CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 23 juin 2009

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3D182D4 { margin-left:0.1pt; border-collapse:collapse } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA91C8AC { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s9538EC41 { height:0pt } .sB7FB1E32 { width:99.2pt } .s68575439 { width:106.35pt } .s15AF553 { width:106pt } .s9334D7B5 { width:0.3pt } .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 } .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. 21385/07 by Mehmet Şefik ÖZTEKİN against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 23   June 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 17 May 2007, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Mehmet Şefik Öztekin, is a Turkish national who was born in 1981. At the time of lodging his application, he was serving his prison sentence in the İzmir Buca F-type Prison. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The applicant was sentenced to various types of disciplinary sanctions by the prison disciplinary board for breaching prison order. His subsequent appeal requests were rejected by the Enforcement Judge and the Assize Court respectively.   The details of his application are as follows:   Disciplinary Act committed Type of sanction imposed on the applicant Date of Board’s decision Date of final decision delivered by the Assize Court a) refusal to use infirmary     b) launching a hunger strike   c) chanting slogans a) ban from sports activities and work shops for 2   months   b) ban from corres-pondence for 1   month   c) ban from corres-pondence for 1   month a) 16/03/2007     b) 05/04/2007   c) 12/04/2007 a) 09/04/2007     b) 25/04/2007   c) 02/05/2007   He originally complained to the Court about these disciplinary sanctions and invoked Articles 6, 9 and 10 of the Convention. However, following the communication of the application, the letter sent to the applicant on 20 October 2008 by the Registrar was returned, with a note indicating that he had been released from prison. No other addresses are indicated in the Registry records and he has not resumed contact with the Registry in the meantime. THE LAW The Court recalls that, pursuant to Rule 47 § 6 of the Rules of Court, “the applicants shall keep the Court informed of any change of address...”. However, in the present case, although released from prison, the applicant has failed to inform the Court about his new address. Therefore, he 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 (a) 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