CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 6 avril 2023

.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 } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .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. 16941/18 Mehmet TÜKENMEZ against Türkiye and 4 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 6 April 2023 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 and their representatives is set out in the appendix. The applicants’ complaints under Article 5 of the Convention concerning the lack of reasonable suspicion regarding the commission of an offence, lack of relevant and sufficient reasons when ordering and extending the pre-trial detention, the length of pre-trial detention, as well as the alleged ineffectiveness of the judicial review of the lawfulness of detention were communicated to the Turkish Government (“the Government”), who submitted observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicants, who were invited to submit their own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. By letters, sent by registered post and dated 19 October 2022, the applicants were notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations   had expired on the various dates 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 registered letters either returned to the Court as unclaimed or were received by the applicants. No reply to the letters has been received by the Court and there are no previous letters from the applicants informing the Court about the change of address. 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 cases 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 11 May 2023.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Frédéric Krenc   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 of the Convention   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 16941/18 Tükenmez v. Türkiye 02/04/2018 Mehmet TÜKENMEZ 1980 Kütahya Turkish Yasemin TÜKENMEZ 2. 16981/18 Karahalil v. Türkiye 15/03/2018 Erdal KARAHALİL 1977 Tekirdağ Turkish   3. 21077/18 Göksu v. Türkiye 28/04/2018 Mehmet Fatih GÖKSU 1985 MUĞLA Turkish Arife GÖKSU 4. 22218/18 Şahin v. Türkiye 03/05/2018 Erdal ŞAHİN 1976 Izmir Turkish Gökhan ENGEL 5. 25335/18 Cantav v. Türkiye 22/05/2018 Sedrettin CANTAV 1972 Yalova Turkish Yüksel GENÇ