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 } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39926ECA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5338F84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s877C431D { width:131.93pt; display:inline-block } .s9B753B46 { width:198.3pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s9C3E97BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2E2EB3D2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB7E216F { margin-left:28.35pt; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s4C8E8372 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s25D4CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s9A51AA96 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s9D943874 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .sB3A7671E { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .sF4EDB80C { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sE22B0691 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:11pt } .s689ACF7B { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s4121890B { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .s41D34707 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .sDF759458 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } SECOND SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 9076/09 and 9088/09 Ahmet Tuz and Others against Turkey and Güngör and Göçmenoğlu 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 applications lodged on 29 January 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants whose names and birth dates appear in the appendix below, are all Turkish nationals. They are represented before the Court by Mr A. Başer, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The applicants mainly complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention of the failure and delay of the domestic authorities to execute the domestic court judgments in full. The applicants in cases nos.   9076/09 and 9088/09 also invoked Article 6 of the Convention in this respect. They added under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that they sustained an economic loss as a result of the low interest rate applied to State debts despite the high inflation in Turkey. The applicants’ complaints concerning partial execution of domestic court 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 17 August 2011, sent by registered post, the applicants’ representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired on 5 May 2011 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 does not intend to pursue the application. According to the information obtained from the official website of the Turkish Postal Service, on 26 August 2011 this letter has been delivered. 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 cases. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases 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   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre   Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX   Application no Name of Applicant Date of Birth 9076/09 Ahmet Tuz   Necati Çolak   Mustafa Asal   Köksal Perktaş   Nail Yılmaz   Emine Kızılaslan 1950   1942   1953   1953   1947   1955   9088/09 Kevser Güngör   Ali Göçmenoğlu 1940   1945