SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 55938/08
Melike ÖZCAN
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 November 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Dragoljub Popović, President,
András Sajó,
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 November 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Melike Özcan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1984 and lives in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about her inability to submit her arguments before domestic courts during the proceedings where she objected to a traffic fine.
The applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit her own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letter dated 11 August 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of her observations had expired on 18 July 2011 and that no extension of time had been requested. Her 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 applicant moved from the address she had notified the court of.
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.
Françoise Elens-PassosDragoljub Popović
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy