CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 13 décembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5362FFEB { width:4.87pt; display:inline-block } .sC3D571B0 { width:197.1pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 55596/09 Mehmet and Nezahat TAŞ against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 13   December 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Nebojša Vučinić, President,   Valeriu Griţco,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 October 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicants, Mr Mehmet Taş and Ms Nezahat Taş, are Turkish nationals, who were born in 1959 and 1962 respectively and live in Istanbul. They were represented before the Court by Mr H. Büberal, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government were represented by their Agent. By a local land development plan dated 26 November 2004, the applicants’ plot of land was designated for the construction of public buildings. The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that as a result of the restriction imposed on their land by the local land development plan, their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions had been breached by the respondent State. The applicants’ complaint in this regard was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicants, who were invited to submit their own observations in reply by 28 June 2016. On 29 June 2016 the applicants’ representative informed the Court that the applicants wanted to withdraw their application. THE LAW 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. 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.   Done in English and notified in writing on 19 January 2017.   Hasan Bakırcı   Nebojša Vučinić Deputy Registrar   President