THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 26732/02
by Mehmet Hakan HAKERİ
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 22 March 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrB.M. Zupančič, President,
MrC. Bîrsan,
MrR. Türmen,
MrsE. Fura-Sandström,
MrE. Myjer,
MrDavid Thór Björgvinsson,
MrsI. Berro-Lefèvre, judges,
and Mr S. Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 March 2002,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Mehmet Hakan Hakeri, is a Turkish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Diyarbakır. He was represented before the Court by Mr R. Hakeri and Mr A. Yeşil, lawyers practising in Diyarbakır. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) did not designate an Agent for the purpose of the proceedings before the Court.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was a research assistant in the Faculty of Law of the Dicle University at the time of the events. Upon the University administration’s failure to reimburse the publication cost of his doctoral thesis, the applicant filed an action for compensation with the Diyarbakır Administrative Court.
On 20 May 1999 the Diyarbakır Administrative Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the University administration to pay a certain amount of compensation. On 1 October 2001 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the University administration’s appeal against the judgment of the first-instance court. On 28 December 2001 the University administration paid the applicant the due amount together with interest.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained about the length of the proceedings. He further submitted that as a result of the unreasonable length of the proceedings and the low interest rates applicable to the authorities’ delay in payment of the compensation, he had sustained financial loss. He relied on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
PROCEDURE
Following the original lodging of the application on 25 March 2002 neither the applicant nor his representatives have since contacted the Registry of the Court.
On 3 March 2006 the President of the Chamber to which the case has been allocated decided to invite the Government to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s complaints. On 29 May 2006 the Government submitted their observations on admissibility and merits.
By letter dated 23 June 2006, the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant’s representatives, who were requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 4 September 2006.
By letter dated 19 December 2006, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representatives were notified that the period allowed for submission of their client’s observations had expired on 4 September 2006 and that no extension of time had been requested. Their 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. This letter was returned to the Registry on 18 January 2007 as the applicant’s representatives were no longer at that address. The Court was not made aware of any change of address.
THE LAW
The Court notes that after the initial application of 25 March 2002 there has been no sign on the part of the applicant to show that he wishes to pursue his application. In this regard, the Court observes that the applicant’s representatives have failed to give any reply to the observations sent to them almost seven months ago. The Registry’s reminder dated 19 December 2006 was returned as the applicant’s representatives were no longer at the address indicated in the application form. The Court notes that the Registry was not informed of any change of address.
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.
Accordingly, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Santiago QuesadaBoštjan M. Zupančič
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy