SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 75599/10
Salamatou TOURE
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 21 May 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
András Sajó,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 31 December 2010,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Ms Salamatou Toure, is an Ivoirian national, who was born in 1976 and lives in Konya. She was represented before the Court by Ms S. Uludağ, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.
2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
3. The applicant complained under Articles 2, 3 and 13 of the Convention that her removal to Ghana or to Ivory Coast would expose her to a real risk of death or ill-treatment and that she did not have an effective domestic remedy whereby she could have that allegation examined. Relying upon Article 5 of the Convention, the applicant argued that her detention lacked legal basis, that she had not been notified of its reasons and that she had not had access to any domestic remedy to request her release, challenge the lawfulness of her detention or claim compensation for the unlawful deprivation of liberty. Finally, she submitted under Article 34 of the Convention that she had been denied direct access to her representative.
4. On 4 January 2011 the President of the Chamber decided to indicate to the Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be deported to Ghana or Ivory Coast until 19 January 2011. The Government were also invited to allow the applicant’s access to her representative as well as to the UNHCR and to answer certain questions as regards her situation. The application was given priority under Rule 41.
5. On 19 January 2011 the President of the Chamber decided to prolong the interim measure until the applicant’s asylum claim was examined by the national authorities and the outcome was final.
6. On 5 March 2012 the application 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.
7. By a letter dated 1 March 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of her observations had expired on 3 September 2012 and that no extension of time had been requested. 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.
8. According to the information obtained from the official website of the Turkish Postal Service, the applicant’s representative received that letter on 18 March 2013. However, no response has been received.
THE LAW
9. 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. The Court, however, has the power to restore the case to the list in the event of fresh circumstances capable of justifying such a course.
10. In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and 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-PassosPeer Lorenzen
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy