CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 1 juillet 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s998C2668 { width:99.42%; border-collapse:collapse } .s886916F8 { width:7.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sD35D798C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sB0324F5A { width:41.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBDAEE9AD { width:26.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8F610408 { width:25.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6BA354AD { width:7.26%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s64189EA1 { text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .sE74C84FB { width:20.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7D0FA81F { width:41.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBE01C04F { width:26.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4CD88B69 { width:25.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s634D6A82 { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 35808/08 Güler AVŞAROĞLU and others against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 1 July 2014 as a Committee composed of:   Nebojša Vučinić, President,   Paul Lemmens,   Egidijus Kūris, judges, and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 July 2008, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. 1.     The applicants, Güler Avşaroğlu, Ayşe Avşaroğlu, Ali Avşaroğlu, Hasan Avşaroğlu and Mustafa Avşaroğlu, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1937, 1959, 1957, 1961 and 1955 respectively and live in Istanbul. They are represented before the Court by Mr H.H. Yılmazer, a lawyer practising in Ankara. 2.     The applicants’ predecessor in title brought civil proceedings in order to increase the expropriation compensation for the plots of land expropriated by the administration. 3.     On 4 January 2012 the Court decided to give notice to the Government of the applicant’s complaints. On 14 May 2012 the Government submitted to the Registry their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. These observations were forwarded to the applicants, who submitted their observations in reply together with their claims for just satisfaction on 17 September 2012. The observations were also forwarded to the Government. They submitted their comments on 17 September 2012. 4.     In an undated letter received by the Court on 24 March 2014 the applicants informed the Court that they wanted to withdraw their application because they would like to use the new remedy introduced by Law no.   4687 which, according to the applicants, will provide an effective means to redress their claims. COMPLAINTS 5.     The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that their right of access to court was violated in that the Court of Cassation did not acknowledge the real value of the litigation. 6.     Relying upon Article 1 of Protocol no. 1, the applicants also argued that they did not receive any compensation for the expropriation of their property. THE LAW 7.     The applicants informed the Court on 24 March 2014 that they wanted to withdraw their application. 8.     In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. 9.     Accordingly, the case should be struck 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 APPENDIX     N o . Firstname LASTNAME Birth date Place of residence                 Güler AVŞAROĞLU 01/01/1937 İstanbul                 Ali AVŞAROĞLU 06/09/1957 İstanbul                 Ayşe AVŞAROĞLU 05/02/1959 İstanbul                 Hasan AVŞAROĞLU 01/07/1961 İstanbul                 Mustafa AVŞAROĞLU 16/02/1955 İstanbul