CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 15 avril 2014

.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 } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s28BDCFEA { width:6.53pt; display:inline-block } .s3B18E3A1 { width:198.76pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 39573/11 Süleyman ARAÇ against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15   April 2014 as a Committee composed of:   Nebojša Vučinić, President,   Paul Lemmens,   Robert Spano, judges, and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 February 2011, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Süleyman Araç, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1982 and lives in Adana. He was represented before the Court by Mr   I.   Doğan, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The applicant complained under Articles 3, 5, 6 and 14 of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment by gendarme officers, that the judges who had heard his objections had not been impartial and that the domestic authorities had failed to conduct a proper investigation. The applicant’s complaints were communicated, on the basis of Article   3 of the Convention, to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant’s representative, who was invited to submit observations on his behalf. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter, either from the applicant or from his legal representative. By letter dated 30 October 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 3 September 2013 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s 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. The applicant’s representative received this letter on 11   November 2013. 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.   Abel Campos   Nebojša Vučinić Deputy Registrar   President