CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 14 février 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 } .sF9FFA986 { width:6.21pt; display:inline-block } .sE6AB30E3 { width:125.73pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .sF5E11B1C { width:179.08pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 2613/05 Hüsnü ARDA against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 14   February 2012 as a Committee composed of:   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, President,   Guido Raimondi,   Helen Keller, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 December 2004, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Hüsnü Arda, is a Turkish national who was born in 1979 and lives in Van. He is represented before the Court by Mr İ. Kartal and Mr F. Polat, lawyers practising in Van. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that the domestic court’s decision to reject his request for legal aid had been unlawful and had violated his right of access to court. Relying upon Article 3 of the Convention, he complained of the difficult conditions in the army and the negligence of the military doctors who had issued medical reports regarding his health condition. The applicant’s complaint concerning his right of access to court under Article 6 § 1 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 his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. By letter dated 31 August 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 17 January 2011 and that no extension of time had been requested. His 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 information obtained from the official website of the Turkish Postal Service, on 9 September 2011 this letter was “delivered to the addressee personally”. 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   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre   Deputy Registrar   President