SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 9382/04
TASFİYE HALİNDE SINIRLI SORUMLU
KARŞIYAKA ÇAĞDAŞ KONUT YAPI KOOPERATİFİ
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 17 October 2017 as a Committee composed of:
Julia Laffranque, President,
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro,
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 February 2004,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The case originated in an application (no. 9382/04) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish non-profit cooperative in liquidation, Tasfiye Halinde Sınırlı Sorumlu Karşıyaka Çağdaş Konut Yapı Kooperatifi, (“the applicant”), on 9 February 2004. The applicant was represented by M. Vural, a lawyer practising in İzmir, Turkey.
The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the Arbitration Commission which held compulsory jurisdiction at the material time to settle disputes between lawyers and their clients had not been independent and impartial.
On 10 September 2007 the applicant’s complaints were communicated to the respondent Government. On 3 March and 22 April 2008, respectively, the Government and the applicant submitted their observations to the Court.
On 3 January 2011 the applicant’s representative informed the Registry that their pending application before the Court was preventing them to finalise the cooperative’s liquidation and that unless the Court would render a decision shortly, they would have to withdraw their application.
By letter dated 4 May 2017, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was asked to inform the Court whether the liquidation proceedings regarding the applicant had been terminated and to submit the recent documents to that effect. Furthermore, 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 11 May 2017. However, no response has been received.
THE LAW
The Court observes that the application was brought in 2004 under Article 34 of the Convention by a cooperative which was already in liquidation. On 3 January 2011 the applicant’s representative informed the Court of the urgency to dissolve the cooperative within that year and requested the Court to render a decision in so far as pending judicial claims were preventing them to finalise the liquidation proceedings. He further informed the Court of the applicant’s intention to withdraw its application in the event that the Court took longer to decide. Since their last letter of 3 January 2011, the applicant cooperative has not resumed its correspondence with the Court. Furthermore, no response has been received to the Court’s last letter of 2017, requesting the applicant’s representative to shed light on the cooperative’s liquidation status.
From the developments set out above and the information concerning the status of the applicant cooperative from publicly available sources (), indicating that it had been struck out of the Commercial Register, it appears that the applicant cooperative has been completely dissolved as of 10 January 2012. No legal successors have come forward, expressing a wish to pursue the application on its behalf. There appears to be no legal or real person which could pursue the application.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant cooperative may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue its 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.
Done in English and notified in writing on 16 November 2017.
Hasan BakırcıJulia Laffranque
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy