SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 26708/09
Yusuf DORUK
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 10 May 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President,
Guido Raimondi,
Helen Keller, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos,Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 April 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Yusuf Doruk, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1968 and lives in Hatay. He is represented before the Court by Mr Ü. Parlak, a lawyer practising in Hatay.
The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The applicant basically complained about the non-execution of a domestic judgment. The applicant’s complaints were communicated to the Government under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Government 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 October 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 31 January 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. The applicant’s representative received this letter on 15 November 2011. 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-PassosIsabelle Berro-Lefèvre
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy