CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 10 janvier 2012

.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 } .s52E4ED8D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBCAF7996 { width:142.27pt; display:inline-block } .s9B753B46 { width:198.3pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 9834/07 Fikriye DİNÇ against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 10   January 2012 as a Committee composed of:   Dragoljub Popović, President,   András Sajó,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 February 2007, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Fikriye Dinç, is a Turkish national who was born in   1928 and lives in Bergama. Her application was lodged on 19   February 2007. She is represented before the Court by Ms N. Altınbağ, a lawyer practising in Bergama. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The applicant’s complaint concerning the annulment of her title deed without payment of compensation for being forest land 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 2 May 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of her observations had expired on 18 March 2011 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 18 May 2011. 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 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 application out of its list of cases. Françoise Elens-Passos   Dragoljub Popović   Deputy Registrar   President