SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 24036/05
by Nejat KARADAĞ
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 1 September 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Işıl Karakaş, judges,
and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 June 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Nejat Karadağ, is a Turkish national who was born in 1971 and lives in Şanlıurfa. He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Bayındır, a lawyer practising in Şanlıurfa. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant had trees on a plot of land which did not belong to him. This land was subsequently designated by the administration for the construction of a dam. The administration expropriated the applicant’s trees before the construction of the dam and paid a certain amount of compensation to the applicant. On 30 September 2002 the applicant brought a case before the Birecik Civil Court of General Jurisdiction, claiming approximately 52,083 euros (EUR) in additional compensation. According to him, the administration had seized his trees without sufficient payment.
On 27 November 2002 the court conducted an on-site inspection. It further obtained two expert reports; one in order to assess the total value of the trees and another to see the trees’ position in the disputed area. On 27 December 2002 the applicant’s case was accepted and the court awarded him approximately EUR 40,650, with statutory interest running from the date of introduction of his claim. On 12 May 2003 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision. On 29 December 2004 the applicant was paid EUR 71,354.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the payment had not been made within a reasonable time after the decision dated 12 May 2003. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, he also maintained that the statutory interest rate applied to his case remained ineffective due to inflation.
THE LAW
By letter dated 30 January 2009, the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant’s representative, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 16 March 2009.
By letter dated 29 April 2009, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 16 March 2009 and that no extension of time had been requested. In the same letter, the applicant’s representative was also requested to comment on the Government’s friendly settlement proposal by 13 May 2009. 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 23 May 2009. However, no response has been received.
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.
Sally DolléFrançoise Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy