CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 11 octobre 2007

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s8F7EC376 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-variant:small-caps; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s96FD6997 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE950BED4 { width:22.54pt; display:inline-block } .sD7B1B1CC { width:177.77pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sF7F419BE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-variant:small-caps } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 17366/02 by Sinan YANAR against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 11   October 2007 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   B.M. Zupančič , President ,   Mr   C. Bîrsan ,   Mrs   E. Fura-Sandström ,   Mrs   A. Gyulumyan [1] ,   Mr   E. Myjer ,   Mr   David Thór Björgvinsson ,   Mrs   I. Ziemele, judges , and Mr S. Naismith , Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 June 2001, 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 19 October 2006, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Sinan Yanar, is a Turkish national who was born in 1984 and lives in Germany. He was represented before the Court by Mrs   A.   Topuz, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 5 May 2000 the applicant and two other students were taken into custody while they were at school. They were suspected of having participated in an illegal demonstration on 21 March 2000 and having illegally put up a banner on a public building on 14 March 2000. According to the arrest protocol drawn up by the police officers, the applicant Yanar and his friends were taken into custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the DHKP-C ( Devrimci Halk Kurtuluş Partisi-Cephesi ; Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party-Front). On an unspecified date, the applicant’s legal representative appealed against the arrest. On 7 May 2000 a single judge at the Istanbul State Security Court dismissed the appeal. On 9 May 2000 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court requested the latter to extend the custody period. On the same day, the Istanbul State Security Court decided to extend the custody period by three days. On 12 May 2000 the Istanbul State Security Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand. The applicant was subsequently sent to Ümraniye prison. On 15 May 2000 the Istanbul State Security Court upheld the decision of 7 May 2000. On an unspecified date the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment accusing the applicant of membership of the DHKP-C under Article 168 of the Criminal Code. Subsequently, the Üsküdar public prosecutor filed a further indictment with the Üsküdar Criminal Court of First Instance against the applicant, accusing him of participation in an illegal demonstration. On an unspecified date, the applicant was released from prison. He then went to live in Germany. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention that he had been held in police custody for an excessive length of time and that he had been detained on remand in prison together with adults. THE LAW On 19 October 2006 the Court communicated part of the application to the respondent Government. On 16 April 2007 the Government submitted their observations on admissibility and merits. On 23 April 2007 the applicant’s representative was invited to submit by 4 June 2007 any further observations in reply, together with any claims for just satisfaction. On 26   June 2007 the Registry sent a registered letter to the applicant’s representative, informing her that the period allowed for the submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 4 June 2007 and that no extension of time had been requested. This letter was delivered to the applicant’s representative on 4 July 2007. The Court notes that, in the said letter, the attention of the applicant’s representative was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which reads as follows: “1.   The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that (a)     the applicant does not intend to pursue his application;” The Registry has received no response to date. In these circumstances, the Court considers that 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 discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the remainder of the application out of its list of cases.   Stanley Naismith   Boštjan M. Zupančič Deputy Registrar   President [1] Mrs A. Gyulumyan was designated to sit as national judge in respect of Turkey in accordance with Rule 29 of the Rules of Court.