Justice.
On 24 June 2008 the Government were given notice of the applicant’s complaints under Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention concerning the State’s positive obligation to protect the life and health of her minor child who had had difficulty in surviving after an attack by a venomous snake. The Government then submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits, which were forwarded to the applicant. She was invited to submit her own observations by 6 March 2009 but failed to do so. The applicant remained silent even after the Court’s reminder, with a warning that her application might be struck out under Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, had been served on her representative by registered post on 1 September 2009.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, 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.
Françoise Elens-Passos Françoise
Tulkens
Deputy Registrar President