by Hasan AYDIN and Others
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 25 August 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Işıl Karakaş, judges,
and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 October 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicants, Mr Hasan Aydın, Mr İmam Hüseyin Aydın and Ms Hamiyet Şen, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1945, 1949 and 1956 respectively and live in Birecik. They are represented before the Court by Mr M. Ş. Yıldız, a lawyer practising in Gaziantep. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complained of the delayed payment of their additional expropriation compensation.
By letter dated 6 October 2008, the Government’s observations were sent to the applicants’ representative, who was requested to submit any comments, together with any claims for just satisfaction, by 18 November 2008. The applicants’ representative did not submit any observations by the indicated date.
By letter dated 22 December 2008, sent by registered post, the applicants’ representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicants’ observations had expired on 18 November 2008 and that no extension of time had been requested. The attention of the applicants’ representative 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. No response has been received to date.
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