SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 30681/96, 30734/96, 30802/96,
30806/96, 30836/96, 30843/96
by Ömer ŞAŞMAZ, Nadir DOMAN, Mehmet YILDIRIM,
Sait ŞİTİLAY, Sait YILDIRIM, Mehmet ÇAYTAŞ
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 11 January 2000 as a Chamber composed of
MrM. Fischbach, President,
MrB. Conforti,
MrG. Bonello,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrA. Kovler, judges,
MrF. Gölcüklü, ad hoc judge,
andMrE. Fribergh, Section Registrar;
Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the applications introduced on 15 December 1995 by Ömer Şaşmaz, Nadir Doman, Mehmet Yildirim, Sait Şitilay, Sait Yildirim and Mehmet Çaytaş against Turkey and registered on 26 March 1996 under file nos. 30681/96, 30734/96, 30802/96, 30806/96, 30836/96, 30843/96;
Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 31 December 1997 and 9 November 1998 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants on 26 February 1998;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are Turkish nationals, born in 1949, 1964, 1955, 1938, 1959 and 1955, respectively, and living in Diyarbakır.
They are represented before the Court by Mr Hasip Kaplan, a lawyer practising in İstanbul.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 22 October 1993, in the district of Lice, clashes occurred between security forces and PKK militants. As a result of the clashes 16 persons died, 19 persons were wounded and 424 shops and 640 houses were destroyed. The applicants’ houses, shops and vehicles were destroyed during the clashes in question.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants allege that their property was destroyed as a result of the security forces’ misconduct and their random gunfire directed at their houses, shops and vehicles during the clashes between them and members of the PKK. They invoke Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14, 17 and 18 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
PROCEDURE
The applications were introduced on 15 December 1995 and registered on 26 March 1996.
On 7 April 1997 European Commission of Human Rights decided to communicate the applications to the respondent Government.
The Government’s written observations as well as their supplementary observations were submitted on 1, 20 and 28 October 1997, 31 December 1997, 9 and 25 March 1998, 27 and 30 July 1999. The observations in reply submitted by the applicants on 25 November 1997, 2 December 1997 and 26 February 1998.
On 1 November 1998, by operation of Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the case fell to be examined by the Court in accordance with the provisions of that Protocol.
THE LAW
The relevant part of Article 37 § 1 of the Convention provides as follows:
“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(c) for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.
However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto so requires.”
The Court notes that the applicants’ present complaints are the same as those lodged by them in applications nos. 23656/94, 26679/95, 28514/95, 30649/96, 30652/96 and 30789/96. Having regard to the fact that these complaints form the subject matter of their earlier applications now being considered by the Court arising out of the same incidents which took place on 22 and 23 October 1993 in the Lice district of the province of Diyarbakır, the Court finds that they represent no legal interest justifying separate consideration. Moreover, there are no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention which require the continuation of the examination of these particular applications in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATIONS OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.
Erik FriberghMarc Fischbach
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy