SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 29988/20
Aziz KARA
against Türkiye
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 4 June 2026 as a Committee composed of:
Stéphane Pisani, President,
Juha Lavapuro,
Hugh Mercer, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application against the Republic of Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 29 June 2020,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDUREThe applicant, Mr Aziz Kara, was born in 1980. He was represented by Mr M. Gül, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır.
The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 and Article 8 of the Convention, concerning his dismissal and the alleged ineffectiveness of the subsequent judicial review proceedings were communicated to the Turkish Government (“the Government”) on 10 August 2021.
In their observations of 1 March 2022 on the admissibility and merits of the case, the Government informed the Court that the applicant had died on 22 November 2020.
On 3 March 2022 the Court invited the applicant’s representative to indicate, by 14 April 2022, whether any heirs wished to pursue the application and to submit a certificate of inheritance together with an authority form signed by both the heirs and the representative.
On 1 June 2022 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the heirs wished to pursue the application and submitted the certificate of inheritance but failed to provide the required authority forms. On the other hand, he submitted a document signed by a lawyer representing one of the heirs, granting him a power of substitution.
The Court transmitted the letter and the documents received from the applicant’s representative to the Government.
By a letter dated 9 June 2022, sent by the Court’s Electronic Communication Service (eComms), the Court confirmed the receipt of the letter certificate of inheritance submitted by the applicant’s representative, however it noted that he failed to submit duly signed authority forms requested on 3 March 2022. The representative’s attention was also drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant’s heirs do not intend to pursue the application. The applicant’s representative downloaded the letter on the same day.
On 20 July 2022 the Government submitted that, where applicants are represented in accordance with Rule 36, a power of attorney or written authority to act must be supplied by their representative or representatives, and that, in the present case, none of the heirs had issued an authority form in respect of the applicant’s representative. By a letter of 12 September 2022, the Court transmitted those observations to the applicant’s representative and invited him to submit any comments by 10 October 2022 together with the authority forms of the applicant’s heirs. The letter reiterated that failing receipt of the authority forms, the application could be struck out of the Court’s list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant or his heirs do not intend to pursue the application.
Although the applicant’s representative received all submissions from the Court, he has, to date, failed to submit an authority form signed by the heirs, authorising him to represent them in the proceedings and to pursue the application on their behalf.
THE LAWThe Court notes that the applicant died on 22 November 2020. On 1 June 2022 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant’s heirs wished to pursue the application, however, he failed to submit an authority form signed by the heirs despite having been repeatedly and expressly requested to do so.
The Court considers that, in accordance with Rule 45 § 3 of the Rules of Court, where applicants are represented in accordance with Rule 36, a power of attorney or written authority to act shall be supplied by their representative or representatives. In this connection, the Court cannot consider that a power of substitution granted by another lawyer, who was not involved at any stage of the proceedings, to the applicant’s representative, is sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant’s heir wished to pursue the application and to be represented by that representative. The Court further recalls that none of the applicant’s heirs informed the Court at any stage about their wish to pursue the application on the applicant’s behalf.
In such circumstances, the Court is not convinced that it has been sufficiently demonstrated that any of the applicant’s heirs, who could have a legitimate interest in pursuing his application, wished to do so within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. The representative’s statement and the substitution form signed by the lawyer of one of the heirs, in the absence of a duly signed power of attorney, cannot be considered as sufficient evidence (see, mutatis mutandis, Stefanović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (dec.) [Committee], no. 36168/17, 16 May 2019 and Yakovlev v. Armenia (dec.), 33264/03, 14 October 2008).
Accordingly, the case should be struck 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 25 June 2026.
Viktoriya Maradudina Stéphane Pisani
Acting Deputy Registrar President