SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 32024/06
İsmet BAŞER and others
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 31 January 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Dragoljub Popović, President,
András Sajó,
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 July 2006,
Having regard to the partial decision of 8 December 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr İsmet Başer (“the first applicant”) and Göker Arslan (“the second applicant”), are Turkish nationals who were born in 1963 and 1974 respectively and live in Ankara. They are represented before the Court by Mr G. Tanrıverdi and Mr. C. Emir, lawyers practising in Ankara. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non-execution of a final judgment by a municipality. By a partial decision of 8 December 2009, the Court decided to give notice to the Government of the applicants’ complaints. On 9 April 2010 the applicants’ representative informed the Court that the second applicant wanted to withdraw his application. On 17 May 2010 the Government submitted to the Registry their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. The observations of the Government were forwarded on 9 June 2010 to the first applicant, who was invited to submit observations in reply by 21 July 2010. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter within the time limit.
By letter dated 21 December 2010, sent by registered post, the first applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired on 21 July 2010 and that no extension of time had been requested. The first 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. The applicant’s representative received this letter on 3 January 2011. However, no response has been received since then.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the first applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. As regards the second applicant, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the 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 remainder of the application out of its list of cases.
Françoise Elens-PassosDragoljub Popović
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy