CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 25 novembre 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 } .s82B56815 { width:201.76pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 41111/08 Ali Ekber AKYILDIZ against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 25   November 2014 as a Committee composed of:   Paul Lemmens, President,   Robert Spano,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges, and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 August 2008, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The applicant, Mr Ali Ekber Akyıldız is a Turkish national, who was born in 1966 and was detained in Elazığ prison at the time of the application. He was represented before the Court by Mr H. Aygün, a lawyer practising in Tunceli. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 2.     The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 that he was detained pending criminal proceedings for approximately one year and four months. He furthermore invokes the violation of Article 5 § 4 that he had not had access to the investigation file due to the decision to restrict access, as a result of which he had been deprived of the opportunity to respond to the accusations. The applicant’s complaints were communicated 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 his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. 3.     By a letter dated 11 July 2014, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 24 March 2014. 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. According to the information obtained from the official website of the Turkish Postal Service, on 31 July 2014 this letter was delivered to the applicant’s representative. However, no response has been received. THE LAW 4.     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   Paul Lemmens Deputy Registrar   President