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 } .sF7D89843 { width:123.43pt; display:inline-block } .s7C21AF2B { width:8.98pt; display:inline-block } .sD475C4C6 { width:187.48pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE3D66594 { 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 } .s7BE5FA78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s9D943874 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; vertical-align:top } .sE22B0691 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:11pt } .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 } .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 } .s7E985A60 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:6pt } .s4121890B { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-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 Application no. 9104/09 Şefika MUKAN and Others against Turkey, and 2 other applications (see list appended) 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 29 January 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, whose names and birth dates appear in the appendix below are Turkish nationals and 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 complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article   6 § 1 of the Convention. The applicants’ complaints concerning the non-execution of domestic court judgments and the insufficiency of the statutory default interest 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 11 August 2011, sent by registered post, the applicants’ representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired on 17 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 23 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 Number Name of Applicant and Date of Birth   9104/09 Şefika Mukan 01/01/1952   Mahir Rende 01/01/1955   Mediha Terziahmetoğlu 01/01/1945   Ayten Esat 01/01/1943   Yeşim Esat 01/01/1967   Mustafa Esat 01/01/1971   9120/09 Mükerrem Kara   Tuncay Kara 01/01/1977   Turgay Kara 01/01/1978   Taner Kara 01/01/1984   9126/09 Cafer Aytekin 01/01/1945   Seniha Kurt 01/01/1951   Pakize Vezir 15/01/1946   Mustafa Yeler 01/01/1934   Nevzat Bayrak 01/01/1947   Yavuz Gülkaya 12/05/1958   Neziha Kurt 1948