SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 46341/08
Celal BİNGÖLTEKİN
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 10 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 15 September 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Celal Bingöltekin, is a Turkish national who was born in 1941 and lives in Yalova. His application was lodged on 15 September 2008. He is represented before the Court by Mr H Bozkulak, a lawyer practising in Yalova. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
The applicant’s complaint concerning the annulment of his title deed without payment of compensation for being forest land 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 28 January 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 3 November 2011 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. According to the information obtained from the official website of the Turkish Postal Service, on 14 February 2011 this letter arrived to the address indicated by the applicant’s representative. 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-PassosDragoljub Popović
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy