BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Gulustan BEKTAS and Others v Turkey - 13148/05 [2010] ECHR 736 (29 April 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/736.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 736 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
13148/05
by Gülüstan BEKTAŞ and Others
against
Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 29 April 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise
Tulkens,
President,
Ireneu
Cabral Barreto,
Danutė
Jočienė,
András
Sajó,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
Işıl
Karakaş,
Kristina
Pardalos,
judges,
and Sally
Dollé, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 March 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by Ms Gülüstan Bektaş, Mr Hacı Özgen, Ms Mahişeker İzbudak, Ms Şemsi Kamer Akil and Ms Elmas Doğan. They are Turkish nationals who were born in 1935, 1927, 1933, 1938 and 1931, respectively, and live in Ankara, except Mr Hacı Özgen who lives in Adana. They were represented before the Court by Mr Ü. Piroğlu, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that length of civil proceedings to which they had been a party had been excessive. They further contended under Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention that they had not been given adequate time and facilities for the preparation of their defence.
The applicants' complaints were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicants, who were invited to submit their own observations. No reply was received to the Registry's letter.
By a letter of 5 November 2009, sent by registered post, the applicants' representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the observations had expired on 17 September 2009 and that no extension of time had been requested. The 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 where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicants do not intend to pursue the application. The representative received this letter on 9 November 2009. On 22 November 2009 the representative sent a letter to the Court, without indicating the applicants' names or the application number. Later on it was discovered that it concerned the present case. In the letter he stated that he had lost contact with the applicants, but wished nevertheless to pursue the case. To date the applicants' representative has failed to submit observations.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their 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.
Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens
Registrar President