SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 40872/05
BELDESULTAN TUR. TİC. İNŞ. SAN. VE TİC. LTD. ŞTİ.
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 10 January 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President,
Guido Raimondi,
Helen Keller, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 October 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Beldesultan Tic. Ltd. Şti. is a company governed by Turkish law. It is represented before the Court by Ms. N. Burma, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of civil proceedings was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letter dated 23 July 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 28 May 2010 and that no extension of time had been requested. The 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 6 August 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-PassosIsabelle Berro-Lefevre
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy