European Court of Human Rights

SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 29515/03
by Atilla ÇOLAK
against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 December 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

Françoise Tulkens, President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Işıl Karakaş, judges,

and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar.
Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 July 2003,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Atilla Çolak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1975 and lives in Adapazarı, Turkey. He is represented before the Court by Mr H. Tuna and Mr Selçuk Kar, lawyers practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

The applicant’s complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 10 of the Convention 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 his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.

By letter dated 6 July 2009, sent by registered post and by fax, the applicant’s representative Mr H.Tuna was notified that the period allowed for submission of the observations had expired on 10 June 2009 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. By letter dated 30 October 2009, sent by fax, the Registry repeated its previous letter. However, no response has been received.

THE LAW

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.

Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens Registrar President