SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 19769/04
Özcan ÇAMUR
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 21 February 2012 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,
Danutė Jočienė,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
András Sajó,
Işıl Karakaş,
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,
Helen Keller, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 May 2004,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Özcan Çamur, is a Turkish national who was born in 1965 and lives in Muğla. He is represented before the Court by Mr M.I. Gürkan, a lawyer practising in Muğla. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The applicant complained under Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention that the environmental pollution caused by the Yatağan thermal-power plant through the emission of hazardous gas and ash constituted a serious risk to his health and infringed his right to the protection of his physical integrity, as well as his right to live in a healthy environment. Invoking Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant also contended that he had been the victim of serious physical and emotional distress. Lastly, the applicant argued under Article 6 that the domestic authorities had failed to execute the domestic court decisions ordering the shutting down of the Yatağan thermal-power plant.
The applicant’s complaint under Article 8 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 5 August 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 26 April 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. On 17 August 2011 this letter has been delivered to the address indicated by the 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.
Stanley NaismithFrançoise Tulkens Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy