CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 6 janvier 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE256019B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD73EB0F { width:14.21pt; display:inline-block } .sD6BE18B4 { width:200.44pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 4750/04 by Veysel TURHAN against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 6   January 2009 as a Chamber composed of:   Françoise Tulkens, President ,   Ireneu Cabral Barreto,   Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,   Danutė Jočienė,   András Sajó,   Nona Tsotsoria ,   Işıl Karakaş, judges , and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 January 2004, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Veysel Turhan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Siirt. He was represented before the Court by Mr Öztürk Türkdoğan, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. In 1995 the applicant was elected chairman of the Siirt branch of the People's Democracy Party ( Halkın Demokrasi Partisi, “HADEP”). He was prosecuted and convicted for spreading separatist propaganda and HADEP was dissolved following a decision of the Constitutional Court of 13 March 2003, published in the Official Gazette on 19 July 2003. As an ancillary measure under Article 69   § 9 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court banned the applicant and 45 other HADEP members and leaders from becoming founder members, ordinary members, leaders or auditors of any other political party for a period of five years. The applicant complained to the Court of breaches of Articles 6, 7, 9 and 10 of the Convention, as well as Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, in respect of these events. THE LAW After communication of the case to the respondent Government, the applicant was invited to comment on the observations which the Government had submitted to the Court. By a letter dated 23 September 2008, sent by registered post, the applicant's representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his client's observations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. The 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 where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the matter. According to the information obtained from the postal authority, the Registry's letter of 23 September 2008 was delivered to the applicant's representative on 6 October 2008. No response to this letter or other communication has since been received from either the applicant or his representative. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his case, 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