European Court of Human Rights

SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 15062/10
Mustafa Münir ATAGÜN
against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 November 2011 as a Committee composed of:

Dragoljub Popović, President,
András Sajó,
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 January 2010,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Mustafa Münir Atagün, is a Turkish national who was born in 1946 and lives in Ankara. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about his inability to submit his arguments before domestic courts during the proceedings where he objected to a traffic fine.

The application was 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 11 August 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 18 July 2011 and that no extension of time had been requested. His 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 and the Registry’s letter was returned as the applicant could not be found at the address he had notified the court of.

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.

Françoise Elens-Passos Dragoljub Popović
Deputy Registrar President