 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Besey AK and Others v Turkey - 41185/05 [2009] ECHR 1632 (29 September 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/1632.html Cite as: [2009] ECHR 1632 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
41185/05
by Besey AK and Others
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 29 September 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise
Tulkens,
President,
Ireneu
Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro
Zagrebelsky,
Dragoljub
Popović,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
Işıl
Karakaş,
Kristina
Pardalos,
judges,
and
Sally Dollé, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 October 2005,
Having regard to the partial decision of 13 May 2008,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants Mr Besey Ak, Ms Hanifi Ak, Mr Arif Ak, Ms Ayşe Ak, Ms Zeynep Ak, Mr Rıfat Ak, Mr Mehmet Ak, Ms Güllü Ak, Mr Müslüm Ak and Ms Mürvet Ak are Turkish nationals who live in Gaziantep. They are represented before the Court by Mr M.Ş. Yıldız, a lawyer practising in Gaziantep. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent.
Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complained of the authorities’ delay of two years and eight months in paying them a sum of compensation which had been awarded to them following the expropriation of their land.
THE LAW
The Court considers that it is no longer required to examine the present application for the reasons elaborated below.
By letter dated 15 September 2008, the Government’s observations were sent to the applicants’ legal representative, who was requested to submit any comments, together with any claims for just satisfaction, by 27 October 2008. The representative did not submit any observations by the indicated date.
By letter dated 14 May 2009, sent by registered post, the legal representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicants’ observations had expired on 27 October 2008 and that no extension of time had been requested. The attention of the 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 applicant does not intend to pursue the application. According to information from postal authorities, this letter was delivered to the representative’s office on 29 May 2009. No response has been received to date.
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 Françoise Tulkens
Registrar President