CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 14 mars 2017

.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. 48713/08 Halil Kutay CAN against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 14   March 2017 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 25 September 2008, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Halil Kutay Can, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1977 and lives in Ankara. He was represented before the Court by Mr   A.T. Bacanlı, a lawyer practising in Antalya. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. In 2001 the applicant’s plot of land was designated for the construction of a purification plant by a local land development plan. The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that as a result of the restriction imposed on his land by the local land development plan, his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions had been breached by the respondent State. The applicant’s complaint in this regard was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations in reply by 28 June 2016. On 22 June 2016 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant sold his land to a third person and that they wished to continue the application on behalf of the latter. On 21 December 2016 the representative’s letter was forwarded to the applicant himself and he was asked if he still wished to continue his application. By a letter dated 4 January 2017, the applicant indicated that he transferred all his rights with regard to the plot of land at stake to the buyer. THE LAW In the light of the foregoing, especially having regard to the fact that the applicant’s rights guaranteed by the Convention are non-transferable, the Court concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application on his own behalf and that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of his case. Furthermore, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application. The Court accordingly finds that the conditions in which a case may be struck out of its list, as provided in Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, are satisfied in the present 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.   Done in English and notified in writing on 6 April 2017.   Hasan Bakırcı   Nebojša Vučinić Deputy Registrar   President