CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 19 septembre 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s3CA6E042 { width:12.35pt; display:inline-block } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s52E4ED8D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8BD2CFA4 { width:35.21pt; display:inline-block } .s5CDFCC53 { width:229.12pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION FINAL DECISION Application no. 23710/02 by Adnan Akdeniz TAŞ against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 19   September 2006 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   A.B. Baka ,   Mr   I. Cabral Barreto ,   Mr   R. Türmen ,   Mr   M. Ugrekhelidze ,   Mrs   A. Mularoni ,   Ms   D. Jočienė, judges , and Mrs S. Dollé , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 May 2002, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, Having regard to the partial decision of 13 September 2005, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS A.     Circumstances of the case The applicant, Mr Adnan Akdeniz Taş, is a Turkish national who was born in 1975 and lives in Tokat. He was represented before the Court by Mr   H.   Erdoğan, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 19 December 2000 the applicant, who was the editor-in-chief of a periodical, participated in a demonstration protesting at the establishment of the F-Type prisons, in order to report on the event for his newspaper. During the demonstration, the applicant was involved in a fight with the police and participated in the destruction of a police car. On 21 March 2001 he was arrested on suspicion of aiding a terrorist organisation, namely the TDP (Turkish Revolutionary Party). The applicant was taken to the anti-terror branch of the Ankara Security Directorate. On 23 March 2001 the applicant was brought before the Ankara State Security Court, where he only denied the accusations against him but did not declare that his statement had been taken under duress or complain about the ill-treatment he had allegedly suffered in police custody. On the same day he was placed in detention on remand. On 8 February 2001 the public prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court filed an indictment with the court, charging the applicant under Article   169 of the Criminal Code. The public prosecutor relied on documents and propaganda material relating to the TDP which had been seized during the search of the applicant’s house. He further took into consideration that the applicant had participated in a number of events aimed at protesting against the establishment of the F-type prisons, and especially the fact that he had got into a fight with the police and participated in the destruction of a police car during the demonstration of 19   December 2000. On 9 July 2001 the Ankara State Security Court, relying on the documents and materials seized in the applicant’s house, convicted the applicant of aiding the members of an illegal organisation, namely the TDP, and sentenced him to three years and nine months’ imprisonment. On 5 December 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the State Security Court. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice The relevant domestic law and practice are set out in Göç v.   Turkey ([GC], no. 36590/97, §§ 29-34, ECHR 2002 ‑ V). COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention that the Principal Public Prosecutor’s written submissions to the Court of Cassation were not communicated to him. THE LAW On 13 September 2005, the Court decided to declare the application partly inadmissible and to communicate the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention to the respondent Government. On 16   January 2006, the Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. The applicant was invited to answer those observations by 28 February 2006 at the latest. On 10 April 2006, the Registry sent a registered letter to the applicant’s representative, informing him that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application had expired on 28 February 2006 and that no extension of time had been requested. This letter was delivered to the address of the applicant’s representative on 22 April 2006. The Court notes that in the said letter the applicant’s representative attention was also drawn to the provisions of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. The Registry has received no response to this day. Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that the applicant no longer intends to pursue his application within the meaning of Article   37 §   1 (a) of the Convention. Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   S. Dollé   J.-P. Costa   Registrar   President