THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 63714/00
by Murat TURSUN
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 8 February 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrB.M. Zupančič, President,
MrR. Türmen,
MrC. Bîrsan,
MrsE. Fura-Sandström,
MrE. Myjer,
MrDavid Thór Björgvinsson,
MrsI. Berro-Lefèvre, judges,
and Mr S. Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 November 2000,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Murat Tursun, is a Turkish national who was born in 1977 and was detained in the Diyarbakır E-type prison at the time of his application to the Court. He was represented before the Court by Mr F. Gümüş, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 20 March 1995 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the PKK.
On 10 April 1995 the applicant was brought before a judge who ordered his detention on remand.
On 13 April 1995 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment charging the applicant with carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory under Article 125 of the Criminal Code.
On 3 June 1999 the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged. The applicant was sentenced to death, which was later commuted to life imprisonment.
On 21 February 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the Diyarbakır State Security Court’s judgment.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he had been denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of the military judge on the bench of the Diyarbakır State Security Court which tried and convicted him. He further alleged under the same head that the criminal proceedings against him had not been concluded within a reasonable time.
THE LAW
On 27 June 2005 the Court communicated the application to the Government. By the same letter, the Court informed the parties that, in accordance with Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it would decide on both the admissibility and merits of the application. By a letter dated 3 October 2005, the applicant’s representative was requested to submit his client’s final observations on admissibility and merits, together with any claims for just satisfaction, by 10 November 2005.
In a letter of 2 November 2006, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was reminded of the fact that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application as well as the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention had expired on 10 November 2005. By the same letter, he was also warned that the case might be struck out of the list for lack of interest.
No response was received by the Court to any of these letters.
Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. 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 examination of this application to be continued. Accordingly, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention to the case should be discontinued.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Santiago QuesadaBoštjan M. Zupančič
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy