CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 31 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 } .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 } .s9B753B46 { width:198.3pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 45302/04 Mehmet DOĞAN and Others against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 31   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 30 September 2004, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Mr Mehmet Doğan, Mehmet Emin Doğan, Yusuf Doğan and Hayrettin Doğan, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1956, 1959, 1969 and 1973 respectively and live in Adiyaman. They are represented before the Court by Mr R. Kılıç, a lawyer practising in Adiyaman. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The applicants alleged violations of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The applicants’ complaints concerning late enforcement of a final judgment 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 9 February 2010, sent by registered post, the applicants’ representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired on 3 June 2009 and that no extension of time had been requested. They were invited to submit their final observations as of 23   March 2010 at the latest. 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 does not intend to pursue the application. From then until now no response has been received. THE LAW The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their 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