CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 29 mars 2011

.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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s8FB79571 { width:14.15pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s85325123 { width:28.35pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s52E4ED8D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1F19A3C6 { width:133.27pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 15588/04 by Ayşe Nur DEMİREL against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 29   March 2011 as a Committee composed of:   Ireneu Cabral Barreto, President,   Dragoljub Popović,   András Sajó, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 July 2001, Having regard to the partial decision of 5 May 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The application was lodged by Ms Ayşe Nur Demirel, a Turkish national who was born in 1957 and lives in Istanbul. She is represented before the Court by Mr Z. Kılınçlar, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The applicant complained that she did not have at her disposal an effective procedure by which she could challenge the lawfulness of her detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. The applicant’s complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention 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 her own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. By letter dated 26 November 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of her observations had expired on 17 November 2009 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. According to the acknowledgement of receipt slip, which reached the Registry on 17 December 2010, the applicant’s representative could not be found at the indicated address. However, no information has been received from the representative regarding any change of address, despite the clear obligation to this effect. THE LAW The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue her 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 remainder of the application out of its list of cases.   Françoise Elens-Passos   Ireneu Cabral Barreto Deputy Registrar   President