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 } .sBCAF7996 { width:142.27pt; display:inline-block } .sAFF36EC2 { width:18.78pt; display:inline-block } .sF0E5D02B { width:186.18pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 42632/06 Nail İNCE against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 14   February 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 9 October 2006, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Nail İnce, is a Turkish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Denizli. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about his inability to submit his arguments before the Denizli Traffic Court during the proceedings where he objected to a traffic fine. He also maintained that the domestic court failed to examine the evidence in his case and did not deliver a reasoned judgment. The applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in so far as it concerned the principle of equality of arms, 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 11 August 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 18 July 2011 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’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 24 August 2011 this letter was “delivered to the applicant’s relative or housekeeper residing in the same house”. 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   Dragoljub Popović   Deputy Registrar   President