SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 4763/07
Parvin HÜSEYINZADE
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 28 February 2017 as a Committee composed of:
Paul Lemmens, President,
Ksenija Turković,
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 January 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Ms Parvin Hüseyinzade, is an Iranian national, who was born in 1942 and lives in Tehran. In the proceedings before the Court, she was represented by Ms. Nurten Hüseyinoğlu, who is not a lawyer.
The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention that she had been deprived of her right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions as a result of the Turkish courts’ refusal to give recognition to an Iranian certificate of inheritance. She argued that she was entitled to a portion of her deceased father’s property in Turkey.
The applicant’s complaint was communicated to the Government on 27 May 2010. The Government submitted their observations on 25 November and 25 December 2011, respectively. The applicant’s representative was invited to submit her own observations. No reply was received from the applicant’s representative.
Meanwhile, on 26 October 2010, the applicant’s representative was requested to appoint a legal representative on behalf of the applicant, as required by Rule 36 § 4 (a) of the Rules of Court.
By a letter dated 27 January 2011 the applicant’s representative requested legal aid from the Court, stating that she did not have sufficient means to cover the costs of legal representation herself.
On 7 April 2011 the Court replied to the applicant’s representative, enclosing a copy on the Rules of the Court, a practical guide, the legal aid rates and a form for the declaration of means provided for in Rule 102 §1 of the said Rules.
On 25 April 2011 the applicant’s representative returned the legal aid form that was completed in her name and not of the applicant. She also sent the Court an income statement prepared in her own name.
On 1 June 2011 the Court sent a letter in reply to the applicant’s representative that the Court could only grant legal aid to the applicant and therefore returned the original documents it had received from the applicant’s representative.
On 8 July 2011, the applicant’s representative returned those documents, stating the applicant was no longer related to the application in question and that she had transferred all her respective rights to her. She requested the Court to process the application in her name.
By letter dated 26 July 2016, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was asked to clarify whether she was now acting as the applicant, and such being the case, she was requested to submit all relevant documents including the steps she had herself taken to exhaust domestic remedies with respect to her rights protected under the Convention. The letter requested in the alternative – that is, in case she was still pursuing the present application on behalf of the applicant - that she submit information that had previously been required from her. Furthermore, 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 31 August 2016. 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 her 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.
Done in English and notified in writing on 23 March 2017.
Hasan BakırcıPaul Lemmens
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy