European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Zeynettin OTO v Turkey - 26774/07 [2011] ECHR 2071 (22 November 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/2071.html
Cite as: [2011] ECHR 2071
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 26774/07
Zeynettin OTO
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 22 November 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise
Tulkens, President,
Danutė
Jočienė,
Dragoljub
Popović,
Isabelle
Berro-Lefèvre,
András
Sajó,
Işıl
Karakaş,
Guido
Raimondi, judges,
and
Stanley Naismith, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 June 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Zeynettin Oto, is a Turkish national who was born in 1927 and lives in Bursa.
He is represented before the Court by Mr İsmail İşyapan, a lawyer practising in Bursa. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The applicant complained under Articles 2, 6 and 8 of the Convention about the local authorities’ failure to stop the emission of harmful gases from his neighbour’s chimney into his garden.
The applicant’s complaints under Article 8 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 1 August 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 3 June 2011 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. No response has been received from the applicant’s representative.
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.
Stanley Naismith Françoise
Tulkens
Registrar President
