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 } .sF7D89843 { width:123.43pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s8DC73591 { width:184.78pt; display:inline-block }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 45402/09 Mehmed Nedim ALKAN against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 5   June 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 August 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Mehmed Nedim Alkan, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Muş. He is represented before the Court by Mr   O.   Arman, a lawyer practising in Muş. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The applicant alleged under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated during his arrest and subsequent time in police custody. Relying upon Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, he further complained about the public prosecutor’s decision not to prosecute the police officers involved in the alleged acts. On 20 January 2011 the applicant’s complaint concerning the procedural aspect of Article 3 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 a letter dated 11 January 2012, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 15 September 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. The notice of receipt from the Post was returned to the Court without any indication. Nevertheless, according to the information obtained from the official website of the Turkish Postal Service, the letter was delivered to the applicant’s representative on 25 January 2012. 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