SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 49360/11
Vedat GÖKHAN
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 4 November 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Helen Keller, President,
Egidijus Kūris,
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges,
and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 May 2011,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Mr Vedat Gökhan, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1971 and lives in Izmir. He was represented before the Court by Mr Ö. R. Ayebe and Ms D. Arslan, lawyers practising in Izmir. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
2. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention was excessively lengthy. He further argued under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the lawfulness of his detention was not decided speedily. He fınally contended that his pre-trial detention violated his right to the presumption of innocence within the meaning of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention.
3. By a letter dated 11 July 2014, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 23 April 2014 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 acknowledgement of receipt slip, which reached the Registry on 4 September 2014, the applicant’s representative could not be found at the indicated address. However, no information has been received from the representative regarding any change of address, despite the clear obligation to this effect according to Article 47 § 7 of the Rules of Court.
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.
Abel CamposHelen Keller
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy