CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 9 février 2010

.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 } .sD49B706 { width:19.95pt; 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 } .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. 40270/08 by R.B.G. and Others against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 9   February 2010 as a Chamber composed of:   Françoise Tulkens, President,   Ireneu Cabral Barreto,   Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,   Danutė Jočienė,   Dragoljub Popović,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Işıl Karakaş, judges, and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 August 2008, Having deliberated, decides as follows: PROCEDURE The application was lodged by Ms R.B.G., Ms Z.B.G. and Ms Z.N., who are Iranian nationals, born in 1985, 1987 and 1986 respectively. At the time of the application to the Court they were held in the Kırklareli Foreigners' Admission and Accommodation Centre. The President of the Chamber granted the applicants' request that their identity should not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 3). They are represented before the Court by Mr A. Baba, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. Third-party comments were received from the European Centre for Law and Justice, a non ‑ governmental organisation, which had been given leave by the President to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 2). On 22 August 2008 the President of the Chamber to which the case was allocated decided, in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court, to indicate to the Government of Turkey, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be deported to Iran until 12 September 2008. Subsequently, the interim measure was prolonged twice. On 3 November 2008 the President of the Chamber decided not to prolong the measure any further. The applicants' complaints concerning their threatened deportation to Iran, the alleged lack of an effective remedy whereby they could raise their allegations regarding the risks which they may face in Iran, the alleged unlawfulness of their detention and the alleged lack of a remedy whereby they could challenge the lawfulness of their detention, were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicants, who were invited to submit their own observations. No reply was received to the Registry's letter. By registered letter dated 14 October 2009, the applicants' representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the observations had expired on 8 June 2009 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants' attention 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. However, no response has been received to this date. THE LAW 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