SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 55686/11
Mohammed BELFKİ
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 1 October 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Dragoljub Popović, President,
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,
Helen Keller, judges,
and Seçkin Erel, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 July 2011,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Mohammed Belfki, is a Moroccan national, who was born in 1965 and lives in Kırklareli. He is represented before the Court by Mr Ferdi Amca, a lawyer practising in Antalya.
The application complained under Articles 3, 5 §§ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, of the Convention about his alleged unlawful detention at the Kırklareli Gaziosmanpaşa Foreigners’ Removal Centre in poor conditions of detention and alleged ill-treatment inflicted on him during his detention. The applicant was detained at the Kırklareli Gaziosmanpaşa Foreigners’ Removal Centre between 27 May 2010 and 6 January 2011 and was released at the latter date.
By letters dated 28 September 2012, 9 April and 28 May 2013 the applicant’s representative was requested to submit a copy of the applicant’s identity document, to provide information regarding the applicant’s whereabouts and to inform the Court as to whether he was in contact with the applicant and whether the applicant wished to maintain the application.
In a letter dated 26 June 2013 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that he was not able to contact the applicant despite all his efforts and that therefore he was unable to provide the requested document.
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 (see, for example, Berfejani and Hajaran v. Turkey (dec.), no. 18854/07, 12 February 2008). 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.
Seçkin Erel Dragoljub Popović
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy