CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 24 novembre 2022

.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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s459D9084 { width:131.09pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 46359/20 Tuncay KARAKUŞ against Türkiye and 5 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 24   November 2022 as a Committee composed of:   Frédéric Krenc , President ,   Diana Sârcu,   Davor Derenčinović , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The applicants were represented by Mr O. Yılmaz, a lawyer practising in Samsun. The applicants’ various complaints under Article 6 of the Convention, concerning the lack of their access to court because of the refusal of the civil courts to examine their claims, were communicated to the Turkish Government (“the Government”), who submitted observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicants’ representative, who was invited to submit his observations on behalf of the applicants. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. By letter dated 2 August 2022, sent via the Court’s Electronic Communication Service (eComms) and by registered post, the applicants’ representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the observations   had expired on 20 June 2022 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 an application 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 that letter on 11   August 2022. However, no response has followed. THE LAW Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention and the Protocols thereto, 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 applications. Accordingly, the applications should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases. Done in English and notified in writing on 15 December 2022.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Frédéric Krenc   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 of the Convention   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth 1. 46359/20 Karakuş v. Türkiye 06/10/2020 Tuncay KARAKUŞ 1973 2. 46606/20 Koysal v. Türkiye 06/10/2020 Murat KOYSAL 1973 3. 46617/20 Parlak v. Türkiye 06/10/2020 Fatih PARLAK 1979 4. 50147/20 İskender v. Türkiye 23/10/2020 Ali Bayram İSKENDER 1976 5. 51843/20 Yıldız v. Türkiye 03/11/2020 Mustafa YILDIZ 1972 6. 52564/20 Taplak v. Türkiye 03/11/2020 Murat TAPLAK 1978