SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 25853/06
by Salim BİTKAY
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 20 October 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović,
András Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Işıl Karakaş, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 June 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by Mr Salim Bitkay, a Turkish national, who was born in 1971. He is represented before the Court by Mr K. Soypak, a lawyer practising in İstanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
On 9 June 2009 the Court decided that, in the view of the similarity of the cases, the present application should be joined to certain other applications against the same respondent State raising similar complaints (applications nos. 34396/05, 8753/06, 37432/06, 37435/06, 2873/07, 24664/07 and 44938/08) (Rule 42 § 1).
On the same day the applicant’s complaints concerning the length of pre-trial detention and the length of the criminal proceedings were 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 16 February 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 27 January 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 25 February 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 disjoin the application from the other applications joined pursuant to Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Stanley NaismithFrançoise Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy