CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 2 mars 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 } .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 } .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 } .s924548EB { width:198.77pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 34989/06 by Hüseyin ASLAN against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 2   March 2010 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 27 July 2006, Having regard to the decision to grant priority to the above application under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Hüseyin Aslan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1978 and lives in Diyarbakır. He was represented before the Court by Mr   D.   Doğan, a lawyer practising in Siirt. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. Relying on Articles 3 and 4 of the Convention, the applicant alleged that he had been beaten up in prison, that no investigation had been conducted into this, that he had not received a fair hearing and that his liberty had been unjustly restricted. He also complained that he had been denied psychiatric treatment in prison. The case was communicated to the respondent Government, whose observations were sent to the applicant for comment by 15   November 2007. By a letter dated 8 February 2008, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 15 November 2007 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 of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. However, no response was received from the applicant’s representative. By a letter dated 14 April 2008, the applicant provided the Court with a new psychiatric report and briefly reiterated his complaints. There was, however, no indication in the letter to suggest that he was aware of the Registry’s correspondence with his representative. On 9 June 2008 the Registry, in an effort to provide the applicant with an opportunity to reply to the Government’s observations, sent him directly the letters of 4 October 2007 and 8 February 2008. The applicant did not respond. By letter dated 19 October 2009, the Registry again sent the applicant directly the letters of 4 October 2007 and 8   February 2008, by registered post, together with the Government’s observations. The applicant was also reminded that the period allowed for the submission of his observations having expired on 15   November 2007 without any request for an extension of time, the application could be struck out of the Court’s list of cases under Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. A copy of this letter was also sent to the applicant’s representative. Neither the applicant, nor his representative responded. THE LAW The Court considers that, in the light of the foregoing circumstances, 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 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