by Hasan BAŞAK
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 6 October 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 August 2005,
Having regard to the partial decision of 22 April 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicant, Mr Hasan Başak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1926 and lives in Gaziantep. He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Akdoğan, a lawyer practising in Mersin. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant complained of the delayed payment of his additional expropriation compensation.
The Court considers that it is no longer required to examine the present application, for the reasons elaborated below.
By letter dated 29 October 2008, the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant’s representative, who was requested to submit any comments, together with any claims for just satisfaction, by 10 December 2008. The applicant’s representative did not submit any observations.
By letter dated 4 May 2009, 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 December 2008 and that no extension of time had been requested. The attention of the applicant’s 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 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 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 Françoise
Deputy Registrar President