SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 47793/10
Mehmet AKARSUBAŞI
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 4 November 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Helen Keller, President,
Egidijus Kūris,
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges,
and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 July 2010,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Mehmet Akarsubaşı, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1967 and lives in Adana He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Özberk, a lawyer practising in Adana.
The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
On 25 December 2009 KESK (Kamu Emekçileri Sendikaları Konfederasyonu – Confederation of Public Employees’ Trade Unions) organised a meeting in Adana. The applicant attended this meeting. Subsequently, the Adana Governorship imposed a fine on the applicant pursuant to Article 32 of Law no. 5326, for disobeying the orders of the authorised bodies to protect public order and safety. The applicant filed an objection against the Adana Governorship’s decision which was subsequently dismissed by the Adana Magistrates’ Court.
On 8 March 2012 the Court decided to communicate the applicant’s complaints concerning the freedom of expression against him to the Government under Article 10 of the Convention. On 23 August 2012 the Government’s observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letter dated 13 February 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 4 October 2012 and that no extension of time had been requested. However, no response has been received to that letter. The applicant’s 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 applicant does not intend to pursue the application. However, no response has been received to that letter.
THE LAW
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.
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.
Abel CamposHelen Keller
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy