SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 21564/06
by Şahin BAYAR
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 29 March 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Ireneu Cabral Barreto, President,
Dragoljub Popović,
András Sajó, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 May 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Mr Şahin Bayar, a Turkish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Istanbul. He is represented before the Court by Mr D. Avcı and Mr K. T. Sürek, lawyers practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he had been denied a fair hearing as the domestic courts’ decisions had lacked reasoning, that the domestic courts had failed to seek his defence submissions and to respond to his objections. He further complained under Article 10 of the Convention that the seizure of the daily newspaper Günlük Evrensel, of which he was the editor-in-chief, had infringed his right to freedom of expression.
By letter dated 26 November 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representatives were notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 4 August 2010 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s representatives’ 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. It appears that the applicant’s representatives received this letter on 8 December 2010. However, no response has been received.
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.
Françoise Elens-PassosIreneu Cabral Barreto
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy