CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 27 juin 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 } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s5243C837 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 } .s172EF8F1 { width:208.76pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sA56BACAB { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .s13783063 { width:6.24pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3537C2D6 { font-weight:normal }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 9881/07 Adile ORTAÇ and others against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 27   June 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Ledi Bianku, President,   Valeriu Griţco,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 February 2007, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The applicants are Turkish nationals. They are represented before the Court by Mr F. Aydınkaya, lawyer practising in Istanbul. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. 2.     The applicants’ complaints under Articles 2, 3 and 13 of the Convention were communicated to the Turkish Government (“the Government”), who were represented by their Agent. 3.     The applicants failed to respond to the last Registry’s letter of 28   September 2016 (received by their representative on 7 October 2016), reminding them that the period allowed for submission of their observations in reply had expired on 22 August 2016 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants’ attention was drawn to Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike out a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicants do not intend to pursue the application. THE LAW 4.     Rule 47 § 7 of the Rules of the Court reads: “Applicants shall keep the Court informed of any change of address and of all circumstances relevant to the application.” 5.     Article 37 §   1   of the Convention, in so far relevant, provides: “1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that (a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; ... However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.” 6.     The Court reiterates that an applicant’s failure to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case or other information or documents requested by the Court may warrant the conclusion that he or she does not intend to pursue the application (see, inter alia , Perek   v.   Poland (dec.), no. 37021/05, 9 September 2008, and Ay   v.   Germany   (dec.), no.   12851/12, 23 September 2014). 7.     In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the applicants must be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their 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. 8.     Therefore, 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 20 July 2017.   Hasan Bakırcı   Ledi Bianku Deputy Registrar   President   Appendix       Adile ORTAÇ     Abuzeyt AKSOY     Gökhan ALKAYA     Remziye ALTAŞ     Ferhan ARSLAN     Hikmet BAKAY     Özden BARIŞ     Sadullah ÇAĞLAR     Ahmet ÇAHAN Seyfettin CAN Şeyhmus ÇELİK Fuat DİCLE Sadun DOĞAN Cemal EFETÜRK Güler EFETÜRK Şeyhmus EFETÜRK Mehdi EFETÜRK Baki ERKAN Mehmet EROĞLU Hanifi EROĞUL Nazire GÜLENAY Abdülkadir KORTAK Suzan ÖKTEN İsmet ORAL Sedat ÖZEN Dursun ŞANLI Fevziye TAN Mehmet Şirin TANIRGAN Hanifi TAPANCI Şerif YAĞMUR Abdülkadir YAMAÇ Güli YAMAN Alaattin YASAK Halis YURTSEVER