THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 26354/02
by Seyit Ali ALTUNKIRAN
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 2 October 2003 as a Chamber composed of:
MrG. Ress, President,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrL. Caflisch,
MrR. Türmen,
MrB. Zupančič,
MrJ. Hedigan,
MrsH.S. Greve, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 March 2002,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Seyit Ali Altunkıran, was a Turkish national, who was born in 1932 and lived in Erzincan. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. A. Kirdök, Mr Özcan Kılıç and Mr Hasan Kemal Elban, lawyers practising in İstanbul.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
Until October 1994 the applicant lived in Şahverdi, a village of the Ovacık district in Tunceli, where he owns property.
On 4 and 5 October 1994 security forces forcibly evacuated Şahverdi on account of disturbances in the region. They also destroyed the applicant’s property. The applicant and his family then moved to the Değirmenli village of the Erzincan province, where they currently live.
On 7 October 1994 the applicant lodged a petition with the Public Prosecutor’s office in Ovacık complaining about the burning down of his house by the security forces on 4 and 5 October 1994.
On 9 December 1994 the Ovacık Public Prosecutor issued a decision of non-jurisdiction and sent the case file to the office of the Administrative Council in Ovacık, in accordance with Article 4 §§ b and ı of Decree no. 285 and the Law on the Prosecution of Civil Servants.
On 25 October 1995 the Administrative Council sent a letter to the applicant stating that no investigation into his allegations would be initiated, as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified.
On 11 September 2001 the applicant filed a petition with the District Governor’s office in Ovacık requesting permission to return to his village.
On 31 October 2001 the State of Emergency Unit of the District Governor’s office in Ovacık sent the following reply to the applicant:
“Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor’s office and will be considered under the ‘Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’.”
On 18 June 2003 the applicant’s representatives informed the Court that the applicant had died and that his family did not wish to pursue the application.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant alleged violations of Articles 1, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14 and 17 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
The applicant complained under Article 1 of the Convention that the respondent State has failed to secure his rights and freedoms set out in the Convention within its jurisdiction.
The applicant alleged under Article 6 of the Convention that he had been denied access to court to challenge the decisions of the authorities. He contended that the authorities’ refusal to allow him to return to his village and to have access to his property was in violation of Article 7 of the Convention.
The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that his right to respect for his family life and home was violated as he had been forcibly displaced from his village and was prevented from returning.
The applicant alleged under Article 13 of the Convention that he has had no effective remedy for his various Convention grievances.
As to Article 14 of the Convention, in conjunction with Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant alleged that he has been discriminated against on the basis of his place of residence.
The applicant submitted that the respondent State applied restrictions to the Convention rights in violation of the Convention, particularly in the State of Emergency Region. He relied on Article 17 of the Convention.
As to the Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1, the applicant alleged that his right to peaceful enjoyment of their property was violated as he had been prevented from returning to his village and using his possessions.
THE LAW
The Court observes that the applicant died on an unspecified date and that his heirs do not wish to pursue the application.
In these circumstances, the Court concludes that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. Furthermore, the Court finds no reasons of a general character, as defined in Article 37 § 1 in fine, which would require the examination of the application by virtue of that Article. It therefore, decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Vincent BergerGeorg Ress
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy