SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 12061/09
Osman AĞGÖZ
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 7 Februray 2017 as a Committee composed of:
Nebojša Vučinić, President,
Valeriu Griţco,
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 February 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Mr Osman Ağgöz, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1976 and was detained in Kırıkkale prison when the present application was lodged.
2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their agent.
3. In his application, the applicant complained under Articles 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Convention about the prison authorities’ interruption during his conversation with his wife, which they had been conducting in Kurdish during a prison visit.
4. The application was communicated to the Government under Article 8 of the Convention. By a letter dated 15 March 2016, the applicant was notified that according to Rule 36 §§ 2 and 4 of the Rules of Court that an applicant needs to be represented by an advocate before the Court at this stage of the proceedings. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
5. By a further letter dated 21 September 2016, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified anew that he was required to be represented for the purposes of proceedings following notification of the application to the respondent Government. The applicant’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 applicant does not intend to pursue the application. On 18 October 2016, this letter returned to the Court for the reason that the applicant was not found at the address indicated on his correspondence with the Court.
6. The Government submitted their statement of facts and observations on the admissibility and merits, and stated that the applicant had been released from prison on 16 April 2010. However, the applicant has not informed the Court of his release from prison nor of his new address.
THE LAW
7. Rule 47 § 7 of the Rules of Court reads:
“Applicants shall keep the Court informed of any change of address and of all circumstances relevant to the application.”
8. Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, provides:
“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; ...
However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”
9. The Court reiterates that an applicant’s failure to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case or other information or documents requested by the Court may warrant the conclusion that he or she does not intend to pursue the application (see, inter alia, Ay v. Germany (dec.), no. 12851/12, 23 September 2014 and Perek v. Poland (dec.), no. 37021/05, 9 September 2008).
10. In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the applicant must 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.
11. Therefore, 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 2 March 2017.
Hasan BakırcıNebojša Vučinić
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy