European Court of Human Rights

SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 536/03
by Melih BEKDEMİR
against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 2 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Françoise Tulkens, President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
András Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Işıl Karakaş, judges,
and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 October 2002,

Having regard to the decision to examine the admissibility and merits of the case together (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention).

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Melih Bekdemir, is a Turkish national who was born in 1953 and was living in Germany at the time of introducing his application. He is represented before the Court by Mr Levent Yurdakul, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent.

The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant is an author. In November 2000 he published a book.

On 1 March 2001 the prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with that court and charged the applicant with the offence of making terrorist propaganda. The prosecutor submitted in his indictment that in his book the applicant had referred to certain parts of Turkey as Kurdistan and had made PKK¹ propaganda on the basis of the Turkish nations’ ethnic, religious, linguistic, regional and sectarian differences.

On 13 September 2001 the Istanbul State Security Court concluded that the applicant had committed the offence of aiding and abetting the PKK by making its propaganda for it. It sentenced the applicant to three years and nine months’ imprisonment and debarred him from public service for a period of three years.

The appealed lodged by the applicant against his conviction was rejected by the Court of Cassation on 11 April 2002.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained that his conviction and sentence had violated his rights under Articles 9 and 10 of the Convention.

THE LAW

By letter dated 25 February 2008 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant’s representative, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 10 April 2008.

By letter dated 30 April 2008, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 10 April 2008 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. Nevertheless, this letter was returned to the Registry of the Court on 22 May 2008, with a note by the postal authority, stating that the applicant’s representative had moved from his office.

Copies of the letter of 30 April 2008 were also sent, by registered post, to three addresses – two of which in Germany and one in Turkey – provided in the application form as those of the applicant. Nevertheless, all of these letters were subsequently returned to the Registry because the postal authorities had been unable to find the applicant at those addresses.

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his 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 discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, 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.

Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens
Registrar President