SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 29692/06
by Ömer GÜZEL
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 November 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Dragoljub Popović, President,
András Sajó,
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 July 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ömer Güzel, is a Turkish national who was born in 1956 and lives in Weilrod, Germany. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he was deprived of his property without having been paid any compensation and that the domestic courts had not fairly decided on his case.
On 27 January 2010 the applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention 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 8 April 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 5 January 2011 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’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 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-PassosDragoljub Popović
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy