SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 36194/06
by Halil KARLI and Ali Haydar Özcan
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 28 June 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,
Danutė Jočienė,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Giorgio Malinverni,
András Sajó,
Işıl Karakaş,
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 September 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Halil Karlı and Mr Ali Haydar Özcan, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1942 and 1933 respectively and live in Istanbul. They are represented before the Court by Mr S. Canpolat, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.
The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the contradictory judgments of the Court of Cassation concerning a property dispute. Relying upon Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention, they maintained that their peaceful enjoyment of property was violated in that the administration had occupied their property without expropriation.
The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. On 13 July 2010 the observations were forwarded to the applicants, who were invited to submit their own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By a letter dated 15 March 2011, sent by registered post, the applicants’ representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the observations had expired on 27 August 2010 and that no extension of time had been requested. His 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. However, no response has been received and the Registry’s letter was returned as the applicants’ representative could not be found at the address he had notified the court of.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their 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-PassosFrançoise Tulkens
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy