SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 25301/94
by İbrahim BABAOĞLU
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights, sitting on 14 May 2002 as a Chamber composed of
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrGaukur Jörundsson,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrR. Türmen,
MrC. Bîrsan,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze,
MrsA. Mularoni, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 12 September 1994,
Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, İbrahim Babaoğlu, is a Turkish national born in 1936 and lives in the province of Şanlıurfa. He was represented before the Court by Professor Françoise Hampson and Professor Kevin Boyle of the University of Essex (United Kingdom). The respondent Government were represented by their agent, Mr B. Çağlar.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant’s son, Nazım Babaoğlu, was a reporter at the Özgür Gündem newspaper. On 9 March 1994 Murat Yoğunlu, a well-known reporter in the district of Siverek went to the Şanlıurfa office of Özgür Gündem and asked Nazım and another reporter from the same office, whether they would send some newspapers to Siverek to be sold there.
On the morning of 12 March 1994, Nazım left his home where he lived with the applicant, and went to his office to work.
Murat Yoğunlu called Nazım several times to urge him to go to Siverek, stressing that he had a very important story. Nazım agreed and left for Siverek at about 12.00 a.m.
Nazım Babaoğlu did not return to Şanlıurfa and has not been seen since, save on 21 March 1994 as stated below.
The applicant sought unsuccessfully to establish the whereabouts of his son via, inter alia, the Özgür Gündem office, the Provincial Governor, the Şanlıurfa and Siverek Public Prosecutors and the Anti-Terrorism Department of the Siverek Security Directorate.
Some time after the disappearance, a woman whose name is unknown, went to the applicant’s house and informed the applicant that on 21 March 1994 she had seen Nazım Babaoğlu inside a black Renault car near her house in Şanlıurfa.
The preliminary investigations started by the Public Prosecutors in Siverek and Şanlıurfa were joined on 13 May 1994 and registered under file no. 1993/4245. These investigations were pending at the time of the application to the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant originally alleged that there was a substantial risk that agents of the State had secretly detained his son. He asserted that there existed an administrative practice of torture and numerous incidences of death in police custody. The applicant also referred to the lack of an effective investigation into the disappearance of his son. He invoked Articles 2, 3, 5, 13 and 14 of the Convention.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND COURT
The application was introduced with the Commission on 12 September 1994 and registered on 26 September 1994. On 8 December 1994 the application was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on 24 May 1995. The applicant made submissions on 7 December 1995.
On 20 May 1997 the Commission invited the applicant to submit a written statement by 21 October 1997 regarding the authenticity of his application to it. The applicant failed to comply with the time-limit, and on 10 February 1998 the Registry sent a reminder and strike-off warning to the applicant’s representatives, to which there was no response.
On 10 March 2000 the representatives of the applicant informed the Registry by letter that they withdrew from the case as they had had no further contacts with the applicant.
There has not been any further correspondence between the applicant and the Registry.
THE LAW
The applicant complained of the disappearance of his son and a lack of an effective investigation into this incident. He invoked Articles 2, 3, 5, 13 and 14 of the Convention.
The Government alleged in their written observations that the applicant had never filed an application with the Commission, nor had he signed any power of attorney for that purpose. They submitted that the only two petitions which the applicant had signed himself were on 13 March 1994 to the Anti-Terrorism Department of the Security Directorate and on 14 March 1994 to the Şanlıurfa Public Prosecutor.
Moreover, the Government submitted that, in his statements made on 9 February 1995 and 16 February 1995 at the Siverek Security Directorate and the Şanlıurfa Security Directorate respectively, the applicant had said that, following his son’s disappearance, members of the Democracy Party (DEP) came to his house and told him that all necessary applications were being made. The Government stress that the applicant had never said that he himself had applied to the Commission.
The applicant’s representatives contended that there had been a genuine application made by the applicant himself to the Commission at the beginning of April 1994. The applicant’s representatives had requested the applicant to provide a further statement confirming that the signatures on the power of attorney and the statement of 4 April 1994 were his own and that he intended to proceed with his application. However the applicant failed to submit such a statement.
The relevant part of Article 37 § 1 of the Convention provides as follows:
“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.”
The Court notes that the time-limit to submit the written statement regarding the authenticity of his application requested by the Commission expired on 21 October 1997 and that nothing was heard from the applicant or from his representatives, despite a reminder and strike-off warning from the Registry. On 10 March 2000, after more than two and a half years of silence, the representatives of the applicant informed the Registry of their withdrawal from this case. The applicant has made no direct contact with the Convention organs and has not appointed another lawyer to represent him.
In these circumstances the Court concludes that the applicant does not intend pursuing his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, and it finds no reasons of general interest concerning respect for human rights, within the meaning of the final sentence of Article 37 § 1, which would require the continued examination of the case.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
T. L. EarlyJ.-P. CostaDeputy Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy