CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 28 septembre 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 } .s8B003EDD { width:0.76pt; display:inline-block } .sD979F57F { width:148.51pt; display:inline-block } .s2BF264A { width:20.43pt; display:inline-block } .s85D0C50 { width:184.53pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 43850/06 by İsmail FAYIK against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 28   September 2010 as a Committee composed of:   Danutė Jočienė, President,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Guido Raimondi, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 October 2006, Having deliberated, decides as follows: PROCEDURE The application was lodged by Mr İsmail Fayık, a Turkish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Tunceli. He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Çetin, a lawyer practising in Tunceli. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. On 16 September 2009 the Court decided to communicate the applicant's complaint concerning non-execution of the domestic judgment in his favour under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The application was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry's letter. By letter dated 12 May 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant's representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 16 April 2010 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant's 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. The applicant's representative received this letter on 25 May 2010. However, no response has been received. THE LAW The Court considers that, in these 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.   Françoise Elens-Passos   Danutė Jočienė   Deputy Registrar   President