SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 53042/99
by Hikmet Müzeyyen SAYIN
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 13 June 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrR. Türmen,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze,
MrsE. Fura-Sandström,
MsD. Jočienė,
MrD. Popović, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Regisrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 November 1999,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together.
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mrs Hikmet Müzeyyen Sayın, is a Turkish national who was born in 1924 and lives in Istanbul. She is represented before the Court by Mr Ş. Karakoç, a lawyer practising in Ankara.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 1994 the Ankara Municipality expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant in Ankara. A committee of experts assessed the value of the land and the sum so fixed was paid to her when the expropriation took place.
Following the applicant’s request for increased compensation, the Ankara Civil Court of First Instance awarded her additional compensation, plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court’s decision. This judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation.
The Ankara Municipality made payments to the applicant in several instalments.
On 29 December 1997 the applicant filed an action with the Ankara Civil Court of First Instance and claimed that the municipality had failed to pay the total amount due. On 29 September 1998 the first-instance court partially accepted the applicant’s claim and awarded her an amount of compensation. The Court of Cassation upheld this judgment and dismissed the municipality’s request for a rectification of its decision on 1 February and 7 May 1999 respectively.
The Ankara Municipality made payments to the applicant in several instalments. By a letter dated 20 February 2004 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the municipality still owed the applicant part of the judgment debt.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 that the amount of compensation determined on 29 September 1998 by the first-instance court was too low and that the authorities had still not paid the relevant amount to her.
PROCEDURE
On 18 March 2005 the Court decided to invite the Government to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s complaints. On 19 July 2005 the Government submitted their observations on admissibility and merits.
By letter dated 5 August 2005, the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 15 September 2005.
By letter dated 22 March 2006, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his client’s observations had expired on 15 September 2005 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’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. No response has been received.
THE LAW
The Court notes that on 22 March 2006 the applicant’s representative was reminded that the period allowed for submission of his client’s written observations had expired and warned of the possibility that the case might be struck out of the Court’s list. The applicant’s representative has not submitted any reply to the Court.
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.
Accordingly, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
S. DolléJ.-P. Costa
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy