CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 15 octobre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCC200EBE { width:192.63pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 14036/05 Akın AVCI against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15   October 2013 as a Committee composed of:   Dragoljub Popović, President,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,   Helen Keller, judges, and Seçkin Erel, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 31 March 2005, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The applicant, Mr Akın Avcı, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Balıkesir. 2.     The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 3.     The applicant mainly complained under Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 about the lack of legal assistance available to him during the preliminary investigation and the rest of the criminal proceedings against him. He also raised several complaints under Articles 3, 5 and 6 of the Convention. 4.     On 2 May 2011 the application was communicated and a question was put to the Government with regard to the complaint under Article   6   §   3   (c) of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 6 § 1. 5.     On 10 November 2011 the Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations. 6.     No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. 7.     By a letter dated 14 February 2012, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 10 January 2012 and that no extension of time had been requested. He was also reminded that he needed to designate a representative pursuant to Rule 36 § 2 of the Rules of Court. 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. 8.     No response was received to that letter. Nevertheless, as the letter was not returned to the Registry, on 26 April 2012 another letter with the same content was sent to the applicant by registered post. His attention was once again drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. 9.     According to the information obtained from the official website of the Turkish Postal Service, the second letter was delivered to the applicant personally on 29 May 2012. However, no response has been received to date. THE LAW 10.     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. 11.     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.      Seçkin Erel   Dragoljub Popović Acting Deputy Registrar   President