CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 5 juin 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .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 } .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 } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; 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 } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sAEA7B041 { text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .s13783063 { width:6.24pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 45079/05 Akile ELGÜL and others against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 5   June 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 16 November 2005, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No.1 of the Convention that they could not enjoy the ownership of their property for an unreasonable period of time, while the judicial proceedings had been pending before the domestic courts. In this context, the applicants complained under Article 13 of the Convention that there had been no domestic remedy available by which they could challenge the excessive length of those proceedings. The applicants’ complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention 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 by 28   April 2011. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. Later on, the Government submitted a friendly-settlement proposal which was forwarded to the applicants for their comments by 28 June 2011. By letter dated 8 August 2011, sent by registered post, the applicants’ representative was notified that the periods allowed for submission of their observations and responses to the Government’s friendly-settlement proposal had expired on 28 April and 28 June 2011 respectively 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 applicants do not intend to pursue the application. The registered post returned to the Court, indicating that the applicants’ lawyer was no longer at the address provided. On 9 December 2011, the Registry sent the same letter by registered post to the applicants’ lawyer’s new address found on the official website of the Bar Association of Istanbul. The applicants’ lawyer received this letter on 26 December 2011. However, 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   APPENDIX       Akile ELGÜL is a Turkish national, who was born in 1923 and lives in Istanbul.     Ayhan CANSEVER is a Turkish national who was born in 1942 and lives in Istanbul.     Afet SÜZEN is a Turkish national, who was born in 1933 and lives in Babaeski, Kırklareli.     Nilgün DEMİREL is a Turkish national, who was born in 1969 and lives in Kemer, Antalya.   All applicants were represented by Mr I. AK, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.