SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 12267/06
by Hasan Yaşar BOZDOĞAN
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 27 September 2011 as a Committee composed of:
David Thór Björgvinsson, President,
Giorgio Malinverni,
Guido Raimondi, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 March 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Hasan Yaşar Bozdoğan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1946 and lives in Adana. He is represented before the Court by Mr İ. Ak, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention about the length of civil proceedings concerning a property dispute and the lack of an effective remedy for unreasonably long proceedings. He further argued that his right to peaceful enjoyment of property was breached by the excessive length of the proceedings.
The applicant’s complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention were communicated to the Government, who accepted the friendly settlement proposal that had been made together with the communication. However, following the applicant’s failure to react to the proposal, the Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. On 13 December 2010 the observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations and just satisfaction claims. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By a letter dated 21 March 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the observations and just satisfaction claims had expired on 24 January 2011 and that no extension of time had been requested. His 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. However, no response has been received and the Registry’s letter was returned as the applicant’s representative could not be found at the address he had notified the court of.
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-PassosDavid Thór Björgvinsson
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy