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 >> Ayse UREK v Turkey - 36682/07 [2011] ECHR 173 (11 January 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/173.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 173 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
36682/07
by Ayşe ÜREK
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 11 January 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Danutė
Jočienė,
President,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
Guido
Raimondi,
judges,
and Françoise
Elens-Passos, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 August 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by Ms Ayşe Ürek, a Turkish national who was born in 1956 and lives in İzmir. She is represented before the Court by Mr N. Erdem, a lawyer practising in İzmir. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The applicant’s complaints concerning the length of the criminal proceedings were 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 observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letter dated 23 June 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of her observations had expired on 24 May 2010 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. However, no response has been received to date.
THE LAW
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.
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.
Françoise Elens-Passos Danute Jociene
Deputy
Registrar President