European Court of Human Rights

SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 7437/08
Erdoğan ERDİL
against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 14 February 2012 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 6 February 2008,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Erdoğan Erdil, is a Turkish national who was born in 1946 and lives in Izmir. He is represented before the Court by Mr M.K. Turan and Mr Y. Uysal, lawyers practising in İzmir. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 to the Convention about the non-execution of a domestic court judgment. He also alleged that he had sustained an economical loss as a result of low interest rate applied to the state debts despite the high inflation in Turkey. Invoking Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant also complained of the unfairness of the proceedings, in particular, the amount of compensation awarded by the domestic court.

The applicant’s complaint concerning the non-execution of a domestic court judgment 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 17 August 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 21 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. On 25 August 2011 this letter has been delivered to the address indicated by the representative. 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.

Françoise Elens-Passos Dragoljub Popović
Deputy Registrar President