by Şeyho AKBAŞ and Arif AKBAŞ
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 17 February 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Işıl Karakaş, judges,
András Sajó, substitute judge,
and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 September 2003,
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 applicants, Mr Şeyho Akbaş and Mr Arif Akbaş, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1941 and 1962 respectively and live in Şanlıurfa. They are represented before the Court by Mr H. Tümen, a lawyer practising in Şanlıurfa. They complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention that the interest on the additional compensation received, following the expropriation of their property, was insufficient and that the authorities had delayed in paying them the relevant amounts. They further contended under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings for additional compensation had not been concluded within a reasonable time.
By letter dated 27 May 2008, sent by registered post, the applicants’ representative was notified that the period allowed for the submission of the applicants’ observations in reply to those of the respondent Government had expired on 11 March 2008 and that no extension of the time-limit 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 applicants do not intend to pursue the application. To date no response has been received.
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 Francoise