SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 10910/04 and 10923/04
by Selahattin Müjdat AKTÜRK and Others and Aniş AKIN and Others
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 12 January 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Işıl Karakaş, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar.
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 6 July 1998,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, whose names appear in the appendix hereto, are Turkish nationals who live in Ankara. They are represented before the Court by Mr S. Sarıkaya, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicants complained of the delayed payment of their additional expropriation compensation and the resulting loss they suffered in view of the low interest rates.
THE LAW
The Court finds in the first place that, because of the similarity of the factual and legal issues involved, it is appropriate to join the present applications.
However, the Court further considers that it is no longer required to examine these applications, for the reasons elaborated below.
By letter dated 27 March 2009, the Government’s observations were sent to the applicants’ representative, who was requested to submit any comments, together with any claims for just satisfaction, by 8 May 2009. The applicants’ representative did not respond.
By letter dated 11 September 2009, sent by registered post, the applicants’ representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicants’ observations had expired on 8 May 2009 and that no extension of time had been requested. The attention of the representative 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. According to the record of delivery, the Registry’s letter was received by the applicants’ representative on an unspecified date in September 2009. However, no response has been received to date.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their applications, 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 cases. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.
Françoise Elens-PassosFrançoise Tulkens
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Appendix
File No
Case Name
Date of lodging
Introduced by
10910/04
AKTÜRK and OTHERS v. TURKEY
6 July 1998
Selahattin Müjdat Aktürk, Müjgan Ulusöver and Mehmet Selim Aktürk
10923/04
AKIN and OTHERS v. TURKEY
6 July 1998
Aniş Akın, Aydın Akın and Arzu Akın
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy