SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 20717/03
by Necdet GÜMÜŞ
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 20 October 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Danutė Jočienė,
András Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Işıl Karakaş,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 February 2003,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Necdet Gümüş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1944 and lives in Gaziantep. He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Türkmen, a lawyer practising in Gaziantep. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant complained of the delayed payment of his additional expropriation compensation and the resulting loss he suffered in view of the low interest rates.
THE LAW
The Court considers that it is no longer required to examine the present application, for the reasons elaborated below.
By letter dated 16 June 2008, the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant’s representative, who was requested to submit any comments, together with any claims for just satisfaction, by 28 July 2008. The applicant’s representative did not submit any observations.
By letter dated 14 November 2008, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 28 July 2008 and that no extension of time had been requested. The attention of the applicant’s representative 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 Registry’s letter was received by the applicant’s lawyer on 27 November 2008. However, no response has been received to date.
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-PassosFrançoise Tulkens
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy