CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 18 janvier 2011

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s36109428 { width:18.7pt; 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 } .sBCAF7996 { width:142.27pt; display:inline-block } .s40964402 { width:201.63pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION   Applications nos. 34328/08, 34329/08, 34333/08, 34336/08, 34339/08, 34343/08, 34344/08, and 34346/08 by İkram KAYAN and Others against Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 18   January 2011 as a Committee composed of:   Dragoljub Popović, President,   András Sajó,   Kristina Pardalos, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on 10 July 2008, Having deliberated, decides as follows: PROCEEDINGS The applications were lodged by eight Turkish nationals, İkram Kayan, Cesim Karamercan, Muhyettin Gidici, Kazım Karamercan, Enver Alageyik, Cemal Ergün, Cesim Baytar, and Selahattin Keleş (“the applicants”), born in 1973, 1956, 1961, 1973, 1968, 1956, 1962, and 1964, respectively and live in Bitlis. They are represented before the Court by Mr İ. Kurt, lawyer practising in Van. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The applicants’ complaints concerning non-execution of the domestic judgments were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the 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 letter dated 21 September 2010, sent by registered post, the applicants’ representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the observations had expired on 4 May 2010 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants’ 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 do not intend to pursue the application. The applicants’ representative received this letter on 28 September 2010. However, no response has been received. THE LAW Given the similarity of the applications, as regards both fact and law, the Court deems it appropriate to join them. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their applications, 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 join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.   Françoise Elens-Passos   Dragoljub Popović Deputy Registrar   President