CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 5 septembre 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 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s6D6DF111 { width:197.42pt; 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 } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s9B9727E5 { width:93.14%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s9A561969 { width:11.58%; 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 } .s8B090C9A { width:30.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s789C3349 { width:26.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD8422C41 { width:32.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6AFFE928 { width:11.58%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s74DC3D21 { margin-left:33.01pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s8391ECA8 { width:30.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s61E14E73 { width:26.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5515A6AE { width:32.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 44418/09 Cevdet CANDAN and others against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 5   September 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Julia Laffranque, President,   Paul Lemmens,   Valeriu Griţco, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 August 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     A list of the applicants, who are all Turkish nationals, is set out in the appendix. They were represented before the Court by Mr S. Güçlü, a lawyer practising in Ankara. 2.     The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 3.     The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the non-communication of the Chief Public Prosecutor’s written opinions in the proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court had violated their right to an adversarial and fair hearing. Under the same heading, they further alleged that the length of proceedings had been unreasonable. 4.     On 14 October 2010 the applicants’ complaints were communicated to the Government. 5.     By a letter dated 9 March 2011, the applicants were invited to submit their claims for just satisfaction. No reply was received. 6.     By a letter dated 20 May 2016, sent by registered post, the applicants were invited to submit additional documents concerning the case. The applicants’ 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. The applicants’ representative received this letter on 31   May 2016. However no reply was received to the Registry’s letter. THE LAW 7.     The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may 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.     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 28 September 2017.   Hasan Bakırcı   Julia Laffranque Deputy Registrar   President Appendix   No. Applicant Date of birth Place of residence   Cevdet CANDAN 01/02/1973 Bilecik   Mustafa AYDIN 17/02/1971 Ankara   Mevlüt BARAN 28/02/1970 Mersin   Uğur EROL 16/07/1973 Ankara   Davut GEREK 01/01/1970 Yozgat   Hüseyin KOCA 03/12/1966 Ankara   Selahattin POLAT 21/10/1969 Amasya   Erdal TÜRK 05/03/1974 Adana   Hüseyin YAKUT 24/12/1965 Bilecik